Question for the legal beagles

[martin]

Question for the legal chaps...or any one else for that matter...

The story of my engine failure this summer was well documented ni prev posts.. All paid for by SSL except one small bit...about 300 pounds. Have letter from EP Barrus saying. Yes we are aware of outstanding claim and have spoken to Power Marine (Europe), they say tough ...we paid SSL and they gone bust so go get it from recievers..

I say..no way!. Not my fault they gave money to an agent and agent lost it. Me the customer, has not received warranty money so could not have lost it ..so no need for me to reclaim it.

What d yer think m'luds..

 

[Bergman]

Don't know the answer but I wish you the very best of luck

Got a sort of feeling you will need it

Really do hope I'm wrong

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Sorry, Martin, dont remember the precise circumstances of your engine failure but, if your purchase contract was with SSL, then it is they who should honour the warranty unless there is a specific condition in the warranty stating that the engine manufacturer is responsible for honouring the warranty.
Sounds to me like you were dead lucky to get your money back before SSL went pear shaped and maybe you should put the 300 quid down to experience

 

[jfm]

Re: Not clear

Hard to answer, need clearer explanation of legal arrangements between the parties. I understand SSL and EP Barrus, but what's the exact position of MPE and what documentation do you have that shows there's a contract between you and them?

 

[hlb]

Sorry. If I read corectly. SSL were your agents. So there fore acting on your behalf. If they've gone bust, then tough. Just be thankfull most of the job has got done.

Haydn

 

[martin]

Already feel very lucky to have got away with it...question is why! I should not have to feel lucky ...

.. I just can't believe that an industry can be this badly structured in favour of big companies and not customer. Ultimately it comes down to the manufacturers..they make the products, they structured the industry, they appointed the dealers, they should look after the customers. We paid big money for their products..when they fail they should not hide behind layers of company's. Simple as that in my book.

They told me today, I had no chance, as they had just won a similar case where a guy had lost a claim for the costs of an entire engine.... ? made me feel great to be a boat enthusiast that did!

Ah well at least I have the satisfaction of wasting their time..so far must have cost them more in emails and letters than if they had just paid up.....

 

[hlb]

Sorry Martin it's got nothing to do with them. Its the Law. Your contract if I under stand your position is with SSL ( Or who ever). Thats who you did the deal with, so their responcible. Just the same as me going into Currys for a washing machine. If it breaks its their fault. They sort you out. Now Currys might have a claim on the Manufacturer. But thats between them and nothing to do with you. So your claim is on who ever you bought the goods off.

Haydn

 

[martin]

Re: Not clear

Original letter from SSL to me saying they had spoken to MPE and money would be paid. MPE also say that they paid 300 pounds to SSL, to give to me in payment of my transportation costs. SSL went bust. EP Barrus took over main agency of product so I asked them for the money. They said go see liquidators. Called liquidators and no surprises here they never call back..so went back to EP barrus and then to MPE. MPE said no chance.. we paid SSL yor problem now sunny. My argument is Why? ...I never gave the money to them so why am I trying to get it back..

At the end of the day the only contract I have is n tonnes of metal in the engine bay with manufacturers name plastered all over it and a 3 yr manufacturers warranty. It was only 6 months old when it went bang...

 

[jfm]

Re: Haydn, other structures are possible

Haydn that's not always true. I follow what you say, but it is possible for the dealer (SSL) to sell a product to the customer together with a mnaufacturers warranty. In this case, the dealer is acting as agent for the manufacturer and a direct contractual relationship is then established between the customer and the manufacturer. This is common with luxury goods like a Rolex or something. I'm not saying that happened here, the original post is not clear, but if it did happen that way then martin has a direct claim on MPE.

 

[jfm]

Re: Not clear

See my post above re haydn. What matters here is whether you have a direct contractual warranty claim against MPE. You might, but it's not clear from your post. I have bort many mercury engines and will look at my documents at home. If you do have a direct contract with MPE, then pursue them. It sounds like you do, else why would they have written that letter, that letter could be very damaging to their case as it seems to admit they owed you money. The only question then is, did they discharge the debt they owed you by giving money to SSL (which would be the case if SSL were your agent), or not. you have to look at the small print to decide that but you may have a case. You have to be more precise about the legals here.

