The defendant brought a case stated in its defence of allegations under the 1968 Act arising from the sale of a Fiat Punto. It was said to have advertised ‘Drive away a new Fiat Punto for a certain price. The car offered was pre-registered. The only effect was the loss of two month’s warranty.
Held: The fact that no specific car was mentioned did not excuse any misdescription, and ‘there was, in the context of this case, a material difference between describing a vehicle as ‘brand new’ and describing it merely as ‘new’. A pre-registered vehicle could not, in my judgment, properly be described as ‘brand new’. The appeal failed.
Judges:
Sir Anthony May
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 3328 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rees v Munday QBD 1974
The defendant advertised in a motor trade journal, to sell a vehicle, which was ‘in first class condition throughout.’ In the same advertisement was the reference to it being of ’12 yard’ capacity.’ The Act applied differently according to whether a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Consumer
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.293948
