Bore scoring court case outcome
Discussion
I mentioned this was going ahead previously so it seemed right to report the outcome. Although the case was heard and a judgement was entered it didn't actually adddress the issue of whether bore scoring is a flaw or wear & tear.
Below is the report from the legal advisors to the selling car dealer, whom they were defending:
Below is the report from the legal advisors to the selling car dealer, whom they were defending:
legal advisors report said:
Porsche “bore-scoring” – defect or wear and tear - case has been to court
One of our clients was being sued for £7000 for the alleged cost of a replacement engine in a Porsche that was suffering from “bore-scoring”. The consumer was arguing under the Sale of Goods Act whereas we wrote the defence partly based on this being a wear and tear issue and not a defect.
Mediation was unsuccessful so the case was heard by a District Judge in a “Small Claims” hearing at the Claimant’s local County Court.
The Court found in our client’s favour and dismissed the claim. HOWEVER, the question as to whether this issue is a defect or fair wear and tear remains unanswered. For the first part of the defence was that:
a) The car was still being driven.
b) The quotation for repairs was handwritten on a compliment slip and, primarily
c) The Claimant was asking the court to order our client Defendant to pay for repairs that hadn’t been undertaken. In essence, asking our client for a windfall without the consumer Claimant actually having incurred any financial loss. We suggested that it would be wholly inappropriate for the court to do this. After all, who could guarantee that the consumer wouldn’t simply blow it on a holiday or a new extension instead?
The Judge agreed with this submission and refused the claim on these points alone. Therefore he did not have to consider whether bore scoring is a defect under the Sale of Goods Act or simply wear and tear.
Published: 12 May 2014
One of our clients was being sued for £7000 for the alleged cost of a replacement engine in a Porsche that was suffering from “bore-scoring”. The consumer was arguing under the Sale of Goods Act whereas we wrote the defence partly based on this being a wear and tear issue and not a defect.
Mediation was unsuccessful so the case was heard by a District Judge in a “Small Claims” hearing at the Claimant’s local County Court.
The Court found in our client’s favour and dismissed the claim. HOWEVER, the question as to whether this issue is a defect or fair wear and tear remains unanswered. For the first part of the defence was that:
a) The car was still being driven.
b) The quotation for repairs was handwritten on a compliment slip and, primarily
c) The Claimant was asking the court to order our client Defendant to pay for repairs that hadn’t been undertaken. In essence, asking our client for a windfall without the consumer Claimant actually having incurred any financial loss. We suggested that it would be wholly inappropriate for the court to do this. After all, who could guarantee that the consumer wouldn’t simply blow it on a holiday or a new extension instead?
The Judge agreed with this submission and refused the claim on these points alone. Therefore he did not have to consider whether bore scoring is a defect under the Sale of Goods Act or simply wear and tear.
Published: 12 May 2014
legal advisors report said:
The Claimant was asking the court to order our client Defendant to pay for repairs that hadn’t been undertaken. In essence, asking our client for a windfall without the consumer Claimant actually having incurred any financial loss.
Sounded like something legal advisors might say...But then..
legal advisors report said:
We suggested that it would be wholly inappropriate for the court to do this. After all, who could guarantee that the consumer wouldn’t simply blow it on a holiday or a new extension instead?
Sounds like an epic fail in terms of being from the mouth of a lawyer.BertBert said:
legal advisors report said:
The Claimant was asking the court to order our client Defendant to pay for repairs that hadn’t been undertaken. In essence, asking our client for a windfall without the consumer Claimant actually having incurred any financial loss.
Sounded like something legal advisors might say...But then..
legal advisors report said:
We suggested that it would be wholly inappropriate for the court to do this. After all, who could guarantee that the consumer wouldn’t simply blow it on a holiday or a new extension instead?
Sounds like an epic fail in terms of being from the mouth of a lawyer.Interesting,
The Goose, are you able to pm me any details on who the dealer is? (Im assuming it is not an OPC if the estimate was scrawled on a slip of paper).
I have a friend that is in a similar situation after buying a used car a couple of years ago and is heading down the Sales of Goods Act route.
The Goose, are you able to pm me any details on who the dealer is? (Im assuming it is not an OPC if the estimate was scrawled on a slip of paper).
I have a friend that is in a similar situation after buying a used car a couple of years ago and is heading down the Sales of Goods Act route.
This is not wear and tear.
The crux of the problem is simply IMO no one wants to pay anything,Ive prepared cases for a good few people now and wont do so again,when in the cold light of day a rational view is taken to include,prior history,age of vehicle and mileage ,merchantable quality mixed in with a large helping of potential litigation fees and headache it is better to speak and deal with the vendor.The main issue is the timming of the initial report of the fault,the mileage since,and the time elapsed since purchase,any use since reporting almost kills the claim process for the owner as does a weak diagnosis and repair statement.
Not one of the cases ever ended cleanly one was awarded in favor but still offset against time and some costs,in short my advice would be talk to the dealer if the repair is say £5k then pay half each or similar and get a nicely rebuilt engine,even Porsche sadly are dismissive and looking to not pay,Im not saying I condone or agree with any of the above its just how it is.
G
The crux of the problem is simply IMO no one wants to pay anything,Ive prepared cases for a good few people now and wont do so again,when in the cold light of day a rational view is taken to include,prior history,age of vehicle and mileage ,merchantable quality mixed in with a large helping of potential litigation fees and headache it is better to speak and deal with the vendor.The main issue is the timming of the initial report of the fault,the mileage since,and the time elapsed since purchase,any use since reporting almost kills the claim process for the owner as does a weak diagnosis and repair statement.
Not one of the cases ever ended cleanly one was awarded in favor but still offset against time and some costs,in short my advice would be talk to the dealer if the repair is say £5k then pay half each or similar and get a nicely rebuilt engine,even Porsche sadly are dismissive and looking to not pay,Im not saying I condone or agree with any of the above its just how it is.
G
Edited by Gary11 on Wednesday 14th May 14:52
Flat6er said:
I have a friend that is in a similar situation after buying a used car a couple of years ago and is heading down the Sales of Goods Act route.
Think your friend is wasting his time. Can't see a court ruling against a dealer that sold a car and two years later the engine failed. Could never have knowingly sold a car unfit for purpose.911wise said:
Think your friend is wasting his time. Can't see a court ruling against a dealer that sold a car and two years later the engine failed. Could never have knowingly sold a car unfit for purpose.
Thanks, Im sure you are right, He has been advised by Citizens advice that Sales of Goods applies up to 6 years, so is prepared to chase this as far as he can. Flat6er said:
Thanks, Im sure you are right, He has been advised by Citizens advice that Sales of Goods applies up to 6 years, so is prepared to chase this as far as he can.
I don't blame your friend for fighting it every step of the way nobody wants to be in that position. I can't see a court however finding any car dealer guilty of selling a car which was not fit for purpose 2 years after it was sold, on a car that is X years old already. Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff