Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper_7
If you extend this argument for every other part - then you should be able to get everything replaced FOC! .............................I'm surprised at the verdict to be honest.
|
I have to say I agree, and am equally surprised. - No I don't think it's good that the ETM's fail prematurely, and yes I agree it's potentially a safety issue, but -
I thought it had long been established that the sale of goods act could not be applied in this way to cars
after they had been sold for a number of reasons (which I'm not able to quote just now), and normally any judgement of this kind would take account of the fact that the faulty component
has lasted 60,000 odd miles. Any 'compensation' would then be assessed on the residual life expectancy, usually given in the form of a contribution towards the cost of replacement.
I'm sure Volvo have consulted their lawyers already on this one, but chose not to throw the weight of their legal team into defending your action.
The reason for this may have been that - as I understand it - small claims courts have no actual powers of enforcement, ie. if your claim remained unpaid, despite the judgement, you would have to seek redress in a higher court before any judgement could be enforced by the court - is this right?
If you have got the money back, I'd say you've done well.