TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
A LUXURY car dealer has been ordered to repay one of its customers the cost of a C Class Mercedes Benz he purchased in 2013, plus interest.
Justice Frank Seepersad made the order against Sterling Services Ltd who sold Danley Maharaj a defective vehicle.
In his ruling, the judge bemoaned the little regard paid to customer service and the inadequate laws to address the issue of consumer protection.
“For too long consumers have been exploited in this society but they have also become complacent and have forgotten that the power lies with them since they ultimately determine whether or not they will part with their money.
“Given the current economic climate, that decision must be exercised with caution and unscrupulous decisions by merchants such as unjustified price increases, the unwillingness to treat with legitimate consumer queries or the absence of after purchase service, should be rejected.
“Consumers need to forcefully reject any unfair, inequitable or unacceptable treatment. The consumer/ merchant relationship must be viewed as a symbiotic one and should always be characterised by fairness and respect,” Seepersad said.
Maharaj purchased the C Class Benz in August of 2013 and upon making the final payment of $390,749.50 he received the car but within a week he began to hear knocking sounds from the engine and between November 2013 to July 2014, he returned the vehicle on eight occasions for repairs.
Still experiencing problems with the vehicle even after the purported repairs, Maharaj sought to rescind the purchase contract with Sterling Services Ltd in August 2014.
“No reasonable person who purchased a brand new C Class Benz could have expected to be faced with such problems and it’s rather unfortunate that the pleasure that should be derived from owning such a prestigious vehicle was not experienced by the Claimant,” the judge said in his ruling.
“Business efficacy would suggest that the market to which luxury vehicles are aimed is a demanding one which expects a vehicle that is near perfect. The vehicle supplied to the Claimant was fraught with problems and the defects associated with it were fundamental,” the judge added.
He said it was unfortunate that Sterling Services Ltd, did not adopt a different course in this matter.
“It may very well be that because it is the sole agent for this type of luxury vehicle, that the absence of competition, results in a circumstance where the buyer’s hand is in the mouth of the proverbial lion and no meaningful attempt is therefore made to deal with the legitimate concerns of customers.
Business efficacy and the protection of the brand name should have resulted in the offer of a replacement vehicle and every effort should have been made to accommodate the Claimant,” he added.
Justice Seepersad found that the substantial defects in the vehicle compromised Maharj’s use and enjoyment and impacted the vehicle’s reliability on the road
Les Bain wrote:What's Sterling's definition for "extensive use"?
Les Bain wrote:What's Sterling's definition for "extensive use"?
tr1ad wrote:nice nice ... hopefully this sets the tone for other owners experiencing similar problems with firms
once consumers continue to stand up for their rights there can only be good coming from this judgement moving forward
EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Why did it take so long in the courts though? shouldn't this have been rectified in a matter of months rather than years?
EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Les Bain wrote:What's Sterling's definition for "extensive use"?
Pulling Bull.
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2016-04-19/car-firm-ordered-refund-buyer-benz
Car firm ordered to refund buyer for defective Benz
Automobile dealer Sterling Services Limited has been ordered to pay almost $400,000 in compensation to a customer to whom it sold a defective Mercedes Benz to in 2013.
Danley Maharaj received the refund on the entire purchase price of the C-Class Mercedes Benz, after High Court Judge Frank Seepersad ruled that the company breached its contract by failing to properly address the defects experienced after purchase in August 2013.
According to the evidence in the lawsuit, Maharaj was forced to return the vehicle eight times during the first six months due to a persistent “knocking noise” emanating from the engine. Maharaj sued the company after they refused his request for a replacement.
The company counter-sued Maharaj as they claimed that the damage was caused by his extensive use. It also sought to recover $39,000 in repairs it claimed it was forced to do on two courtesy cars which were provided to Maharaj while his vehicle was being repaired.
In his written judgment delivered in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Seepersad ruled that Maharaj had a legitimate expectation that he would receive a vehicle in perfect working order when he purchased it from the dealership.
Seepersad said, “The purchaser of a new vehicle can reasonably expect that such a new vehicle can be driven safely with an appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and with reliability and its use can reasonably be accompanied with the pride that is associated with the vehicle’s external and internal appearance. With a luxury brand such as Mercedes, the expectations would be more heightened.
“No reasonable person who purchased a brand new C-Class Benz could have expected to be faced with such problems and it’s rather unfortunate that the pleasure that should be derived from owning such a prestigious vehicle was not experienced by the claimant,” he added.
Seepersad also described the company’s treatment of Maharaj’s complaints as unfortunate.
“It may very well be that because it is the sole agent for this type of luxury vehicle that the absence of competition results in a circumstance where the buyer’s hand is in the mouth of the proverbial lion and no meaningful attempt is therefore made to deal with the legitimate concerns of customers,” Seepersad said.
