ALAN KING v BLACK HORSE LIMITED (T/A JAGUAR FINANCIAL SERVICES) AND PARK'S (AYR) LIMITED [2023] ScotSAC Civ 4 (19 January 2023)

ALAN KING v BLACK HORSE LIMITED (T/A JAGUAR FINANCIAL SERVICES) AND PARK'S (AYR) LIMITED [2023] ScotSAC Civ 4 (19 January 2023)

The appeal was refused because the sheriff had not erred in law or in fact; the evidence did not support the appellant's claims of misrepresentation or breach of contract, and the vehicle was found to be of satisfactory quality at the time of sale.

Citation
[2023] ScotSAC Civ 4
Parties
Appellant: Alan King; First Respondent: Black Horse Limited (t/a Jaguar Financial Services); Second Respondent: Park's (Ayr) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Hire Purchase Agreement, Misrepresentation, Consumer Credit
Consumer Law Contract Law Hire Purchase Agreement Misrepresentation Consumer Credit

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan King

Appellant

Black Horse Limited (t/a Jaguar Financial Services)

First Respondent

Park's (Ayr) Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in dismissing the appellant's claim regarding alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract in a hire purchase agreement for a motor vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the sheriff had not erred in law or in fact; the evidence did not support the appellant's claims of misrepresentation or breach of contract, and the vehicle was found to be of satisfactory quality at the time of sale.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal is refused.
  • The sheriff's decision is affirmed.