Louis-Fernand v Roserie Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Hariprashad-Charles, J. |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 2004 HC 55 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | SLUHCV 0524 of 2001 |
| Date | 30 November 2004 |
High Court
Hariprashad-Charles, J.
SLUHCV 0524 of 2001
Mr. Alvin St. Clair for the claimant.
Mr. Tyrone D. Chong QC with him Ms. Patricia Augustin for the defendant.
Damages - Sale of vehicle — Malfunction — Latent defects — Vehicle not suitable for purpose for which purchased — Damages
This action arises as a result of an alleged breach of a Warranty and Sale Agreement under the Commercial Code, Sale of Goods Title VI.
Before attempting to deal with the issues raised in the claim, it is essential that I outline the facts of this case. Most of what I now state reflects the uncontradicted and unchallenged evidence of the parties. To the extent that there is a departure from any agreed facts, then what is expressed must be taken as positive findings of fact made by me.
The Roselle Company Limited (‘the defendant”) is a dealer in used and reconditioned vehicles in Saint Lucia. On 5th September 2000, the defendant sold to the claimant, Derek Louis-Fernand a used Mitsubishi Gallant 1995 model car (“the vehicle”) for the sum of $42,500.00. The sale was evidenced by a Limited Warranty and Sales Agreement dated 5th September 2000 and signed by the parties.
By virtue of the said Agreement, Mr. Louis-Fernand agreed to accept the vehicle on the following terms and conditions namely:
-
(1) The Purchaser has inspected the above-mentioned vehicle and accepts same in the condition as provided by the Vendor.
-
(2) The Vendor agrees to provide a Limited Warranty on the vehicle for a period of 3 months (90 days) or for 3,000 miles (5,000 km) whichever is sooner from the date of purchase. This Warranty covers the Engine and Transmission of the vehicle only….
-
(3) The Purchaser agrees that in the event of a malfunction of the vehicle it will be returned to the Vendor at the place of purchase i.e. Vieux Fort Industrial Estate for correction by the Vendor's Technical Personnel. The Vendor at no time will accept liability if it can be proved that the vehicle was tampered with prior to being brought to the attention of the Vendor during the Warranty period.”
Shortly after its purchase, Mr. Louis-Fernand installed a Greddy Trust turbo timer, a stereo set and an alarm system (“the components”) on the vehicle without bringing that to the attention of the defendant.
Mr. Louis-Femand alleged that on Saturday, 14th October 2000 and during the currency of the warranty, the vehicle encountered a transmission malfunction. On Monday, 16th October 2000, he informed the defendant of the alleged transmission malfunction and returned the vehicle to the defendant's Castries office.
A week later, the defendant informed Mr. Louis-Fernand that it would not accept responsibility for the repair of the said transmission malfunction because Mr. Louis-Fernand tampered with the vehicle.
Subsequently, Mr. Louis-Fernand requested the reimbursement of the full purchase price. He alleged that the transmission was faulty from the start and was a latent defect that could not have been detected at the time of the purchase of the vehicle.
The defendant remain steadfast in its decision alleging that the installation of the turbo timer sent conflicting messages to the vehicle's computer system thereby causing transmission malfunction.
By letter dated 12th December 2000, Mr. Louis-Femand again wrote to the defendant alleging that there was no link between the installation of the turbo timer and the transmission. He also provided the defendant with information taken from a Mitsubishi Motors website showing a recall on Mitsubishi Motors vehicle, of which his vehicle was included for transmission faults.
The defendant did not respond to Mr. Louis-Fernand's letter and as a consequence, he brought these proceedings against the defendant for special damages totaling $51,044.88 including the purchase price of the vehicle, interest on the loan taken, loss of use for 45 days and costs.
The only factual issue to be resolved is whether the installation (proper or otherwise) of the components on the vehicle was the cause of the transmission malfunction. An analysis of the two expert witnesses will assist in this regard. Both parties brought their own expert witness to testify on their behalf. Mr. Greg Gaston, a certified (ASE) Automobile Technician testified on behalf of Mr. Louis-Fernand and Mr. Denis Edwin, a Motor Mechanic by profession who has been working in that field for in excess of 30 years testified on behalf of the defendant. The evidence given by each of the expert conflicts in substantial particulars.
The defendant contended that the malfunction of the transmission was directly related to the installation of the components for the following reasons:
-
(i) The extra load brought on by the components (together with its incompatibility and improper installation) exceeded the manufacturer's specification.
-
(ii) The extra load (for which the vehicle was not designed to withstand in the first instance) altered the power output both to the engine and the transmission.
-
(iii) In the absence of the correct re-programming of the Programme Logic Controller (PLC) to compensate for the altered power output brought on by the new demands of the components resulted in an overload on the PLC causing a power differential which improperly engaged the transmission and ultimately resulted in the transmission failure.
It is true that when Mr. Gaston visited the defendant's premises to inspect the vehicle, the transmission and the components were not on the vehicle. Learned Queen's Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Tyrone Chong submitted that Mr. Gaston was therefore in no position to ascertain the problem.
In my view, if the transmission were on the vehicle when Mr. Gaston inspected it, he would have been in a better position to make a finding as to the real cause of the transmission malfunction. But that does not mean that Mr. Gaston could not make a finding even in the absence of the transmission. At paragraph 4 of his witness statement, he stated as follows:
“I inspected the connections of the turbo timer; these said connections have nothing to do with the transmission control module which controls the transmission and the engine. Rather, it is an electrical device which controls the switch and is therefore completely separate from the transmission. It is therefore my finding that the transmission failure in the 1995 Mitsubishi Gallant Sedan 2000cc in question, could not have been caused by an electrical problem from the turbo timer. A description and explanation of the operations of the turbo timer is clearly defined in exhibit A. Exhibit B gives a description and shows the operation of the auto transmission control unit (TCU). Exhibit C shows the description and operation of the automatic transmission. Exhibit D shows the appropriate procedures for road testing a transmission, which was not followed by the respondent's mechanic, while Exhibit E shows the line of vehicles produced by Mitsubishi motors which are prone to transmission problems.”
At paragraph 5, Mr. Gaston stated that upon receiving the query from Mr. Louis-Fernand, he went online to source information from www.transonline.com. He provided documentary information which showed that the transmissions in vehicles like the one Mr. Louis-Fernand bought, were faulty.
I am impressed by Mr. Gaston's expertise and his evidence was sound and refreshing. I preferred it to the evidence given by Mr. Edwin who was unconvincing and unimpressive and gave enough cogent reasons for the Court to conclude that his evidence was bereft of truth. Firstly, Mr. Edwin asserted that the components were the cause of the transmission malfunction and that the reason the transmission malfunctioned was because of the “enormous amounts of energy” these components draw “from the vehicle's electrical system” when in use. However, when asked under intense cross-examination by Mr. Alvin St. Clair, as to the amount of power each of the components actually draw from the battery when in use, Mr. Edwin faltered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial