The Judge says ETM not fit for intended purpose

[DonWillson]

Andy in the UK took his Volvo dealer to small claims court. He was the second owner of a car with 60,789 miles. The car was well out of warranty and the following gives the details. Note that he used the argument that the goods was not fit for the intended purpose and did not last as long as the part it replaced. You might try his arguments in your own court.

Andy has given me permission to spread the word. Watchdog has a copy as well as others. When he mentions the Appendix, I presume he is referring to documents I have included at http://vexedvolvo.org.

Don Willson for VEXED
VEXEDvolvo.org
[email protected]
_______________________________
Andy says,
"Whilst I am not a legal expert I am happy to give any information that I can to help anyone who wants to take legal action. I would always advise them to take legal advice as well."

Anyway the details:
_______________________________________________
Court : Horsham County Court
Claim Number : 6QZ59691
Judge: District Judge Taylor
Claimant: Andrew Worthington
Defendant: Hapstead Gatwick UK

Claim:

My case was based on the sale of good act 1989 and the following statement was presented as my evidence:

When purchasing my Volvo V70 from Hapstead Volvo, safety and reliability were both stated as key requirements for my purchase. The salesman at the time assured me that I had nothing to worry about with a V70. Ironically he also advised me to opt for the new shape V70 as this was more advanced and safer, what I did not know was that this model was the first fitted with the Electronic Throttle Module (ETM).

On the 22nd of July 2006 I started to experience problems with my Volvo V70, whereby the car was misfiring and the message