O'Connor v Karl Goodwin Motors Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Jennifer O'Brien
• Judgment Date: 22 April 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] IECC 2
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Record No: 2019/05214

In the Matter of

Gillian O'Connor

Appellant

and

Karl Goodwin Motors Limited, Kildare Car Outlet Limited Trading As N. Conlon & Sons, Land Rover Ireland Limited and Jaguar Land Rover Ireland Limited

Defendants

[2024] IECC 2

Record No: 2019/05214

THE CIRCUIT COURT

AN CHÚIRT CHUARDA

DUBLIN CIRCUIT CIVIL COURT COUNTY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

DISTRICT COURT APPEAL

1 Judgment of Her Honour Judge Jennifer O'Brien delivered this 22 ^nd day of April 2024

2 Issue under consideration: The issue that arises for consideration in this case — What is the legislative and legal paradigm into which one steps when purchasing a second-hand vehicle from Dealer A while it is still under warranty from the manufacturer and, a defect emerges within 6 months? When is a defect considered latent? Is the product merchantable at the time of purchase? What are the rights and obligations of the purchaser/ dealer in these circumstances vis á vis Dealer A, Dealer B (the manufacturer's agent) and vis á vis the manufacturer? What are the obligations of each party in contract, under the consumer regulations and are there any additional considerations in tort? Was there any delay on the part of Dealer A or Dealer B or the manufacturer in carrying out repairs to the vehicle? What is considered reasonable in this context for the purpose of compliance with the manufacturer's warranty? For a car imported from the UK — which warranty applies? Is the purchaser entitled to recover the cost of a service and the cost of an expert, where she chose to take each of these steps of her own volition? Is the purchaser entitled to damages for loss of use of the vehicle for a ten-day period when the car was being repaired, in circumstances where Dealer B had furnished a courtesy car, albeit same was not an equivalent make or model? Is the purchaser entitled to damages for breach of contract, breach of consumer rights and/ or alleged negligence of the defendants in addressing the matter?

3 Plaintiff's case: This case comes before the Court by way of appeal from District Court orders, dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff is a solicitor with an address in County Dublin. The first name defendant (“Dealer A”) is a registered company involved in the sale of motor vehicles and operates from Belgard Motor Complex in County Dublin. The second named defendant (“Dealer B”) is a limited liability company involved in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, operating from Rathangan in County Kildare. The third named defendant (the “Manufacturer”) is a registered company involved in the manufacture of motor vehicles with a registered company address in Dublin. The fourth named defendant is a registered company involved in the importation of motor vehicles and has a registered company address in Dublin.

4 The plaintiff claims that she is a consumer within the meaning of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1980, as amended. In or about the 13th day of June 2016 the plaintiff attended at the premises of Dealer A and selected a Range Rover Sport Autobiography 5 litre petrol V8, with the car registration number 141-C-xxxx fitted with an automatic transmission (the ‘vehicle’) for the purchase price of €99,950. The plaintiff claims that Dealer A, its servants and/or agents represented or warranted expressly or impliedly that the vehicle was in perfect mechanical order and condition and was free from all defects and was of merchantable quality. It is claimed that the plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the vehicle on foot of the said representations and warranties. It is claimed that by virtue of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 (the “Act of 1980”) that the following were implied conditions/ warranties of the said agreement:

1. Firstly, that the vehicle was of merchantable quality,

2. Secondly that the vehicle was free from any defects.

5 From time-to-time following purchase of the vehicle, the plaintiff brought the vehicle to the premises of Dealer B in order to carry out repairs and services. It is claimed that Dealer B owed to the plaintiff a duty of care to carry out any repairs or servicing in a competent manner and to use replacement parts in the event that repairs or replacements proved necessary. It is claimed that the conditions were not complied with in the sense that the vehicle supplied was not of a merchantable quality, that it was not fit for the purpose for which goods of that kind are commonly bought, it was not durable and it was reasonable to expect, having regard to the high specification of the vehicle and the price of the vehicle it was not free from any defects. Further, it is claimed that the defendants have breached their duties of care towards the plaintiff in failing to ensure the vehicle was of merchantable quality, failing to ensure the vehicle was free from defects, failing to provide an adequate after sales service for the claimant, carrying out attempts at servicing and repairs of the vehicle so negligently as to cause further damage to the vehicle and failing to provide adequate replacement parts for the vehicle. The plaintiff also claims express or implied breach of warranties in failing to promptly or competently repair the defects in the vehicle, failing to provide an adequate after sales service as particularized and the claimant reserves the right to treat the aforesaid breaches of condition as breaches of warranty.

