Garside v Black Horse Ltd & Ors

Garside v Black Horse Ltd & Ors

The vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, the implied term extended to the defect, and the claimant validly rejected the vehicle by letter in October 2006. The right to reject was not lost by affirmation. The claimant is entitled to damages equal to monies paid up to rejection, less deduction for use, and restitution of payments after rejection. The claim under the alleged price agreement fails. The first defendant is entitled to indemnity from the second defendant, subject to credit for the value of the vehicle at the date of rejection. The counterclaim for storage charges fails.

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 / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against first defendant succeeds in part; claim against second defendant fails; counterclaim dismissed; part 20 claim succeeds subject to credit for vehicle value.
Legal Topics
Hire Purchase Agreements, Implied Terms, Rejection of Goods, Damages, Indemnity, Restitution, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Consumer Protection Commercial Law Hire Purchase Agreements Implied Terms Rejection of Goods Damages Indemnity +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 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle supplied under hire purchase was of satisfactory quality under the implied term of section 10(2) of 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 claimant lost the right to reject by affirmation

Ratio Decidendi

The vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, the implied term extended to the defect, and the claimant validly rejected the vehicle by letter in October 2006. The right to reject was not lost by affirmation. The claimant is entitled to damages equal to monies paid up to rejection, less deduction for use, and restitution of payments after rejection. The claim under the alleged price agreement fails. The first defendant is entitled to indemnity from the second defendant, subject to credit for the value of the vehicle at the date of rejection. The counterclaim for storage charges fails.

Court Disposition

Claim against first defendant succeeds in part; claim against second defendant fails; counterclaim dismissed; part 20 claim succeeds subject to credit for vehicle value.

Orders

  • Damages to claimant: £138,622.54 (monies paid less deduction for use)
  • Restitution to claimant: £26,604.23 (payments after rejection)