Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dbdb]

I think you will find that case law for 3rd party liabilities is they have to put you into the same position as you were before the accident happened and if this is more than the value of the car then so be it. This used to come up quite regularly in Honest Johns motoring column in Saturday's DT. His advice was if they don't pay up take it to the small claims court.

I'm sure if you do a search or ask the question on his website, you will get similar advice.

Correct

Thanks dbug this is an interesting legal point and your usual blind certainty has prompted me to look it up mate    

Undoubtedly the bit I have highlighted above is correct.  This is the 'status quo ante'.  However the status quo ante is most likely the market value:  there is a well-established rule that where goods are damaged, "the normal measure of damages is the market value of the goods, that is normally the sum of money which the plaintiff would have to pay in the market for identical or essentially similar goods.' H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages, 16th edn. at para. 1362.

This means that the part which I have marked in red above is wrong.  There is a lot of case law on this and you have to come up with pretty exceptional circumstances to get more than the reasonable market value. The cost of repair is allowed only if it is reasonable to repair. It would NOT normally be reasonable to repair the car where it is cheaper to buy a replacement (look up Darbishire v. Warran). 


This sums it up well:

Judgment: Lord Widgery and Lord Denning

“The distinction between those cases in which the measure of
damage is the cost of repair of the damaged article, and those in which it is the diminution in
value of the article, is not clearly defined. In my opinion each case depends on its own facts,
it being remembered, first, that the purpose of the award of damages is to restore the plaintiff
to his position before the loss occurred, and secondly, that the plaintiff must act reasonably to
mitigate his loss [emphasis added]. If the article damaged is a motor car of popular make, the
plaintiff cannot charge the defendant with the cost of repair when it is cheaper to buy a
similar car on the market. On the other hand, if no substitute for the damaged article is
available and no reasonable alternative can be provided, the plaintiff should be entitled to the
cost of repair.
Court of Appeal28 8.E.35.
Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd. v. Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd

Hope that helps and saves you wasting time on wrong advice

[henryd]

I think you will find that case law for 3rd party liabilities is they have to put you into the same position as you were before the accident happened and if this is more than the value of the car then so be it. This used to come up quite regularly in Honest Johns motoring column in Saturday's DT. His advice was if they don't pay up take it to the small claims court.

I'm sure if you do a search or ask the question on his website, you will get similar advice.

Correct

Thanks dbug this is an interesting legal point and your usual blind certainty has prompted me to look it up mate    

Undoubtedly the bit I have highlighted above is correct.  This is the 'status quo ante'.  However the status quo ante is most likely the market value:  there is a well-established rule that where goods are damaged, "the normal measure of damages is the market value of the goods, that is normally the sum of money which the plaintiff would have to pay in the market for identical or essentially similar goods.' H. McGregor, McGregor on Damages, 16th edn. at para. 1362.

This means that the part which I have marked in red above is wrong.  There is a lot of case law on this and you have to come up with pretty exceptional circumstances to get more than the reasonable market value. The cost of repair is allowed only if it is reasonable to repair. It would NOT normally be reasonable to repair the car where it is cheaper to buy a replacement (look up Darbishire v. Warran). 


This sums it up well:

Judgment: Lord Widgery and Lord Denning

“The distinction between those cases in which the measure of
damage is the cost of repair of the damaged article, and those in which it is the diminution in
value of the article, is not clearly defined. In my opinion each case depends on its own facts,
it being remembered, first, that the purpose of the award of damages is to restore the plaintiff
to his position before the loss occurred, and secondly, that the plaintiff must act reasonably to
mitigate his loss [emphasis added]. If the article damaged is a motor car of popular make, the
plaintiff cannot charge the defendant with the cost of repair when it is cheaper to buy a
similar car on the market. On the other hand, if no substitute for the damaged article is
available and no reasonable alternative can be provided, the plaintiff should be entitled to the
cost of repair.
Court of Appeal28 8.E.35.
Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd. v. Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd

Hope that helps and saves you wasting time on wrong advice

The bit that I have highlighted is relevant here too,Omegod has already said the car was a minter pre damage so it won't be easy to find another in similar condition will it

You seem to relish contradicting every post that dbug makes,its getting a bit tiring now

[MR MISTER]

The claim is settled to his satisfaction. Any further discussion is futile.

[dbdb]

You seem to relish contradicting every post that dbug makes

Oh no I don't

[MR MISTER]

The assessor said that he wouldn't go any higher than £117.50 for any omega, no matter what the condition. Jon said he'd seen them going on ebay for as much as £142, so they settled somewhere in the middle.

[omegod]

I may as well share should anyone else be in the same boat. After a long conversation during which he tried numerous times to find out what I had paid for the car and was told "market value for a mint one" he went away and called later on to say he felt the car was worth and we settled with a very generous cash offer in lieu of repairs and I keep the car without any cat d etc being placed against it. To say the car is free several times over wouldn't be an understatement as I bought it as a fixer upper and the repair cost was minimal. 

Repirs will be done by me with my machine polisher over the weekend and a new front bumper hopefully sourced in the right shade of silver.

Thanks again for the tips and advice they really where helpful and  we now know carwash disclaimers aren't worth a carrot

   

[jonathanh]

congrats- sounds like a good outcome for you.

glad you argued your case

[sassanach]

glad you got it sorted.

[Vamps]

Result........

[Rods2]

Well done, I'm glad you have got a good result, which will pay for your time and effort to make the car pristine again.