Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: January 12, 2009
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 13 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
Although only a County Court decision the case of Bowes v J Richardson and Son Ltd (Rugby County Court 28 January 2004) is of interest in showing motor retailers how to deal with such cases and the pitfalls.
In the case Mr Bowes took delivery of a new car in September 2002. There were several faults after one day and extending to April 2003 when some were still present and Mr Bowes rejected the car.
The retailer claimed it was too long to reject but the Court decided otherwise. In support of their decision it was noted that the retailer had carried out repairs without Mr Bowes authorisation. This was taken as evidence of their acceptance that the car had been rejected. This is more significant also where it jeopardises the chance of getting an independent expert report.