Clients Position Regarding Damages to Be Claimed from Quicky Car Services Ltd - Case Study Example

Report on our Client’s Position Regarding Damages to be claimed from Quicky Car Services Ltd The client in response to an advertisement, entered intoa contract with the Quicky Car Services Ltd, in order to have his car serviced. The charges for this were specified as £ 250 and the cost of parts or consumables. In addition, worn tyres were to be replaced, free of cost. The car was serviced and the client was presented with a bill for £ 400. In addition, two tyres had been replaced, free of cost. However, the mechanic at Quicky’s had failed to replace the engine oil that he had drained it from the car, resulting in the engine seizing, while the client was driving the car home. The client was compelled to apply the brakes, with the result that one of the replacement tyres, which was defective, exploded. This caused the client’s car to collide with a tree, damaging the bodywork of the car. This damage amounted to several hundred pounds and furthermore, the engine had also to be replaced at a cost of several hundred pounds. The Supply of Goods and Services Act, makes it mandatory for a service to be rendered with reasonable care and skill. Accordingly, parts supplied have to be of satisfactory quality. Failure to adhere to these requirements is deemed to be a breach of contract. Specifically this piece of legislation states that “there is an implied condition that goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality1.” In the Myers case, a car had been fitted with defective connecting rods. It was held that goods or material supplied had to be adequate for the purpose for which they had been supplied. It was also opined that no distinction should be drawn between a contract for just the supply of goods and a contract wherein goods were supplied in order to perform services2. In the case of Samuels v. Davis a set of unusable dentures had been supplied. The court held that the law viewed a contract for the sale of goods and a contract involving the supply of material and offer of services to do work in the same light3. Moreover, in Stewart v. Ravell’s Garage the court held that in contracts where goods were supplied and services rendered, there was an inherent implied term that the workmanship should be adequate and that he materials supplied should be of good quality4. The Sale of Goods Act requires satisfactory quality to be inherent in the goods sold or supplied5. In addition, the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 states that “[A] Consumer means any natural person who, in contracts covered by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession6.” The client is a consumer as he had formed the service contract to get his automobile, which was for his personal use and not for any business purpose, serviced. In Davies v. Sumner, the House of Lords decided that the car was subsidiary to the defendant’s business and not essential. Therefore, the defendant was deemed to be a consumer7. In Stevenson v. Rogers, the court held that the purchase and sale of cars was not the business activity of the complainant, hence he was a consumer for this transaction8. The client had serviced his car in the garage; hence the client is a consumer. Section 13 of the Supply of Goods And Services Act 1982, requires a supplier, in the normal course of business, to provide service with adequate skill and care9. In hybrid contracts or contracts wherein there is a supply of goods as well as the provision of service, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 is applicable. The supply of goods component would fall within the ambit of sections 2 and 5 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, whereas the provision of a service would be governed by sections 13 to 15 of the very same act10. In accordance, with the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, consumers have a choice to either reject the goods or seek compensation if the goods are defective, unsuited for the purpose of their manufacture or if they are not in agreement with their description. Moreover, such consumers have the option of getting the goods repaired, replaced or they can demand a partial or total refund. This act deems goods to be faulty at the time of sale, if they had been found out to be defective within a half – year from their date of purchase. Further, it is not required for the consumer to prove the defectiveness of these goods. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that the client is a consumer as far as the service contract with Quicky Car Services Ltd is concerned. The client is eligible for being compensated towards the damage to the engine; charges for damage to the body work of the car; replacement of the burst tyres, and any other incidental damages to either the car or his person. The non – replacement of the engine oil is tantamount to gross negligence, which resulted in this accident. As such the client can claim monetary compensation, repair or replacement under the provisions of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Bibliography 1. Davies v. Sumner (1984) 3 All ER 831, (1984) 1 WLR 1301. 2. Kelly, David. Holmes, Ann. Hayward, Ruth. Business Law. 5th Edition. 2005. Cavendish Publishing. P. 237. 3. Myers (GH) & Co v. Brent Cross Service Co (1934) 1 K.B. 46. 4. Samuels v. Davis (1943) 1 K.B. 527. 5. Section 3(1), Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. 6. Section 14(2), Sale of Goods Act, 1979. 7. Section 4(2). Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 8. Stevenson v Rogers (1999) 1 All ER 613. 9. Stewart v. Ravell’s Garage (1952) 2 Q.B. 545. Read More