Used car not as described twice

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Doesn't any ambiguity favour the party that didn't write the contract? 

Manxman_in_exile

Assuming there is any ambiguity...   

GDB2222

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Doesn't any ambiguity favour the party that didn't write the contract? 

I don’t see how Contra Proferentem applies here? 

Aylesbury_Duck

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

GDB2222 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

jakann86 said:

Simply that they will be changing the front brake pads/discs. They did the pads but not the discs. Potentially it looks like they polished them to remove corrosion but didn't replace. Can't prove that though. 

jakann86 said:

I have in writing that they will be changing the brake pads/discs before I receive it. 

What exactly did you have in writing in this regard?

Did they write, as you have, "we will replace the brake pads / discs"?
That could be interpreted in expanded form as "we will check the braking system and replace the brake pads and / or discs as required to ensure that the car is roadworthy at the point of sale".  The Dealer could then consider they did the inspection and only the pads required changing so that is what they did.

OR, did the Dealer write something that more specifically said they will replace the brake pads AND the discs? 

I disagree. The dealer agreed to change both the pads and the discs. If they were only going to inspect the discs, they should have said so. 

I would be asking them to rectify that. If they refuse, I would get the repair done ASAP as it’s a safety issue, and then think about suing them for the cost. 

I'm not convinced they did because we've seen nothing so far that says so.  I agree that they may have implied they would, and that OP certainly inferred they would, but from what OP has provided, technically they were going to replace pads and/or discs, not necessarily both.

The phrase was pads/discs. I would not want to be the dealer explaining to a judge that this meant one or the other, but not both. I read it as clearly implying both, although I agree that there is some ambiguity - but very little. 

But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written?  It's just as easy to type or write & as / .  I agree there's ambiguity but I'm not so sure about the legal test.  I think it quite reasonable for a mechanic to write pads/discs if he was going to take a look at the brakes and judge whether pads, discs or both required changing, which is what I suspect happened here. 

As you say, the cost of making OP happy is minimal, so a good dealer might just crack on and replace the discs.  Otherwise, OP could test the interpretation in court, but on the basis of what OP has provided here, I'm more confident with the garage's position than you are.

"But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written? "

It works both ways, doesn't it: if the garage meant pads or discs, that's what they would have written? 

Anyway, the OP has confirmed it was followed up by email, and the dealer said both would be changed. 

Yes, it could work both ways, but I take the slash as shorthand for or.

I don't think the dealer said both would be changed.  OP asked if pads and discs would be replaced and the dealer replied to say that 'brakes have been started and will be finished off', which is pretty ambiguous and not really a confirmation that both would be changed.  I grant you that it's a fair assumption on the OP's part, but it's not entirely clear.

jakann86

sheramber said:

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

GDB2222 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

jakann86 said:

Simply that they will be changing the front brake pads/discs. They did the pads but not the discs. Potentially it looks like they polished them to remove corrosion but didn't replace. Can't prove that though. 

jakann86 said:

I have in writing that they will be changing the brake pads/discs before I receive it. 

What exactly did you have in writing in this regard?

Did they write, as you have, "we will replace the brake pads / discs"?
That could be interpreted in expanded form as "we will check the braking system and replace the brake pads and / or discs as required to ensure that the car is roadworthy at the point of sale".  The Dealer could then consider they did the inspection and only the pads required changing so that is what they did.

OR, did the Dealer write something that more specifically said they will replace the brake pads AND the discs? 

I disagree. The dealer agreed to change both the pads and the discs. If they were only going to inspect the discs, they should have said so. 

I would be asking them to rectify that. If they refuse, I would get the repair done ASAP as it’s a safety issue, and then think about suing them for the cost. 

I'm not convinced they did because we've seen nothing so far that says so.  I agree that they may have implied they would, and that OP certainly inferred they would, but from what OP has provided, technically they were going to replace pads and/or discs, not necessarily both.

The phrase was pads/discs. I would not want to be the dealer explaining to a judge that this meant one or the other, but not both. I read it as clearly implying both, although I agree that there is some ambiguity - but very little. 

But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written?  It's just as easy to type or write & as / .  I agree there's ambiguity but I'm not so sure about the legal test.  I think it quite reasonable for a mechanic to write pads/discs if he was going to take a look at the brakes and judge whether pads, discs or both required changing, which is what I suspect happened here. 

As you say, the cost of making OP happy is minimal, so a good dealer might just crack on and replace the discs.  Otherwise, OP could test the interpretation in court, but on the basis of what OP has provided here, I'm more confident with the garage's position than you are.

"But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written? "

It works both ways, doesn't it: if the garage meant pads or discs, that's what they would have written? 

Anyway, the OP has confirmed it was followed up by email, and the dealer said both would be changed. 

What they said  in the email was the same ambiguous phrase

we are also changing the front pads/disks.

I followed up to that email asking for confirmation the pads *and* discs were changed before I paid the balance. The dealership confirmed they were. So any ambiguity in the use of / was, imo, clarified in my follow up email. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

GDB2222 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Doesn't any ambiguity favour the party that didn't write the contract? 

I don’t see how Contra Proferentem applies here? 

The offer to replace the pads/discs forms part of the terms of the contract to buy the car. 

If the "/" is ambiguous then it results in meaning "and" for the OP. 

Or are you just saying it's not ambiguous?  (I'm not getting involved in that one!)

jakann86

Or are you just saying it's not ambiguous?  (I'm not getting involved in that one!)

Had no idea I was causing a grammatical argument of interpretation when I posted this 😂 Interesting to see how it's read in different ways though. 

If nothing else, I will be aware of things to do for future purchases!

GDB2222

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

GDB2222 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Doesn't any ambiguity favour the party that didn't write the contract? 

I don’t see how Contra Proferentem applies here? 

The offer to replace the pads/discs forms part of the terms of the contract to buy the car. 

If the "/" is ambiguous then it results in meaning "and" for the OP. 

Or are you just saying it's not ambiguous?  (I'm not getting involved in that one!)

Contra Proferentem usually refers to a contract clause, but maybe the description of the work being done to the car does fall under that. 

tightauldgit

Don't know about you guys but if someone is reminding me what to pack for a trip and says 'remember to bring pants/socks' I'm not packing either/or.

Mr.Generous

tightauldgit said:

Don't know about you guys but if someone is reminding me what to pack for a trip and says 'remember to bring pants/socks' I'm not packing either/or.

But if they said trainers/shoes they may well mean one or the other, or both.

I would imagine a set of disks for a leaf would be about £40 to purchase. The disks fitted had a years life in them. I think i'd just chalk this one down to experience and next time check exactly what they say is being done gets done. An independant inspection might be worth it if you don't look at the brakes or tyres from one year to the next.