Mechanic Repair Failures
You contacted a service centre in respect to having body work done to your vehicle.The mechanics represented that they had the experience and expertise to complete the desired body work.Following the return of your vehicle and payment you discovered numerous and serious deficiencies with the repairs and damage to your vehicle.As a result of the damages and deficiencies you spent time and monies for parts repairing the subject vehicle.
Common issues faced by consumer;
a) misrepresenting their ability to perform the envisioned contract and the services which form its basis
b) misrepresenting their authorization to perform the envisioned contract
c) failing to provide the agreed services in a proper and workmanlike fashion
d) damaging the subject vehicle.
The conduct of the mechanic in repairing the subject vehicle can and are also negligent insofar as;
a) the mechanic, its agents and employees knew or ought to have known they did not have sufficient training and/or expertise to do the requested diagnosis of the vehicle
b) they knew or ought to have known that the testing they did on the vehicle was damaging to same and not appropriate
c) they knew or ought to have known that the condition of the vehicle when returned was dangerous and inoperable due to the mechanical interference they had submitted same to.
Case law that outlines the damages that can be claimed for negligence and/or breach of the contract and are well outlined in the case of Lefrancois v Ottawa Chrysler Dodge, 2014 CanLII 54172 (ON SCSM)
Damages that could be awarded generally are as follows;
a) the monies paid by the customer to the credit of the mechanical repairs done improperly and/or negligently by the mechanics
b) the cost to the customer to repair the damages caused by the mechanics
c) costs of parts that had to be purchased
d) loss of quiet enjoyment
e) possible punitive damages if Court feels misconduct or fraud was involved.
A number of factors must be considered when considering damages in the matter presently at issue;
The total balance of monies paid by the customer to the mechanic are clearly accessible as damages however these monies will be offset by any benefits the customer obtained despite the breach of contract and/or negligence. In other words if the painting was fine he cannot get the monies back for same. If there were some mechanical parts or service benefits he cannot claim those funds, they will be essentially off set against the losses or damages.
It is submitted that as the customer did the work himself the value of his time over and above the parts will be subject to being valued by the Court. It is suggested that this is why the questions to the mechanic must include an opinion as to the value of the work done by the customer vs the cost of having a mechanic do it. This will aid in establishing the damages and potentially demonstrating the customer’s mitigation of damages generally.
c) Loss of Quiet Enjoyment/Punitive Damages
Both are discretionally damages and dependant on whether the Court is satisfied that the delay impaired the customer’s ability to enjoy the car and/or that the mechanics’ conduct was such that it was oppressive, high handed or fraudulent in nature.
It is submitted that the customer has a clear case for breach of contract and negligence which can be established by presenting sufficient evidence to establish that the mechanics made the requisite representations and warranties either express and/or implied and or in the alternative breached its duty of care to the customer in even attempting to do mechanical repairs on the subject vehicle.
You may also be interested in: