Garage dispute - advice needed

colino

OK dispossessed, I'll bite. From your post I have no idea what side you are on, nor whether you understand, "burden of proof".
In this instance the claimant does have the burden of proof; they have to provide sufficient evidence that on the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable. In this case how would that be possible when there is said to be an unwitnessed verbal agreement? Is it probable, against common practice, that a person utilising the skills of a skilled repairer would be able to anticipate the final cost of a proper repair and set an arbitrary threshold? Wouldn't that person instead have requested a firm quotation, as opposed to estimate?
Argue all you like OP, there's something fishy here, did you expect him to half-repair it when your limit ran out or just let you off with the bill?

dispossessed

colino wrote: »

OK dispossessed, I'll bite. From your post I have no idea what side you are on, nor whether you understand, "burden of proof".
In this instance the claimant does have the burden of proof; they have to provide sufficient evidence that on the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable. In this case how would that be possible when there is said to be an unwitnessed verbal agreement? Is it probable, against common practice, that a person utilising the skills of a skilled repairer would be able to anticipate the final cost of a proper repair and set an arbitrary threshold? Wouldn't that person instead have requested a firm quotation, as opposed to estimate?
Argue all you like OP, there's something fishy here, did you expect him to half-repair it when your limit ran out or just let you off with the bill?

I am on neither side - there are two sides to any argument.

I was just stating the legal standard that would be applied by a Judge in a Court of Law in England & Wales.

I like to think I do understand the "Burden of proof". When I was once examined on this concept, and other related topics, those doing the marking appeared to agree with my delusion. This knowledge sometimes comes in useful and this appeared to be an opportunity to share it.

I should, perhaps, add - when I refer to the "Claimant" I am using the word in its legal sense - i.e. the party who is taking the case to Law. In this instance, based on what we have been told, it would be the garage owner who is the Claimant.

In the past they would have been called the "Plaintiff"

Apologies if I have somehow caused confusion or offence.