- May 7, 2012
ProfJohnL said:Hello Ray
Thingy has now admitted the caravan was “pre loved” so the old new stock scenario is out the window.
I can't agree with your analysis of Thingy's situation. Principally as he has owned the second hand caravan for 6 months, the burden of proof is now on his shoulders to support any CRA claim.
The problem with tyres is they are considered to be a consumable. They are designed with the fact that as they travel they will be worn away, and because of the nature of the environment in which they are located they will be subjected to all sorts of agents that will cause then to deteriorate over time. Tyres will be subjected to unintentional abuse (wrong tyre pressure, kerbing, or being stored in direct sunlight etc) that might cause increased wear or even damage that may shorten its life expectancy.
These are all variables that no Dealer can guarantee against except by replacing tyres as a standard practice on second hand vehicles.
All the seller of second hand vehicles has to ensure is the tyres are roadworthy.
Trying to prove a second hand tyre was faulty six months after it was sold raises a number of other questions. If it is claimed the fault is a case of gradual deterioration with the inference that it should have been visible 6 months earlier, Why then has it taken 6 month for it to come to light? It surely should have been picked up during the owners normal pre travel checks.
The dealer could easily challenge the claim by questioning who much the tyre has been used by Thingy, and how can he be so sure he has not caused the deterioration in the same way that a previous owner may have done. Its also likely the dealer would have some evidence of a pre sale check list which might include a tyre check.
Too much time has passed allowing for greater uncertainties. I think it would be very difficult to pursue the dealer for supplying faulty tyres without prior evidence to show the tyres WERE faulty at the point of purchase.
Hi prof, I understand your argument about the burden of proof but given the tyres are cracking up after six months that in itself would suggest they were faulty from the date of sale. If there had been bulges or damage that would be a different matter and if there is evidence of problems with these tyres on the web that should be conclusive, or at least if I was on the other side I would not be suggesting defending it.
As Thingy says he is unlikely to take it further though the argument is probably now academic.