Judge tells man he was foolish to purchase van in black dark

A MAN who purchased a Peugeot 1.9 diesel van in a private deal later decided not to use it due to defects, Trim Civil Court heard.

Keith Lynch, Courttown Bridge, Kilcock, Kildare, sued Barry Brennan, Tankardstown, Ratoath, in relation to the vehicle.

Keith Lynch told the court he needed a van to carry his tools as he was an electrician.  He looked through publications and saw the Peugeot 306 1.9 diesel van in 'Buy and Sell' on sale for s5,700.

He rang the number and spoke to Barry Brennan who gave him details such as mileage and told him it was in good, tidy, clean condition and mechanically sound. They met at a service station in Tankardstown, Ratoath, on a wet night. The claimant noticed the right-front wheel was slightly out of alignment. A body kit had been fitted on it.

When he asked had the vehicle been damaged, the defendant told him it had not been, to his knowledge, Keith Lynch stated.  He told the court he would not have bought it had he known it had been in an accident.

The vehicle appeared to be generally in good condition, the engine was ticking over fine. The thread was low on two tyres.

He said he took it for a test drive and noticed a bulb was lighting up on the dashboard. He said Barry Brennan told him it was to indicate slippery conditions. However, the plaintiff later found this was a fault in the ABS braking system. He had driven the car about one mile in the test drive.

He said it seemed to be working fine, but he was a bit worried about the light. When he arrived back at the filling station he said the battery was low. It emerged the car had been left idle for a couple of months, but the engine was constantly running.

They started bargaining on a price and eventually agreed on s5,300. He had paid a s50 deposit and paid the rest by bank draft. The whole transaction took five to 10 minutes.

He took it home and had it inspected the next morning.  After this check, he decided not to use it.

He had tried to contact Barry Brennan without success. He sold the car on for s1,600 and informed the purchaser of its faults. He had contacted the Department of the Environment (DoE) regarding a roadworthiness certificate, but there was no record of it in the recent period.

Cross-examined by a solicitor for Barry Brennan, who submitted that surely he would have used the brakes during the test drive, the claimant said he did not notice the ABS was faulty at that stage. He believed what the defendant told him. A friend of his had been supposed to come and give the vehicle the once-over, but could not.

It was a “hasty decision.” At no stage did the defendant tell him it was in a crash and he was not made aware of repairs done to the vehicle.

Judge Patrick Clyne suggested that, when one was buying a second-hand car, it was “common sense” to have someone inspect.  It was a five year-old vehicle. Keith Lynch said he had never had trouble before purchasing vehicles.

Consultant motor engineer and assessor, Maurice Veale, said he inspected the vehicle on 29th November, 2006 and prepared a report. It was a visual inspection with no dismantling.

Witness said there was evidence of repairs and repainting of the vehicle. The right-hand door was out of alignment, as was the bonnet.

Among problems he noticed was that a tyre was on the wrong rotation.

He reported that an impact had driven the chassis back into the right front floor and crushed it significantly. It was pushed back out but the floor remained crumpled.

He tested the ABS by braking very strongly. The brakes were working, but if one had to brake very severely it would not work.

The vehicle had not been taxed since 2005. He had no doubt that it would not have passed the DoE inspection. This test could not be taken without a tax certificate.

Asked would an ordinary person see the defects, witness said if it was on a hoist “yes” but not on the ground. He could not be specifically sure if the damage was within the period when the defendant owned it.

The vehicle looked attractive, he said. In his opinion, the repairs were not professionally done.

The court heard the wording of the advertisement was that it was “ a lovely car.” It did not say it was in perfect condition.

Barry Brennan gave evidence that the vehicle had been “souped up” with the kit.

He had decided to put the kit on the vehicle after it was crashed and got it moulded onto it. The vehicle had been completely resprayed.

He had met Keith Lynch at a filling station down the road from where he lived. The claimant looked all around the car, underneath the bonnet, at the wheels and in the boot.

He took it for a spin, came back and took a further look around the car. He said it was a nice car, a nice car to drive.

Witness said the claimant had said it was pulling slightly to one side. He (Brennan) said he thought this was due to tracking.

He told the court he had told Keith Lynch it had been crashed. He was driving it when it crashed. He did not carry out the repairs himself, it was repaired in Ashbourne.

The claimant gave him a s50 deposit. He got a phone call asking him would he take a bank draft and they arranged to meet. Witness had been a bit late. The claimant had a man and woman with him that night. They just walked around and looked at the car.

He said that if Keith Lynch had asked to have it professionally inspected, he would not have objected.

Cross-examined by counsel for Keith Lynch, Barry Brennan said he had hit a bank on the driver's side in the crash. The shocks had been replaced.

His girlfriend had a baby and the vehicle was no use to them.  He had not been using it for some time before the sale. The Peugeot had been his first car. He said the DoE test had been done in a centre in a Duleek garage as it was for commercial use. This centre did not supply a disc, but a small certificate. This was not in court.

The defendant's solicitor submitted that Keith Lynch had every opportunity to have the vehicle professionally inspected. He had no protection; he was obliged to inspect it. “There was no misrepresentation,” he stated.

Counsel for the claimant submitted that, on the balance of probabilities, it had been proven there had been a misrepresentation. There had to be a doubt regarding the evidence about the DoE certificate which was not produced in court.

Judge Clyne told Keith Lynch he was “an extremely naïve man.” He was foolish to have gone out in the black dark and bought a car. He hoped he now was older and wiser.

Having heard the evidence on both sides, Judge Clyne said he had to say there had been misrepresentation.

On the balance of probabilities, he was ruling in favour of the claimant, Keith Lynch, but advised him never to go out and buy a car in this state again.

He awarded him a decree for s3,942, with  costs/VAT and witness expenses/VAT.