Hello,A month ago we bought a six year old Mazda in a private sale that hashad the clutch replaced by an independent garage beginning of Marchthis year. The mechanic did not fit the speedo drive correctly, and asa result gearbox oil has leaked out. The previous owner and myself didnot notice this through driving the vehicle. I took the car for an oilchange, and as they had noticed the issue, they checked it out.Not to be dettered, I tried another independent garage, to be 100%sure that the speedo drive had been replaced incorrectly, and this wasthe only possible cause of the gearbox basically soon to startfailing. The second garage confirmed the initial diagnosis: during thefitting of the new clutch by the previous owner a few months ago, thespeedo drive was incorrectly refitted, with the gearbox likely to failvery soon, with the garages surprised the car was still driving fine.A look underneath and it was obvious that even with refilling thegearbox with oil, it was just coming out again upon gear change duringdrive.The garage who fitted the clutch (Alfa-Romeo garage, incidentally)have said they only warranty work for 3000 miles or 3 months.My question is: as they incorrectly fitted the new clutch, asconfirmed by 2 independent garages who know the work would not becarried out by them even before they found the problem, are theoriginal fitting garage liable in any way for some/all costs? The factthey messed up so badly fitting the new clutch meant that nobody wouldbe any the wiser that there was a gearbox issue unless the gearbox waspartially dismantled in some respect. As I am the new owner of thecar, I wondered if that affected any work that had been done by theprevious garage. The clutch is consumable, so if it had gone again, Iwould bite my teeth and pay for a new one, but as the garage fittedthe clutch badly originally, I can't help but strongly feel they areliable in some respect for bad workmanship. I mean, fitting a speedodrive incorrectly is pretty...

You are stuffed mate. The deal on fitting the clutch was between the previous owner and the fitter. It is nothing to do with you.

Possibly, but it would depend upon the seller having a contractualliability to do so, which they don't appear to have. Take threesituations:-1. New buyer sues seller in court and wins - seller has case to sueoriginal garage for his loss.2. New buyer tells seller of problem and seller asks his solicitor ifhe is liable. Solicitor says yes he is so he pays. The seller wouldhave case against the garage for the repayment he made but would haveto prove he had a liability to pay the buyer. The solicitors evidencewould usually be adequate.3. New buyer tells seller of problem and seller realises he has nocontractual liability to pay but feels sorry for buyer and refundssome money. In this case the seller would not be able to sue thegarage for his loss.

New Clutch - Garage Liability?

May 26, 2010 29 Replies

Rate this thread:

steve robinson 16 years ago

Yes it does , the law is quite clear in this matter .

The op has no contract with the garage

This was a private not business transaction , further limiting any scope of claim

The seller wasnt aware of any faults before he sold the car , the purchaser never asked about recent repairworks or had the vehicle inspected

The seller cant sue because he has suffered no financial loss and further didnt own the vehicle when the problems arose.

The op could sue the seller however he would need to show the seller was aware of the faults and that he failed to disclose such faults when asked

Vote

Peter Parry 16 years ago

I doubt if a case against the original owner would succeed. There are no implied terms as to quality in a private sale so the fact the car failed shortly after sale does not create a breach of contract.

If the original owner had to recompense the new purchaser they would indeed be able to sue the garage.

Vote

steve robinson 16 years ago

The seller doesnt have to compensate the buyer , he may choose to however this wouldnt automatically mean the garage has to meet this liability as the sellers actions were far beyond his legal obligations .

Vote

steve robinson 16 years ago

Even if the seller offered to reimburse the purchaser as a matter of princible , the garage wouldnt have to reimburse the seller as the sellers actions were beyond what the law requires

Vote

steve robinson 16 years ago

Only if the original owner was legally obliged to recompense the purchaser not as a matter of princible

Vote

Andy Cap 16 years ago

OK, I accept that sheds a different light on it.

Say though the seller compensates the buyer by voluntarily paying for the repair, could he then claim from the garage for his monetary loss?

Vote

Peter Parry 16 years ago

Possibly, but it would depend upon the seller having a contractual liability to do so, which they don't appear to have. Take three situations:-

New buyer sues seller in court and wins - seller has case to sue original garage for his loss.
New buyer tells seller of problem and seller asks his solicitor if he is liable. Solicitor says yes he is so he pays. The seller would have case against the garage for the repayment he made but would have to prove he had a liability to pay the buyer. The solicitors evidence would usually be adequate.
New buyer tells seller of problem and seller realises he has no contractual liability to pay but feels sorry for buyer and refunds some money. In this case the seller would not be able to sue the garage for his loss.

Vote

Peter Parry 16 years ago

Indeed.

Vote

steve robinson 16 years ago

No because what the seller is doing is over and above his legal obligations and is incurring the loss volentarily

Vote

Andy Cap 16 years ago

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting thread.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required