dispute between supplier / garage / customer

[hungry horace]

so, with a hypothesis :-) can people advise on the below and what they would do, genuinely. (please no frozen sausages this time)

in brief;

- car breaks down late at weekend, car recovered to local garage ("A"),

- during following week, "A" identify component at issue, but cannot source part in "new" condition, only recon / breakers yards,

- customer wants "new only" part so sources their own "new" part online,

- component supplied from recognised marque specialist, ("B"),

- component invoiced to, and delivered to customer,

- customer passes part onto "A" for fitting, and is invoiced by "A" for fitting,

- car collected,

- component fails within 2 days, car stranded and recovered once again to "A",

- "A" remove component, customer returns it to "B",

- component confirmed to be beyond repair / broken (again),

- party "A" convinced they fitted it correctly; party "B" convinced they supplied intact / pristine component,

- unhappy customer left with another nigh £1k bill for round 2...


i have spoken to a few legal professionals off the record at this stage, and understand there are acts for either side so perhaps their is a case once arbitrated; the Sale of Goods for the component, and also Provision of Services for the installation - but i am genuinely interested to know of other persons views before deciding on next step - which may even be forget it and chalk it down.

thanks in advance,

EDITED FOR POOR SPEELING

Edited by hungry horace on Thursday 31st July 22:11

[SpeckledJim]

What sort of part?

If its a simple thing you can't really fit wrongly, that'll be different to a computer that can easily be installed/coded incorrrectly and doomed to fail.

[anonymous-user]

Yeah the part is the important part of the story......

[hungry horace]

hi, part in question is an expensive mechanical ancillary "bolted onto" most modern engines...

a turbocharger...

[JM]

Something else causing the turbo to fail, so both A and B are correct.

Maybe.

[anonymous-user]

Have 'B' Inspected it and reported why it's failed? Did the previous turbo break up into bits or just seize up?

[hungry horace]

hi, thanks to all thus far - unit is now under 3rd party inspection; and previous unit had seized after big mileage. my own interpretation cannot understand relatively short time span of failure, yet not immediate? really curious about the whole case now!

[aw51 121565]

JM said:

Something else causing the turbo to fail , so both A and B are correct.

Maybe.

Such as a blockage in the turbocharger's oil feed or drain (which also caused turbocharger no. 1 to fail), which "A" didn't check for nor rectify if/when found?

If so, "A" can't realistically finger "B" for that one .

Ah, the joys of fitting parts provided by another party and not one's own supplier !

[530dTPhil]

I have seen this happen with turbo replacements on Peugeot 1.6 diesel engines. Turbo fails, replace, next one lasts but a short time. The problem is usually a lack of oil supply caused by problems in the sump with blocked gauze, split pickup pipe or even a clogged feed to the turbo.

Too many people go for the effect without identifying the cause.

[hungry horace]

^ yes, totally understand the "i fitted" and "i supplied" stances, and that is the reason why i am tempted to chalk it down. however, its a lot of money to chalk down hence the genuine interest in the views of others; trade and public.

[Cerbieherts]

Most garages aren't happy fitting third party parts, and often use it as a caveat if failure occurs. Wrongly so IMI.

[johnoz]

Turbo for what car?

[Jimmyarm]

As others have said, both the turbo and the vehicle need inspecting by a third party to determine the cause of failure.

Most turbos we fit come with a set of instructions relative to the vehicle.

Fwiw, we won't fit turbos to the pug 1.6hdis as non of the turbo rebuilders will warranty them without a recon engine being fitted at the same time !