He also suggested that the case should serve as an example to the Government on why it should amend laws to provide additional support to consumers and to consumers who fail to stand up for their rights.
“For too long consumers have been exploited in this society but they have also become complacent and have forgotten that the power lies with them since they ultimately determine whether or not they will part with their money. Given the current economic climate, that decision must be exercised with caution, and unscrupulous decisions by merchants such as unjustified price increases, the unwillingness to treat with legitimate consumer queries, or the absence of after purchase service should be rejected,” Seepersad said.
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Why did it take so long in the courts though? shouldn't this have been rectified in a matter of months rather than years?
Seems kinda fast by local court standards. Basically two years. Case back up and adjournments push the length of time for decisions to be made.
skylinechild wrote:Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2016-04-19/car-firm-ordered-refund-buyer-benz
Car firm ordered to refund buyer for defective Benz
Automobile dealer Sterling Services Limited has been ordered to pay almost $400,000 in compensation to a customer to whom it sold a defective Mercedes Benz to in 2013.
Danley Maharaj received the refund on the entire purchase price of the C-Class Mercedes Benz, after High Court Judge Frank Seepersad ruled that the company breached its contract by failing to properly address the defects experienced after purchase in August 2013.
According to the evidence in the lawsuit, Maharaj was forced to return the vehicle eight times during the first six months due to a persistent “knocking noise” emanating from the engine. Maharaj sued the company after they refused his request for a replacement.
The company counter-sued Maharaj as they claimed that the damage was caused by his extensive use. It also sought to recover $39,000 in repairs it claimed it was forced to do on two courtesy cars which were provided to Maharaj while his vehicle was being repaired.
In his written judgment delivered in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Seepersad ruled that Maharaj had a legitimate expectation that he would receive a vehicle in perfect working order when he purchased it from the dealership.
Seepersad said, “The purchaser of a new vehicle can reasonably expect that such a new vehicle can be driven safely with an appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and with reliability and its use can reasonably be accompanied with the pride that is associated with the vehicle’s external and internal appearance. With a luxury brand such as Mercedes, the expectations would be more heightened.
“No reasonable person who purchased a brand new C-Class Benz could have expected to be faced with such problems and it’s rather unfortunate that the pleasure that should be derived from owning such a prestigious vehicle was not experienced by the claimant,” he added.
Seepersad also described the company’s treatment of Maharaj’s complaints as unfortunate.
“It may very well be that because it is the sole agent for this type of luxury vehicle that the absence of competition results in a circumstance where the buyer’s hand is in the mouth of the proverbial lion and no meaningful attempt is therefore made to deal with the legitimate concerns of customers,” Seepersad said.
He also suggested that the case should serve as an example to the Government on why it should amend laws to provide additional support to consumers and to consumers who fail to stand up for their rights.
“For too long consumers have been exploited in this society but they have also become complacent and have forgotten that the power lies with them since they ultimately determine whether or not they will part with their money. Given the current economic climate, that decision must be exercised with caution, and unscrupulous decisions by merchants such as unjustified price increases, the unwillingness to treat with legitimate consumer queries, or the absence of after purchase service should be rejected,” Seepersad said.
nice .....
now lets see if we cant get the local dealerships to do warranty work on roro when theres a global recall.
the mentality of "yuh didnt buy it from me" has to stop
nemisis wrote:explain this logic to me? If i didn't supply you with said defective product why should i give a rats ass if a recall was issued?? serious question eh!
eliteauto wrote:nemisis wrote:explain this logic to me? If i didn't supply you with said defective product why should i give a rats ass if a recall was issued?? serious question eh!
Because you're the representative of the company's brand and marque in the country, doesn't matter how I acquired the brand, what matters is I own it, many manufacturers esp of luxury goods think that way, it's a Trini thing to think otherwise. Poor business practice
Habit7 wrote:This is going to be bad for other Sterling customers because when your vehicle has anything over a day repairs they will give you a very appropriate courtesy vehicle until they sort it out. But for a while now ppl have been scratching, banging and even crashing the vehicle and expect not to pay for any damages. They really try to go the extra mile but I guess in this case they didn't want to take back the vehicle and give a full refund. Now they going and mover rel brisk with any courtesy cars.
eliteauto wrote:nemisis wrote:explain this logic to me? If i didn't supply you with said defective product why should i give a rats ass if a recall was issued?? serious question eh!
Because you're the representative of the company's brand and marque in the country, doesn't matter how I acquired the brand, what matters is I own it, many manufacturers esp of luxury goods think that way, it's a Trini thing to think otherwise. Poor business practice
j.o.e wrote:
UDFR ...... Yuh ain't buy it by me , you ain't service by me .... But you running to me for recall? Using up my manpower and resources ? And competing for recalled parts with my actual customer ..... Nah. If I give you a Bligh feel glad but don't expect squat.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 guests
