Alan McCoubrey against Park's of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCCAMP 29 (25 January 2026)

Alan McCoubrey against Park's of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCCAMP 29 (25 January 2026)

The court found the vehicle was of satisfactory quality, commensurate with its age, price, and mileage at delivery. The defect did not exist at delivery, and the engine failure was caused by the pursuer's failure to maintain adequate oil levels. Therefore, the pursuer was not entitled to reject the vehicle or claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] SCCAMP 29
Parties
Pursuer: Alan McCoubrey; Defender: Park's of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited (T/A Park's Peugeot)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
pursuer's claims dismissed; defender assoilzied
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Consumer Rights, Implied Terms, Rejection of Goods, Durability, Burden of Proof
Consumer Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Consumer Rights Implied Terms Rejection of Goods Durability Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan McCoubrey

Pursuer

Park's of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited (T/A Park's Peugeot)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at delivery under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether a defect existed at the time of delivery
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was entitled to reject the vehicle and claim a refund under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the vehicle was of satisfactory quality, commensurate with its age, price, and mileage at delivery. The defect did not exist at delivery, and the engine failure was caused by the pursuer's failure to maintain adequate oil levels. Therefore, the pursuer was not entitled to reject the vehicle or claim a refund under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Court Disposition

pursuer's claims dismissed; defender assoilzied

Orders

  • Repels the pursuer's pleas in law
  • Sustains the defender's first, second and third pleas in law