CRA 2015, Right of rejection

[R0b]

I don't know where you heard that from but every party to proceedings has a right to legal representation, even more so in fast track cases. When they made the offer to you, was it a Part 36 offer? If so, and having rejected that offer, you need to beat the offer in court otherwise you could be subject to costs either not being awarded or costs against you.

Contractual damages are assessed as at the date of the breach but I'm not aware of a case like this where a court has awarded inflation as part of the assessment of damages. You can of course seek interest which is to compensate you for not having been paid at the time the breach occurred but that's not the same as inflation damages.

Their offer seems to be fair if they're willing to pay everything but the additional £1k inflation damages and I probably would have accepted it but each to their own.

Good luck.

[GrumpyMonkey]

No mention of part 36 was made it was just in an email. I hadn't heard of it until you mentioned it. I know the court's interest is nothing to do with inflation.

[GrumpyMonkey]

It's done.

The judge accepted the "experts" opinion on whether what other people said was plausible. The expert did not examine the car. Also, documents that the defence said they would rely on as proof the vehicle was fit for sale were not produced (the dealership said they have been lost). The judge accepted that they must have existed, as no responsible business would not have practiced due diligence. According to Motorcodes (of which the dealership is member) they should have been provided before sale, they have never been produced. The judge also took the view, that despite the business insisting that the none compliance occurred after the sale, there was no proof that the defect was present at the time of sale. The car snapped 2 spring in less than 600 miles. It was 6 years old with much less than average miles on it. On that basis he ruled in the dealerships favour. The only up side is he slashed their claimed costs by 50%.

[R0b]

Sorry to hear you have lost, but good that the costs were halved.

There is the option to appeal if you wish, but that is added cost and expense to you. It was always going to be difficult to argue defect for a car at that age despite the low mileage as you don't know how much the car has been thrashed about. I guess, if anything, any appeal would have to rely on the judge's error that he accepted the word of the defendant that an inspection took place without evidence to show for it and in the absence of that evidence the benefit of the doubt should have been given to you.

Judges should only take into account the evidence put in front of it and not substitute the lack of evidence with their own views as they're supposed to be impartial. Just because a business might have a practice of doing things, doesn't always mean that it is done, otherwise you would never be able to bring a claim against them.

Obviously you heard what the judge decided so you would have to weigh up whether it is worth pursuing. All I can say is that hindsight is a wonderful thing but sometimes you do run the risk if you reject reasonable offers of settlement because it isn't what you want as is the case here, and that's the nature of litigation.

[GrumpyMonkey]

Thanks. For that.

The expert didn't even comment on the corrosion on the spring. The judge gave no weight to the independent 3rd party, (Mazda main agent), noting corrosion one month after the dealership tested the car and gave no advisories.

The dealership argued that compliance with motorcodes code of conduct (they are a member) is advisory and they don't have to follow it. The code of conduct requires vehicle health checks to be prominently displayed on used vehicles and presented to the prospective purchaser before sale. The dealership argued that we only supply them if the customer asks for them. They say there are two of those health checks and they say both have been lost. Those are the documents the judge accepted must have existed.

As for reasonable offers, some years ago the dealership made an offer to settle, but withdrew it in less than an hour before I had even seen it. I would have accepted at that time.

The offer a few weeks ago was not a section 36 offer, the barrister told the judge that. He also agreed with the judge that the legal work done by the company solicitors was "sloppy and poor".

The barrister they instructed, argued that the 30 day clause only applies if the defect was present at the time of purchase. That is something that is impossible to prove one way or the other. Obviously, if I had noticed the problem at the time of purchase I wouldn't have bought the car. It wasn't something as obvious as a stoved in bonnet, you would have to get on your knees and look closely to spot it. Is that a reasonable test for the "average Joe" as the judge put it? The judge accepted that the "experts" opinion on what was written by the dealership was proof that there was no defect in the vehicle at the the time it was sold. The experts experience is in agricultural vehicles not cars.

Your comment about assuming that because something should have been done, means it was likely it was, reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence"

The judge placed some store in "experts". If I appeal, and I may, I need to find someone who knows about corrosion. I have read a lot of papers, thesis and PHD,s, masters etc, so I Know there is a lot of scientific evidence about failure modes and corrosion in automotive springs. the judge said I am not an expert, but if I had offered the papers, would he even understand them. I am an engineer, I understand them.

None of the defence witnesses, offered any independent facts, just opinion. Why should their opinion count for more than mine? There were witnesses I wanted to appear, but they ignored my attempts to contact them.

Not sure what to do know.

Oddly, the barrister said the dealership would get in touch to find a solution, I'm not even sure what that means.

[GrumpyMonkey]

Hello,

I just found out about court rules part 45.38 fast track costs. Do these only apply to the claimant? The defendant claimed £12500 legal costs (about equal to the size of the claim). The judge awarded £5000, how does that work with table 9?