 

[martin]

yup! your probably right in that case ...but how about a car...if i buy a car and the engine fails i don't have to go back to the company who sold it to me to get the money do I? I can go to any Ford dealer? cos the warranty is with the manufacturer not the dealer?

 

[jfm]

Exactly. You have to establish (1) is there a manuf warranty and (2) if yes, did MPE discharge their debt to you by giving money to SSL, or not

 

[martin]

Re: Not clear

Would be much obliged as have read them myself and its all gobbledy gook to me.. As for SSL being my agent how can that be? I didn't appoint them...when the engine broke I was told by te Mercruiser manual to ring thier number...so I did..they sent another company (Pilkingtons) to fix it on their behalf...they did a blindin job and have niothin but praise for them. Doubt if they got paid though.. So how is SSL my agent?

I have two letters. one from EPBarrus saying "with regard to the transportation costs MPE state that they did credit SSL with a sum of money towards this claim and advise you to recover from reciever' and one from SSL saying ' MPE have agreed to pay out for transporttaion costs...cheque being raised..." last words heard from them.

 

[PGD]

quite right, but the retailer will always try and blame the manufacturer and refer you to them rather than sort it out, gets you out of their face for a bit - you just need to get tough with your equivalent retailer - if they are who has gone bust then you'll be towards the bottom of the creditors list. If they have not gone bust try looking into agent and principal law, as your agent they have certain things to comply with - just can't remember what they at present.

hope it works out

peter

 

[tcm]

capitalsm again

I see your point,but prefer it as it is.

The big business is a limited company, protecting the shareholders and directors against unlimited liabilty and chucked out on he street on account of being audited so you can see their accounts and judge for yourself their position. If didn't have this, then no entrepreneur wd dream of having a go to provide a better service or better product cos of massive risk. Downside is that when it goes wrong, you are bottom of the list.

 

[hlb]

Re: Not clear

I think I see what your saying, SSL are MPE's agent? Hm! Maybe. Lets put it the other way round. Suppose it had been the manufacturer that had gone bust and not SSL. SSl could not pass the buck and say oh sorry, they've gone bust, so nothing to do with me! As I understand it, no contract can over rule British law. Sale of goods act. Now if problem was over £30,000 I might be tempted to fight the pro's and con's. On the slim hope of wining. But first it's £80 for the small claims court and then he's got to prove to a layman judge, something which on the surface sounds to fly in the face of SOGA. If you remember my tale about the speakers some weeks back. The shop sighted manufactures evidence to me. Stating abuse. I sued the shop. £ 800 in the post next day. Now sueing for the £80 court costs. Open and shut case as every one said. But surly it cant work both ways round.

Haydn

 

[hlb]

Re: Not clear

The plot thicken's.
Ah SO.
Maybe not your agent then. Sorry its difficult when the evidence comes out in bits and pieces.

Haydn

 

[Guest]

I'm no leagle eagle, I just repair the bits that we are talking about but I would have thought that the engine manufactuter should stand any more cost after the closure of Simpson Lawrence etc as not to create anymore bad publicity, also I presume that Sealine themselves could help out as well because a lot of Sealine owners always seem to go back for another one in later years, bit like having a Saab car or dare I say it a SKODA, actually there not that bad these days just a VW with adifferent badge, keep at them as a matter of principle not the cost, back to rip off Britain again I think.

Paul js.

 

[martin]

Boat in question is a Princess. But agree with principle and thoughts on Sealine.

 

[jfm]

Re: Agency law

Haydn that's not completely correct. If the manufacturer had gone bust instead of SSL, SSL could tell the custmer to get lost provided it was made clear to the customer at time of purchase that SSL was merely an agent as regards the warranty. But at least customer can see all cards on the table and decide whether he wants to buy the product. On the other had, if the agent status of SSL is not disclosed, then the customer can sue EITHER the agent or the principal, though not both. Basically, you have different rights depending on whether the agency was disclosed or undisclosed. All perfickly fair imho. Anyway, looks to me like martin has a claim against MPE