David Adam against Moneybarn No.1 LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCDUM 006 (07 February 2025)

David Adam against Moneybarn No.1 LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCDUM 006 (07 February 2025)

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the car was not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale. The court preferred the defender's expert evidence, found the pursuer's expert lacked impartiality and rigour, and held that faults manifesting after 11 months did not establish latent defects at sale. Accordingly, the pursuer was not entitled to reject the car or obtain the remedies sought.

Citation
[2025] SCDUM 006
Parties
Pursuer: David Adam; Defender: Moneybarn No. 1 Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defender.
Legal Topics
Conditional Sale Agreement, Satisfactory Quality, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Right to Reject Goods, Expert Evidence
Consumer Law Contract Law Conditional Sale Agreement Satisfactory Quality Consumer Rights Act 2015 Right to Reject Goods Expert Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Adam

Pursuer

Moneybarn No. 1 Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the car supplied under a conditional sale agreement was of satisfactory quality at the time of sale under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was entitled to reject the car under section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the car was not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale. The court preferred the defender's expert evidence, found the pursuer's expert lacked impartiality and rigour, and held that faults manifesting after 11 months did not establish latent defects at sale. Accordingly, the pursuer was not entitled to reject the car or obtain the remedies sought.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defender.

Orders

  • Pursuer's craves dismissed.
  • Decree of absolvitor granted for the defender.