A Regional Sales Manager who had high expectations for his brand new $378,100 BMW 550i was disappointed with his purchase after forking out a small fortune for the car and tried to sue the Car Dealership Performance Motors to get his money back complaining that they had misrepresented the car and breached contract.
In order to determine if some of the buyer's complaints were valid, High Court Judge Chan Seng Onn took the car for a test driver personally to see if it really "sounded like a helicopter" as claimed by the buyer.
Among other things, the buyer, Mr Chan Chee Kien, complained that the car was making too much noise from a "propeller sound" a "knocking noise" a "pulsating sound" and more.
The buyer had been demanding a brand new replacement or a full refund for the car which he purchased in 2010.
There were 12 minor defects which he identitied in the first 14 months and he had repeatedly taken the car to the Performance Motors' workshop to get these issues addressed.
In the end, Justice Chan dismissed the complaint explaining that of the 30 complaints raised about the car, 18 of them were either not present or detectable, or they were not actually defects and were instead part of the normal characteristics of the car.
In particular, the plaintiff (the buyer) had complained that the car was excessively noisy.
On this issue, Justice Chan noted that at no point during the sale of the car did the buyer express that he wanted a silent car and at not point did the seller, Performance Motor, indicate such properties.
There had been no misrepresentation at the time of the sale. In the end, he dismissed the complaint and ruled that the buyer was not entitled to a replacement or refund.
In his judgement, Justice Chan explained that it was a difficult decision to make as it was not clear cut. He noted that the 12 actual minor defects may have cumulatively resulted in an unsatisfactory product but it was still ok by a "reasonable person's standards".
He noted that Mr Chan had subjectively high standards and he had sympathy for him as the buyer had clearly forked out a lot of money and therefore expected a flawless product. However, the law looks at the objective satisfactory standard and not what Mr Chan felt personally.
In order to determine if some of the buyer's complaints were valid, High Court Judge Chan Seng Onn took the car for a test driver personally to see if it really "sounded like a helicopter" as claimed by the buyer.
Among other things, the buyer, Mr Chan Chee Kien, complained that the car was making too much noise from a "propeller sound" a "knocking noise" a "pulsating sound" and more.
The buyer had been demanding a brand new replacement or a full refund for the car which he purchased in 2010.
There were 12 minor defects which he identitied in the first 14 months and he had repeatedly taken the car to the Performance Motors' workshop to get these issues addressed.
In the end, Justice Chan dismissed the complaint explaining that of the 30 complaints raised about the car, 18 of them were either not present or detectable, or they were not actually defects and were instead part of the normal characteristics of the car.
In particular, the plaintiff (the buyer) had complained that the car was excessively noisy.
On this issue, Justice Chan noted that at no point during the sale of the car did the buyer express that he wanted a silent car and at not point did the seller, Performance Motor, indicate such properties.
There had been no misrepresentation at the time of the sale. In the end, he dismissed the complaint and ruled that the buyer was not entitled to a replacement or refund.
In his judgement, Justice Chan explained that it was a difficult decision to make as it was not clear cut. He noted that the 12 actual minor defects may have cumulatively resulted in an unsatisfactory product but it was still ok by a "reasonable person's standards".
He noted that Mr Chan had subjectively high standards and he had sympathy for him as the buyer had clearly forked out a lot of money and therefore expected a flawless product. However, the law looks at the objective satisfactory standard and not what Mr Chan felt personally.
