Small claims question - I cashed a cheque "final settlement" but then more problems

pookie_rabbit

Hi and I wonder if anybody can help me with a bit of county court advice

I wont give out too much information here on the actual case but I took a large company to the county court because they supplied a defective product (which they admitted) which in turn damaged some equipment in December last year. In January they sent me a cheque to fix the problem. A month later another problem occured with another component of the equipment which I believe (but they dont hence the court case) was caused by the defective product also. When I originally got the cheque and cashed it (which was BEFORE my next problem) the letter indicated that I was agreeing to a full and final payment with regard to this problem. I have now recieved their defense and amongst other things which I believe I can challenge this is a major point that they have put down. I am just wondering if I have any chance against this - they have a put I had ample time not to accept the cheque. The fact is I had to cash it in because I was £400 down in my account because of the problem and the next issue had not occured yet. I am not sure what else I could have done in the circumstances apart from hang onto a cheque because I could read the future??

hippyadam

Let me get this straight in my head... Company supplies product A, product A is defective & caused damage to item B. You complain about Product A & company admits liability & supplies a cheque for £400 in F&F settlement. You cash cheque.

Then item B develops another fault/problem relating to the previous damage. Company refuse liability, you issue in small claims & they are defending on the basis you accepted the previous settlement.

It sounds to me like its going to come down to the nature of your previous claim. Did you specify the specific fault/damage incurred or was it just a blanket damage claim?

If it was a specific claim relating to the first fault i don't see why you couldn't claim again. Unless the letter received with the original payout cheque specifically stipulated that it related to all claims of damage from Product A past & future etc...

This is only my opinion, i'm definitely not a solicitor Hope that helped.

pookie_rabbit

Thanks for the reply. Just to clarify the original settlement didnt go through court etc. they just knew it was faulty and had damaged the first part. The second damage was caused to another part of the equipment not related to the other part. They are saying a} it wasnt the faulty product that damaged this part and b} I had accepted the cheque. It is all part of one large piece of equipment (a car). I will get the exact wording of the original cheque.

pookie_rabbit

The letter has the following -

this is made (the offer) without admission of liabilty on or part and on the condition that the payment would be in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the incident

DVardysShadow

pookie_rabbit wrote: »

The letter has the following -

this is made (the offer) without admission of liabilty on or part and on the condition that the payment would be in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the incident

Then what you need to do is establish that the new claim is for another incident.

pookie_rabbit

Finally my incident occured because of contamination of something and there argument about the second incidient is that the amont of contimanation (there was some as not denied in the original payment) would not have caused the second problem. Can I in anyway ask that the amount that caused the contimination be known to me and/or the court to help make my case?

dmg24

pookie_rabbit wrote: »

Finally my incident occured because of contamination of something and there argument about the second incidient is that the amont of contimanation (there was some as not denied in the original payment) would not have caused the second problem. Can I in anyway ask that the amount that caused the contimination be known to me and/or the court to help make my case?

Without knowing what the item is, that makes no sense!

How old is the item? If over six months, have you proved that the item is inherently faulty?

pookie_rabbit

OK to explain. I recieved petrol that was contiminated with diesel. The car broke down and the engine was damaged. A cheque was sent to pay for this. A few weeks later though another component in the car failed because (I believe) the contamincation.

4743hudsonj

pookie_rabbit wrote: »

OK to explain. I recieved petrol that was contiminated with diesel. The car broke down and the engine was damaged. A cheque was sent to pay for this. A few weeks later though another component in the car failed because (I believe) the contamincation.

what part specifically failed?

Tozer

Sounds to me like the incident causing the damage was the same.

Hintza

This thread is like pulling teeth....lol