Garside v Black Horse Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 190 (QB) (12 February 2010)

Garside v Black Horse Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 190 (QB) (12 February 2010)

The vehicle supplied was not of satisfactory quality due to the distorted rear screen window, in breach of the implied term under section 10(2) of the 1973 Act. The claimant did not validly reject the vehicle as against the first defendant until the letter of 11 October 2006. By that date, the right to reject had not been lost by affirmation or lapse of time, as continued payments were made on the advice of the finance company and did not amount to unequivocal affirmation. The hire purchase agreement was thereby terminated in October 2006, entitling the claimant to remedies for repudiatory breach.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 190 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Anthony Garside; First Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Black Horse Limited; Second Defendant/part 20 Defendant: JCT 600 Limited trading as JCT 600 Leodis Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/hire Purchase) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant on the main claim; hire purchase agreement terminated as of October 2006; remedies to be assessed. Counterclaim for storage charges and Part 20 issues reserved for further determination.
Legal Topics
Hire Purchase Agreements, Implied Terms, Rejection of Goods, Repudiatory Breach, Affirmation of Contract, Damages, Satisfactory Quality
Contract Law Consumer Law Commercial Law Hire Purchase Agreements Implied Terms Rejection of Goods Repudiatory Breach Affirmation of Contract +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Anthony Garside

Claimant

Black Horse Limited

First Defendant/part 20 Claimant

JCT 600 Limited trading as JCT 600 Leodis Court

Second Defendant/part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/hire Purchase) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle supplied was of satisfactory quality under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the claimant validly rejected the vehicle and terminated the hire purchase agreement
  3. 3 Whether the right to reject was lost by affirmation or lapse of time

Ratio Decidendi

The vehicle supplied was not of satisfactory quality due to the distorted rear screen window, in breach of the implied term under section 10(2) of the 1973 Act. The claimant did not validly reject the vehicle as against the first defendant until the letter of 11 October 2006. By that date, the right to reject had not been lost by affirmation or lapse of time, as continued payments were made on the advice of the finance company and did not amount to unequivocal affirmation. The hire purchase agreement was thereby terminated in October 2006, entitling the claimant to remedies for repudiatory breach.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant on the main claim; hire purchase agreement terminated as of October 2006; remedies to be assessed. Counterclaim for storage charges and Part 20 issues reserved for further determination.

Orders

  • Declaration that the hire purchase agreement was terminated by valid rejection in October 2006
  • Claimant entitled to remedies for repudiatory breach; quantum to be determined