- Mar 14, 2005
- 18,396
- 3,676
- 50,935
I wholeheartedly agree that sellers should be made to honour their legal obligations under the CRA.
But in this case for the reasons I have already expressed several times, you have to show the goods are not fit for purpose, and that is where your case is weak because you cannot prove you have not allowed something to damage the caravan, and that is what your AWS engineers has also implied.
It's a question of the balance of probabilities - if every caravan (and I mean every one) of that design exhibited the same fault that would point to a design flaw or possibly a material flaw, But the fact that some caravans of that design do not suffer the same problem is strong evidence against your claim of it being "not fit for purpose"
By all means if you feel you do have a case then pursue it, but I will be delighted for you, if you win it completely.
But in this case for the reasons I have already expressed several times, you have to show the goods are not fit for purpose, and that is where your case is weak because you cannot prove you have not allowed something to damage the caravan, and that is what your AWS engineers has also implied.
It's a question of the balance of probabilities - if every caravan (and I mean every one) of that design exhibited the same fault that would point to a design flaw or possibly a material flaw, But the fact that some caravans of that design do not suffer the same problem is strong evidence against your claim of it being "not fit for purpose"
By all means if you feel you do have a case then pursue it, but I will be delighted for you, if you win it completely.