Limitation of liability - unfair terms of contract?

Keycare

Hi,

I purchase a 're-manufactured' steering box for my defender which was part of a scheme in which you return your old steering box.

The invoice states that the part is covered for 18 months and also states "<Company Name Limited> will not be held liable for any costs incurred during fitment, removal or operation of any parts. Warranty Claims are limited to the cost of original purchase."

In the first instance, the replacement box leaked so I had to have it removed, returned for inspection, argue as to whether it was fitted correctly (which it was, by an experienced specialist garage) and eventually have the replacement fitted (by the same garage). My car was out of action at the garage for over a week and it cost several hundred £.

They refused to entertain any claim for the removal and refit of a faulty part that they supplied citing their limited warranty.

That replacement part, just under 1 year later has just failed catastrophically having just left the motorway (less than 1 mile from the motorway junction) leaving me with no steering at all.

I will now have to pay to recover the car, have it taken to a garage and have the 2nd box removed and a third fitted. I have obviously requested a refund and will not be buying anything from them again, but where do I stand wrt recovering the considerable costs that I will now incur.

Is their limitation valid or would it come under the unfair contract terms act?

Many thanks,
Rich.

Jumblebumble

I suspect this is the price you are going to pay for buying a second hand part and not a new one
"Remanufacturing" in the real world can involve as little as a tin of paint
The garage could argue as to why you should you have the same warranty on an item that is not brand new which is what you seem to be asking for.
You were aware of the deal and thus don't have much to complain about unfortunatly
JumbleBumble

Keycare

I get where you are coming from. They give an 18 month warranty on the product, so I should think I would get my money back. But it's the cost of removal, postage and potentially re-fitting that I am upset about. They insist that the part is returned for inspection yet will not accept that if there is a problem with the part, that they should be liable for reasonable additional costs.

I will likely be a lesson learned but many replacement parts are now "re-manufactured", especially where the OEM no longer produces them 'new'. Brake calipers are an example.

steampowered

A term limiting your right to claim damages would fall under The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999, which is European legislation that applies in the UK.

This says "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

So, you would have to prove that the limit was unfair in the circumstances. This is a bit of a grey area.

unholyangel

steampowered wrote: »

A term limiting your right to claim damages would fall under The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999, which is European legislation that applies in the UK.

This says "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

So, you would have to prove that the limit was unfair in the circumstances. This is a bit of a grey area.

unfair terms guidance actually has a specific provision for this under guarantees and warranties operating as exclusion clauses. But the UTCCRs were replaced by the consumer rights act.

In short, they can't have terms in a warranty/guarantee that potentially misleads consumers about their rights/offer less protection than the law affords them. And having such terms could be a criminal breach of the CPRs (consumer protection from unfair trading regulations). Use of a qualifying statement such as "statutory rights are unaffected" are useless and won't make such a term fair - unless its also accompanied by a sufficient explanation of what those statutory rights are.

Keycare

Would that potentially mean that if, as a direct result of the failure of the part, significant costs were incurred, they would not be able to make a blanket exclusion statement limiting their liability?

Does the 'law afford' the right to remedy, including the removal and re-installation of a part and the fair cost of postage where the part was returned.

My gut reaction is that I have a case to argue.

sheramber

Would he 18 month warranty not apply from the original purchase date , not the replacement?

unholyangel

Keycare wrote: »

Would that potentially mean that if, as a direct result of the failure of the part, significant costs were incurred, they would not be able to make a blanket exclusion statement limiting their liability?

Does the 'law afford' the right to remedy, including the removal and re-installation of a part and the fair cost of postage where the part was returned.

My gut reaction is that I have a case to argue.

How soon after purchase did it fail and what was the cause of the failure?

There needs to have been a breach of terms (those implied and express) for your right to a remedy/them to have liability for costs involved with that remedy (including labour and postage).

Keycare

The original supply date was Feb 18. The first part failed straight away and was replaced within a week of fitting. They refused point-blank to consider the cost of removal and replacement when they sent the replacement part, the replacement has just failed - just under 1 year from the original purchase. So, no first part was not fit for purpose because it leaked from the start, the second is not of satisfactory quality because it failed less than a year after fitting - excessive play in the steering arm, leading to steering component failure.

molerat

The problem when you buy parts and get a garage to fit them for you. If the garage had sourced the parts all the labour would have been on them.