ARTICLE
30 January 2015

What To Do When Your Vintage Lamborghini Suddenly Explodes

WB
Wedlake Bell

Contributor

Wedlake Bell logo
We are a contemporary London law firm, rooted in tradition with a lasting legacy of client service. Founded in 1780, we recognise the long-standing relationships we have with our clients and how they have helped shape our past and provide a platform for our future. With 76 partners supported by over 300 lawyers and support staff, we operate on a four practice group model: private client, business services, real estate and dispute resolution. Our driving force is to empower our clients by providing quality legal advice, insight and intelligence that enables them to achieve their goals whether personal or business. We are large enough to advise on the most complex matters, but small enough to ensure that our people and our work remain exceptional and dynamic. Building relationships is at the heart of everything we do.
How the law stands for the billionaire Foxtons founder claiming £1 million from garage after vintage Lamborghini explodes.
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

How the law stands for the billionaire Foxtons founder claiming £1 million from garage after vintage Lamborghini explodes

Two weeks ago, it emerged that Jon Hunt, the billionaire British property entrepreneur and founder of Foxtons, issued a High Court claim against HR Owen after his 1971 Lamborghini Miura exploded in flames less than a mile from where his son had collected it from a routine service by them.

Mr Hunt is claiming £700,000 in compensation plus damages for loss of enjoyment of the prestige vehicle, valued at up to £1 million, of which only 764 were made, and storage costs. Apparently, the vehicle's engine emitted a puff of white smoke, so Mr Hunt's son pulled the vehicle over and was advised by the garage to return the car. However, the engine soon caught fire causing substantial damage to the vehicle. Luckily, Mr Hunt's son escaped unharmed.

Mr Hunt says that HR Owen fitted the wrong type of spark plugs during the service of the car and that had a competent service of the vehicle been conducted the fire could have been avoided. So what is your protection if, say, your Cartier watch is damaged after repair?

The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 provides that 'in a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill.' This means that we can expect repair services to be undertaken with reasonable care and skill, which is reassuring, whether it is a Lamborghini or a Patek Phillipe watch.

To succeed in his claim, Mr Hunt will need to establish that, among other things, HR Owen did not carry out the work competently, exercising reasonable care and skill, and to a standard expected of such a garage. Individuals can also expect such services to be carried out in a reasonable time and for a reasonable charge.

When reasonable care and skill is not exercised, the remedy lies in breach of contract.

Claims for breach of contract resulting from less than competent repairs, such as that issued by Mr Hunt, are not unusual, but are often settled outside of court in an attempt to avoid negative publicity particularly where high profile individuals, such as Mr Hunt, are involved.

There are practical considerations when obtaining services. Prior to obtaining services you should:

  • Consider whether staged payments are appropriate. If so, agree with the supplier when the payments will become due, for example on the completion of certain elements of the work;
  • Agree with the supplier in writing precisely what it is obliged to do; and
  • Request a written, fixed, quote.

An additional safeguard which can be taken by a wary buyer is to pay for the repair or service by credit card. If the amount paid on the credit card is between £100 and £30,000 a consumer will be afforded protection. This places responsibility on the card provider as well as the dealer if something goes wrong. Accordingly one is entitled to take action against the dealer, the card provider or both.

While the above steps can be taken for the purpose of protection from any later disputes, such steps are unlikely to have prevented the position Mr Hunt has found himself in.

Previously published in Spear's Magazine

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More