Sale By Description

Hi,

I bought a boat trailer that was advertised as being able to carry a boat up to approximately 2.5 tonnes. As as result of a breakdown, I had the trailer inspected. The expert's report concluded that the trailer had a maximum payload capacity of just 1300Kg (1.3 tonnes).

Normally, if the advertisement had stated that the trailer was able to carry a boat up to 2.5 tonnes, then based on the report, the trailer did not conform to the description. However, because the advertisement stated "approximately", I understand that this might now be down to the interpretation of the Judge.

My question therefore is what deviation from the description of 2.5 tonnes would the Judge allow for using approximate. In this case, the deviation is 1.2 tonnes or 65% of the stated capacity. Would I be entitled to reject the trailer.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your replies. The trailer was second hand. It was a private sale, however, it was advertised as having a capacity of up to approximately 2.5 tonnes. The only recourse with a private sale is if the item does not correspond with the description. The trailer broke down (wheel drum and bearing) en route from France to Spain. The trailer was beyond repair and my insurance company recovered my boat to Spain. The trailer was left in France. I had the trailer inspected and found that it had a capacity of just 250Kgs (0.25 tonnes). The capacity was worked out on the brakes. The defendant is claiming that the expert who inspected the trailer can not prove that the brakes were of a certain make and therefore this puts his report in question. However, the studs on the wheels can be identified and a capacity of 1.3 tonnes was given. Effectively, I think I should be able to go on the brakes and therefore I think that the word "approximately" will not come into the equation. Everyone I have spoken to has said that "approximately" means nearly accurate, not 65% accurate.

One other point here to mull over. The trailer broke down en route France to Spain. This was the moment in time that it was effectively established that the trailer was not as described and therefore it was rejected. However, since the breach of contract was at the point of sale, does this mean that the cause of the breakdown is not a factor in the claim. My point of view is that the trailer was overloaded and the wheel bearings broke down as a result of that. I am not seeking remedy for the breakdown and therefore I do not consider this to be pertinent. I see the breakdown as the point in time that I established the breach of contract. Since I am entitled to reject the goods, I am not obliged to return them to the seller especially if this causes me inconvenience or unreasonable costs. I therefore claim that the defendant is obliged to collect the trailer if he wants it returned.

What say you?

Chris

Tony,

Thank you for your comments.

The defendants in this case are using every ploy available to rid themsleves of their legal responsibilities.
Just for the record and that other people using this web site may be comforted; I responded to an advertisement that described the trailer. I telephoned the number in the advert and spoke to Mr. "A". I exchanged emails that were signed by Mr. "A". I met Mr. "A" at his private address where the trailer was stored and concluded the sale. I gave Mr. "A" the cash for the trailer. I then exchanged emails again that were signed by Mr. "A" regarding rejecting the trailer.
When the claim forms were delivered to Mr. "A", his defence was that he was not the legal owner and that he only assisted his "live in partner" who was the legal owner. Miss "B" then claimed to be the defendant. Having gathered a land registry report, Miss "B" was not on the title and I suspected that they were doing this as Miss "B" appeared to have no assets.
The case went to a preliminary hearing where the judge ruled that Mr. "A" should remain as first defendant and Miss "B" be added as second defendant.

Sorry to protract this thread but I am claiming consequential losses. But I wonder how far down the line can one go with consequential losses. The losses I am claiming are the expenses that I have incurred in taking the trailer from Portsmouth (where it was purchased) and Spain. I am not claiming any expenses with regards to the breakdown as my insurance company covered this element.

However, having paid out nearly £3,000 for the trailer and transportation expenses, my boat which was recovered from France to Spain by the insurance company, is left in Spain without a trailer. The purpose of having a trailer in Spain was that it allowed me to take the boat out of the water and place both boat and trailer in a secure parking during my absence (I live in Scotland and frequently visit Spain where I have a small apartment). Consequently, as I cannot afford another trailer at this moment in time, I have had to purchase a swinging mooring for my boat. A swinging mooring is merely an anchorage point in the water. The water in Spain is very saline and their has already been an abundance of barnacle growth on the boat. Barnacles are very destructive and difficult to remove. To take the boat out of the water, clean the boat etc etc is going to cost the best part of £1100 (including the swinging mooring).
My question is therefore, would consequential losses extend this far?

Hope this gives you some thoughts when sipping your malt.

Chris