Is he a party to the contract?

page1

There is a customer Mr X who brings his car into Garage A to have his car fixed. Garage A cant diagnose the problem so they send the car to Garage B. Garage B book the car in under Garage A name and address (they dont know of the existence of Mr X). B diagnose the problem and fit a new part.
2 years later there is a problem with this part, car booked in with Garage B again under the name and address of Garage A but this time with Mr X contact details.

Mr X wants to sue Garage B for fitting a faulty part.
Is he a party to the original contract when the part was fitted, bearing in mind the car booked in under Garage A name and no mention of Mr X made.

Thanks.

coylemj

I don't think so, the transaction between garages A & B is incidental to things as far as Mr. X is concerned, he has only transacted business with Garage A so has to pursue them for possible damages as in law they supplied the goods to him regardless of how or where they originated from.

FreudianSlippers

Yep, X goes to A to get the stuff fixed. Whatever happens between A and B after that is incidental and more of a concern for A.

NUTLEY BOY

No contractual nexus between X and B. No action based on contract between X and B.

If B's work caused injury or damage to X (e.g. defective repair of brakes leading to a crash) X would have a stateable case directly against B in tort.

A might have contractual rights over and against B but that is of no concern to X as he has no contractual privity there. Modern Irish practice in this type of situation is for A to tell X that it is not their fault and to take it up directly with B. NO WAY - stick it to A !

page1

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If B's work caused injury or damage to X (e.g. defective repair of brakes leading to a crash) X would have a stateable case directly against B in tort.

Thanks i wasnt 100% sure. The definition is he must be a "stranger to the consideration" - does this mean payment? What if Garage A paid garage B directly using X's money?

What about suing in tort for pure economic loss?

Victor

Mice in bottles of beer come to mind.

However, car parts do wear out and it must be asked, was it reasonable for the part to have worn out after two years, taking into account the length of time and the use of the vehicle?

page1

You wouldn't really expect the part to wear out again so quickly. The fact it has worn out for same reason would indicate something X is doing ie driving style or lack of servicing is causing the problem. It's very unlikely there were 2 parts fitted four years apart and the same small component in each wore out without it being an external factor caused by X.
If it was a faulty part it would have been apparant long before now.

Carawaystick

page1 wrote: »

Thanks i wasnt 100% sure. The definition is he must be a "stranger to the consideration" - does this mean payment? What if Garage A paid garage B directly using X's money?

What about suing in tort for pure economic loss?

Cash (and Money) is fungible, once A gets it off X, it's no different to any other money.