Sold a dodgy Merc

[philipb]

My father-in-law is a taxi driver who bought a 01 Mercedes from a major car dealer in May 05. It cost 28 thousand euro. He was also sold a warranty for 320 euro. He was told the car would be serviced as part of the deal.
After taking possession of the car he discovered that the service history log book had not been stamped. When he raised this with the dealer, they confirmed it had not been serviced at sale. It was subsequently serviced in November 05, when they also said the car needed repair work costing three and a half thousand euro. My father-in-law pointed out that the car was under warranty for major defects. They disagreed. He then made his own inquiries and discovered that he should not have been sold the warranty at all, as it didn't apply to taxis (they were aware the car was to be used as a taxi at point of sale).
In December 06, the Mercedes finally packed up - 18 months after he had bought it, with only 69 thousand miles on the clock (there had been 45 thousand when he bought it). The repairs will cost 12 thousand euro plus - it needs a new engine. He has also suffered from loss of earnings over the busy festive period.
He has taken this matter to his solicitor - basically saying he was mis-sold a dud car by a supposedly reputable dealer. The question is, what chance does he have of recovering the cost of the car, loss of earnings etc etc etc

 

[CelloPoint]

I dont really see why the car being a taxi has any bearing on the warranty. If you buy a new car and use it as a taxi it will still have the same warranty regardless of what you use it for. I find it strange why he had to buy the warranty. Most of the big dealers will give a warranty as part of the sale price .

Sounds to me as if the poor man was paranoid about being off the road and probably came across as such to the car salesman, who then "cashed in" on this fear by charging him E320 for the "peace of mind".

 

[sparkey]

I dont really see why the car being a taxi has any bearing on the warranty. If you buy a new car and use it as a taxi it will still have the same warranty regardless of what you use it for. I find it strange why he had to buy the warranty. Most of the big dealers will give a warranty as part of the sale price .

If you use a car for commercial use the warranty is void.
Standard car warranty is for private use only

 

[Thrifty1]

Hi Petermack,

I asked a warranty administrator for Mercedes about your query and he said that it should make no difference whether the car is used for private or commercial use.
He said to check how long the warranty is for but it should have covered the cost of the repairs in Nov 06.

He said to check the SIMI form your father in law signed when he bought the car and it should say that the car was serviced prior to sale and was in road worthy condition. If it does he is in a better position as this SIMI form is "gospel".

He will not be able to bring them to court as he will habe bound himself to arbitration by signing this form and so will have to sort it out between himself and the garage.

This is usually to preserve the garages reputation.

He should "sue" on the basis that his warranty would have covered the cost of repairs in Nov 06 and for the CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE" - the engine packing in and loss of earnings.

Hope this helps, let me know of you need further info.

 

[philipb]

Hi... thanks for all your replies. The situation with the warranty was that he was sold it with the car. When the first lot of repairs became apparent he assumed he would be covered under the warranty. The garage told him he would not because the car was being used as a taxi. However, they were well aware that the car was to be used as a taxi as he had traded one in as part of the initial deal. He then made further inquiries with the company behind the warranty who confirmed the garage should not have sold it to him in the first place.
His gripes are that a/ he was knowingly sold a warranty that could never apply b/ that the car was never serviced when he had requested it to be at point of sale and c/ a car that cost 28k has incurred repairs costing 18k within 18months (with far from excessive mileage added).

 

[NiallP]

PhilipB:

Have a look at section 13(2) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 which states:

(2) Without prejudice to any other condition or warranty, in every contract for the sale of a motor vehicle (except a contract in which the buyer is a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles) there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery of the vehicle under the contract it is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.

Section 13(3) of the 1980 Act sets out:

(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply where—

• ( a ) it is agreed between the seller and the buyer that the vehicle is not intended for use in the condition in which it is to be delivered to the buyer under the contract, and

• ( b ) a document consisting of a statement to that effect is signed by or on behalf of the seller and the buyer and given to the buyer prior to or at the time of such delivery, and

• ( c ) it is shown that the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) is fair and reasonable.
  

In this case, it seems clear that section 13(2) will apply on the basis of the agreed warranty between the parties. You have two years from the date of sale (or the date on which the defects became apparent) to claim that there has been a breach of an implied condition.

A breach of an implied condition renders the original contract void.
​