New Clutch - Garage Liability?
in [Car Maintenance]
|
From: Michael Hubert Kenyon on 27 May 2010 10:14 Adrian wrote: > "Robert D." <robertdale(a)guerillamail.org> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>>> I mean, fitting a speedo drive incorrectly is pretty difficult! > >>> So's not noticing oil drips on the ground under the car. > >> It's garaged overnight. > > Even easier, then. > >> No oil drips at all in the month we have had it, previous owner has >> mentioned none either. > > Sounds unlikely, if the gearbox has run dry of oil in a few short months. > > B'sides, I can see a speedo drive being slightly awkward to refit back in > the old cable days, but not these days when it's just an electrical > sensor. It wouldn't even be removed from the 'box to replace the clutch - > merely the electrical plug unplugged. > >> I will part exchange the car this weekend I suppose > > Full disclosure of the problem, I hope? Nah let a dealer have it
From: Michael Hubert Kenyon on 27 May 2010 10:15 Rob Graham wrote: > > I'd get the previous owner to demand recompense, warranty or no > warranty, present owner or not, or 'see you in court'. If the garage > gets out of this then it's a pure technicality. They are absolutely liable. > > Rob Graham They are absolutely NOT liable. You cannot pass on a warrenty unless it is agreed by all parties beforehand.
From: Michael Hubert Kenyon on 27 May 2010 10:17 Andy Cap wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010 14:33:58 +0100, "steve robinson" > <steve(a)colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> If the prevous owner goes to court demanding recompense then he is >> likely to get nailed for fraud if he states he owns the vehicle when >> he clearly doesnt which is criminal not civil > > Why can't the original owner claim, on the grounds that he has had to recompense > the purchaser, which he should do anyway because he sold him a pup? Because the car doesn't belong to him anymore. If I sell a car I can't pass on a warrenty from the guy who owned it three owners before me can I?
From: steve robinson on 27 May 2010 10:30 Rob Graham wrote: > > > > I'd get the previous owner to demand recompense, warranty or no > > > warranty, present owner or not, or 'see you in court'. If the > > > garage gets out of this then it's a pure technicality. They are > > > absolutely liable. > > > > > > Rob Graham > > > > > > The garage has no liability unless they expressly state warranties > > are transferable > > Work has to be fit for purpose. Written warranties are not the > whole picture. Agreed but the prevous owner who paid for the work had no problem with the clutch or gearbox , the op i presume inspected the vehicle prior to purchase was happy with the vehicle . Its a case of buyer beware > > > > If the prevous owner goes to court demanding recompense then he is > > likely to get nailed for fraud if he states he owns the vehicle > > when he clearly doesnt which is criminal not civil > > I certainly wouldn't suggest he did this. I'm suggesting he tells > the repairer to pay up or else. Or else what he takes them to court > > > > > Get hit for all the court costs too even in SCT as the case would > > be seen as malicous > > Who would see it as malicious? And why malicious? The repairers > buggered it up, for God's sake. The action is malicous the litigant is not the owner of the vehicle , has suffered no loss and is not being persued himself by the op for losses or repairs to the vehicle . If the op attempted to sue then the garage quite rightly would argue that they have no contract with him and again the action if persued could be viewed malicous the ops only option would be to sue the seller , again though as its a private sale and the seller wasnt aware of the faults the ops chances of recovering any money almost zero unless he could convince the judge the seller was aware of the faults and did not disclose them when asked buyer beware > > Rob
From: Andy Cap on 27 May 2010 11:02
On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:17:46 +0100, Michael Hubert Kenyon <enemabandit(a)virgin.net> wrote: >> Why can't the original owner claim, on the grounds that he has had to recompense >> the purchaser, which he should do anyway because he sold him a pup? > >Because the car doesn't belong to him anymore. If I sell a car I can't >pass on a warrenty from the guy who owned it three owners before me can I? I don't see why that is relevent. He has sustained a monetary loss due to someone else's negligence and it is up to the Court to decide is he is entitled to compensation. The whereabouts of the car make no difference to that fact. Andy C |