Decision On Claim For Repairs To Taxi

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31113, 16 July 1966, Page 20

Decision On Claim For Repairs To Taxi

The plaintiff, Haines Motors, Ltd., motor engineer (Mr J. F. Burn), in a claim for the supply and fitting of a reconditioned motor in a taxi and for other repair work was awarded £350 11s as the cost of the work done on March 1, 1963, in a reserved judgment given in the Magistrate’s Court by Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M. The defendant, G. A. Smith, a taxi-proprietor (Mr G. S. Brockett, with him Mr L. M. O’Reilly), was awarded £343 12s 6d on his counter-claim for further repairs to the taxi which was carried out in another garage, and for loss of earnings while the taxi was off the road being repaired. Mace Engineering, Ltd. (Mr A. Hearn), the suppliers of a short assembly engine block to Haines Motors for installation in the taxi, was cited as a third party to the action as a result of the counterclaim. The Magistrate said the evidence was that the car had been used for a journey of 1200 miles after the fitting of the reconditioned motor. It was found on the second job, after being returned to work as a taxi, that water was escaping round the cylinder head and steam was issuing from the engine. The taxi was taken to Haines Motors where a new gasket was installed and Smith at the same time complained of oil leaks and loss of power. About four months after the reconditioned motor had been installed the taxi was again returned to Haines Motors, who removed the motor from the vehicle and delivered it to Mace Engineering. An examination of the oil in the motor revealed the presence of grit and small stones of a highly abrasive nature. In September, 1963, Haines’ solicitors wrote to Smith stating that Haines Motors was not prepared to do any further work on the taxi unless its original account was paid, and it would not admit

any claim for loss because the firm was satisfied it had not been negligent Smith had then had the taxi repaired at another garage. Smith’s defence to Haines’s claim and the grounds for the counter-claim were negligence on Haines’s part or alternatively a breach of warranty. The Magistrate said that after considering the evidence he did not think it necessary for him to decide the question of negligence. He found that there had been a warranty, at least implied, that the motor would be fit for use in the taxi, and that on the evidence the motor did not reach the necessary standards and there had been a breach of warranty. In the counter-claim Smith had claimed £152 12s 6d from Haines Motors for the cost of remedying the defects in the motor and £397 3s lOd as loss of earnings. The Magistrate said the £152 12s 6d was the actual cost of the work done by the garage which had finally repaired Smith’s taxi and that the work done was both necessary and reasonable, and he allowed that section of the claim. He also allowed £l9l for loss of earnings. He disallowed a claim by Smith for £163 Ils as mileage allowance for running-in the motor after the initial installation of the reconditioned motor.

Dealing with Haines’s claim against Mace Engineering in respect of the counter-claim, the Magistrate said Haines’s allegations against Mace Engineering could be summarised as: that the short assembly block was defective, that the foreign matter in the motor was the fault of Mace Engineering, and that the failure to fit oil seals to the rear main. bearing or to do any proper adjustment work was the fault of Mace Engineering. The Magistrate said that Haines Motors had failed to establish its claim against Mace Engineering in any of the matters alleged.