6 The plaintiff having taken delivery of the vehicle immediately experienced a number of small issues which had been rectified. A more serious issue developed in November 2016, and it seemed as though the vehicle's gears and gearbox were not working properly. The plaintiff was obliged to bring the vehicle to Dealer B, a Land Rover repair centre (being an authorized agent of the 3 ^rd and 4 ^th named defendants), in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the warranty. The gears appeared to be continuously slipping resulting in a very bumpy drive. The plaintiff requested a full service of the vehicle which occurred and was paid for by the plaintiff on the 2 ^nd of December 2016. The plaintiff decided to take the vehicle back for the Christmas period and as such further tests were not carried out by Dealer B at that time. At that stage the plaintiff was told the car might need a new gear box and she was advised Land Rover would be consulted under the warranty. Further testing would be required by Land Rover. At this stage, the plaintiff thought it prudent to instruct an independent engineer to be present at the testing of the vehicle with Land Rover. The plaintiff left the vehicle with Dealer B on the 9 ^th of January 2017 and various tests were carried out by their mechanics. The plaintiff claims both she and her engineer were continuously advised that various different problems were the issue with the vehicle including a fault pertaining to the transmission, a fault pertaining to the spark plugs, misfire with the engine, misfire with the number 8 cylinder, fault pertaining to the coils of the engine, fault pertaining to the number 8 fuel injector and fault pertaining to the fuel pipe and injector. Throughout this period from 9 ^th January onwards the plaintiff claims that she received little or no satisfaction from the defendants, their servants or their agents in attempt to repair the vehicle. The vehicle was fully repaired by the 19 ^th of January 2017.

7 The plaintiff claims that by reason of the defects and the conduct of the defendants in servicing and repair of the vehicle and failure to provide a suitable replacement vehicle when the vehicle was being repaired during a protracted period, the plaintiff suffered substantial inconvenience, loss, damage and expense including the manner in which the 3 ^rd and 4 ^th named defendants have dealt with the plaintiff's legitimate complaints, in particular and including the nature and content of letters from the 3 ^rd and 4 ^th named defendants dated 10 ^th and 20 ^th February 2017. Furthermore, it is claimed the defendants have failed to furnish the plaintiff with the data in relation to the technical mechanical testing in spite of requesting same directly and through her engineer and have failed to provide an extension of the warranty in relation to the parts replaced in the vehicle. As such, the plaintiff seeks damages and extended warranty for the vehicle.

8 Each of the defendants have filed a defence containing a denial of the claims made by the plaintiff. This Court heard evidence on the 22 ^nd and 23 ^rd of February 2024. Particulars of loss, damages and inconveniences claimed by the plaintiff are as follows:

1. Loss of use of the motor vehicle for 2 weeks: €1,800 (estimate)

2. Inspection and report fee: €615

3. Service: € 675.30

9 Summary of evidence: The plaintiff gave evidence that she purchased the Land Rover vehicle from Dealer A in June 2016, and that it was the biggest purchase the plaintiff had ever made. She traded in her old car and also provided a sum from her savings. She experienced some initial difficulties with the sunroof and the heated seat. Dealer B had fixed each of these issues. By mid-November 2016 a problem seemed to have developed with the gears and she described that it felt as though she was driving over potholes. She gave evidence that the fault didn't occur as often when the car was in sports mode. She contacted Dealer B, in mid-November and requested that they carry out a service. She was anxious to get the vehicle checked in light of the fact that the warranty ran out in May of the following year. She was very anxious to ensure that an authorized repairer carried out the work as she did not want to jeopardize being covered by the warranty. She gave evidence that she paid the invoice in respect of the service of the vehicle. She was very worried when she was informed that the difficulty might be on account of a problem with the gearbox. On the 9th of...