A Main dealer has seriously damaged my engine while servicing my car

[PChurch]

Hi,
I am looking for some ideas as to how to settle a dispute

Back in June I took a premium sports car to my main dealers for a B service. In the carrying out of the service they have broken a key component of the engine and rendered my car underivable for the past several months. I am in the process of suing them for the damage caused but the law of Betterment has come up and I am trying to understand what position it leaves me in.

When the car was damaged the dealership refused to accept liability but offered to take the part off the car and to then let me pay to have it welded and then replaced.
They refused to pay for any of the the work and only offered the idea as a paid for by me non warranted repair. I refused their kind offer

The situation is that the part that was broken is not sold as a separate item and as a result the engine must be removed for the larger component to be replaced. The car is 6 years old but extremely low mileage and of a complexity and type that relatively few mechanics would want to work on I had tried other non main dealership garages they did not want to do the work.

My solicitor is saying that that is definitely a case for breach of contract but is also suggesting that the cost of the repair could be limited to using a second hand part but the only place I have found that can work on the car will not use secondhand parts

How could a court case restrict the payout if the matter is not settled before it goes to court?

Would it be strictly the difference in costs for the part or would it restrict the cost of labour too?

any thought would be good

[atticus]

Betterment can be complicated. I have dealt years ago with a case where this came up, in that new items had to be bought at considerable expense to replace very old ones that had no real value. We won by satisfying the court that it was simply not possible to acquire anything other than new parts. Your case sounds similar.

The leading case is Harbutts Plasticine v Wayne Tank & Pump Co (1970). Here is a link to a digest of that case: https://swarb.co.uk/harbutts-plastic...o-ltd-ca-1970/

Lord Denning MR: If a second-hand car is destroyed, the owner only gets its value; because he can go into the market and get another second-hand car to replace it. He cannot charge the other party with the cost of replacing it with a new car. But when this mill was destroyed, the plasticine company had no choice. They were bound to replace it as soon as they could, not only to keep their business going, but also to mitigate the loss of profit (for which they would be able to charge to defendants). They replaced it in the only possible way, without adding any extras. I think they should be allowed the cost of replacement. True it is that they got new for old; but I do not think the wrongdoer can diminish the claim on that account.

dslippy may be able to add something.

[PChurch]

Thank you very much for your help.

The situation that I am trying to understand is if I am at risk of being shown to have chosen the more expensive option of repair.

Basically the first main dealer suggested that they remove the component for it to be fixed. The costs of doing so were comparatively cheap at around £3k however their solution risked further damage to my car in the event that their solution did not work. and they refused to accept the liability for the damage and pay for the work. They also suggested that I try to find a part on line and they would fit it. To which point I had explained that I am not of suitable qualifications to know that the part I that I would be buying at my own expense would be suitable and not damaged. The fact that they would not repair the engine at their expense meant I had no other choice but to pay for the service and remove the vehicle.

Speaking to non main dealers they were of the opinion that the job was too big because it would tie up their only ramp for several days and so I was only really left with going to another main dealer network. They have stated that the component is not approved to be disassembled in the field and that is why taking the larger component out at greater expense seems to be the way of dealing with the matter.

It is not a small amount of money so I wanted to sanity check that I have done the minimum reasonable work to ensure my choice would be valid in a court of law.

In my view the original garage appears to be pushing for me to accept a lessor solution to making the repair whole and the part being replaced is a standard engine component and simply brings the car back to being serviceable. The car as it stands would be worth considerably less as a spares or repair sale. With the repair it would bring the car back to market value.

Thanks once more.