Used car on fire after one day!

neilmcl

DoaM wrote: »

What about root cause fault and consequential loss?

What I mean is ... let's say it was the fuel pump that failed, fuel leaked, was ignited by a hot engine and that caused the fire. Is the dealer liable only for repairing or replacing the faulty fuel pump, but not for any damage caused by the fire (a consequential event/loss leading from the fault)?

The dealer would be liable for any consequential losses/damages.

neilmcl

naedanger wrote: »

But the op could ask the seller to repair, replace or refund (at the seller's choice) in which case the seller does have to prove the car was not inherently faulty in order to avoid providing a remedy. I doubt the seller will choose to repair the car so they either need to refund or replace with a similar model or prove the fault did not exist when the car was delivered.

But the OP didn't. He specifically mentioned that he wanted to reject the vehicle, hence the need for him to seek to prove of the fault in question.

naedanger

neilmcl wrote: »

But the OP didn't. He specifically mentioned that he wanted to reject the vehicle, hence the need for him to seek prove of the fault in question.

Yes but given that rejection option places the onus of proof on the op I am just pointing out another possible option for the op.

Namely the op can demand a repair, replacement or refund at the seller's choice. In this case the op does not need to prove the fault was present when he bought the car. If the dealer wants to reject the claim the onus is on them to prove the fault was not inherent. (Also repair is probably uneconomic and replacement might not be easy either. But if the dealer can replace then the op may prefer that option over the alternative of having to prove the fault was inherent. Or it is also possible the seller will choose refund as the easiest option for them.)

DoaM

neilmcl wrote: »

The dealer would be liable for any consequential losses/damages.

On what basis? (I can guess, but let's make it clear for the benefit of others that may read this).

The reason I ask is that I'm sure I've seen similar discussions in the Motoring board, and a point similar to what I raised above was also made.

unholyangel

Consequential loss is indirect loss - loss that doesn't arise naturally from the breach/negligent act but that was (or should have reasonably been) within the contemplation of the parties at the time of entering into the agreement.

Personally I would say any damage caused by the fire is a direct loss.


I've also just realised the CRA is rather backwards. If your goods fail in the first 30 days and you want a refund, you need to prove the fault was inherent. However in this case, if OP was to ask for a repair or replacement, its unlikely either one can be provided which would put them onto the final right to reject - which then means its for the retailer to prove the fault was not inherent.

naedanger

DoaM wrote: »

On what basis? (I can guess, but let's make it clear for the benefit of others that may read this).

On the general basis that remedy for breach of contract is meant to place the injured party in the same position as if the contract had been performed. (There are exceptions to this general basis that do not apply here e.g. if the injured party did not take reasonable mitigating action.) So in this case the remedy should put the op back into the position they would have been in had the car not been faulty i.e. in the position of having a working car (and not a burnt out car).

If only the fuel pump had been faulty replacing that alone will not put the op back into the position they would have been in had the car not been faulty (it would leave them in the position of having a burnt out car and a working fuel pump, which unsurprisingly is not sufficient redress).

More reading:
http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-101-0603