alleged warranty over car engine rebuild

Jack Frost2020 · 23-10-2020 10:01am #1

Ok, back story. I rebuilt and fitted an engine for a person who blew the engine in his car. It was running great and 100% when it left my premises, told him it had a three month warranty. Five months later he rings me to say engine blown again so I told him bring it in so I can look and see what happened, bear in mind engine failure can be caused by any number of factors, and not down to something I did or did not do.

He did not bring in car, instead I received an (unregistered) solicitors letter containing lies, I rang the solicitor, caught him out in a couple of the lies, informed him I had instructed his client to bring back the car, which he did not do.

Fast forward six months, another unregistered letter from the same solicitor, stating he had a written statement from a friend of his client. This man had driven his client to my premises to pick up the car, and this man wrote in his written statement that he heard me tell the client there was a six month warranty.

Is this even a valid thing??? My friend said.....???
Any ideas? Thanks

Peregrinus · 23-10-2020 10:51am

1. Obviously you didn't at any stage put the warranty terms writing? You won't make that mistake again, so. Just sayin'.

2. You replied to the first solicitor's letter with a phone call, instead of in writing. You won't make that mistake again.

3. You replied to the first solicitor's letter before speaking to your own solicitor. You won't make that mistake again.

4. Did the first solicitor's letter mention the warranty at all, or mention its duration?

5. "Is this a valid thing?" Yes, it is. If you're trying to prove the terms of a contract that was made orally, then a witness to the making of the contract is a very handy thing to have, since he can give evidence as to what the parties said to one another. It;'s not conclusive, though. You might have other evidence to show that you don't give six-month warranties, perhaps one of your colleagues also overheard the exchange and remembers it differently. Plus, the fact that he didn't bring in the car stands to you; if he thought the car was under warranty why wouldn't he bring it in?

rock22 · 23-10-2020 12:06pm

Surely the car owner has protection under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 irrespective of any warranty you provided.

Pkiernan · 23-10-2020 12:10pm

rock22 wrote: »

Surely the car owner has protection under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 irrespective of any warranty you provided.

Only if the purchaser can prove that the service provided caused the second failure.

The SOGAS act is not a 6 year no questions asked guarantee.

nuac · 23-10-2020 12:47pm

Mod
Title amended for greater clarity

kirving · 23-10-2020 1:20pm

On the balance of probabilities - two engines went for some reason. Exceptionally unlikely.

More probable:
A) failure of another part which you are not responsible for (eg: blocked radiator, etc)

Driver misuse

rock22 · 23-10-2020 3:12pm

Pkiernan wrote: »

Only if the purchaser can prove that the service provided caused the second failure.

The SOGAS act is not a 6 year no questions asked guarantee.

But it is surely better than a 3 month warranty ?
Or are you saying the warranty is no questions asked guarantee?

Pkiernan · 23-10-2020 3:32pm

rock22 wrote: »

But it is surely better than a 3 month warranty ?
Or are you saying the warranty is no questions asked guarantee?

I'm saying that the SOGAS is not useful in this scenario.

Peregrinus · 26-10-2020 2:17am

rock22 wrote: »

Surely the car owner has protection under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 irrespective of any warranty you provided.

OP didn't sell the car, so if there is a claim that the car is not fit for purpose, of merchantable quality, etc, that's not a claim against him.

OP provided a service - rebuilding and refiitting an already-blown engine. Under SoGaSoS Act, the contract for the supply of this service is taken to include terms that:

- that OP has the necessary skill to render the service,

- that he supplied the service with due skill, care and diligence,

- that any materials he used in supplyin the service were sound and reasonably fit for purpose

- that any goods he supplied as part of the service were of merchantable quality.

OP could have expressly varied or excluded any or all of these terms when forming the contract with the customer, provide it was fair and reasonable to do so and provided the variation/exclusion was specifically drawn to the attention of the customer. But nothing in the OP suggests that any of these terms were varied or excluded.

So, bottom line: if customer wants to argue his case on the basis of the SoGaSoS Act, the onus is on him to show that the engine blowing again is the consequence of

- lack of skill on the part of the OP, or

- OP's failure to use skill, care and diligence when rebuilding/refitting the engine

- use of unsuitable materials or substandard parts in the rebuild/refit.

The mere fact that the engine blew up again doesn't, on its own, prove any of this. I'm not saying the customer can't prove it, but the onus is on him to do so. At the very least, he's going to have to pay some other suitably qualified person to examine the engine and see if they can identify something that was done wrong in the rebuild that would establish one of the above. And I was advising the customer I'd point out that paying another mechanic to disassemble the engine and examine in in that kind of detail in the hope of finding something like that might be throwing good money after bad.

Del2005 · 26-10-2020 2:35am

Peregrinus wrote: »

OP didn't sell the car, so if there is a claim that the car is not fit for purpose, of merchantable quality, etc, that's not a claim against him.

OP provided a service - rebuilding and refiitting an already-blown engine. Under SoGaSoS Act, the contract for the supply of this service is taken to include terms that:

- that OP has the necessary skill to render the service,

- that he supplied the service with due skill, care and diligence,

- that any materials he used in supplyin the service were sound and reasonably fit for purpose

- that any goods he supplied as part of the service were of merchantable quality.

OP could have expressly varied or excluded any or all of these terms when forming the contract with the customer, provide it was fair and reasonable to do so and provided the variation/exclusion was specifically drawn to the attention of the customer. But nothing in the OP suggests that any of these terms were varied or excluded.

So, bottom line: if customer wants to argue his case on the basis of the SoGaSoS Act, the onus is on him to show that the engine blowing again is the consequence of

- lack of skill on the part of the OP, or

- OP's failure to use skill, care and diligence when rebuilding/refitting the engine

- use of unsuitable materials or substandard parts in the rebuild/refit.

The mere fact that the engine blew up again doesn't, on its own, prove any of this. I'm not saying the customer can't prove it, but the onus is on him to do so. At the very least, he's going to have to pay some other suitably qualified person to examine the engine and see if they can identify something that was done wrong in the rebuild that would establish one of the above. And I was advising the customer I'd point out that paying another mechanic to disassemble the engine and examine in in that kind of detail in the hope of finding something like that might be throwing good money after bad.

Isn't a fault assumed to be a manufacturing defect, in this case the engine rebuild was defective, within the first 6 months and up to the service provider to prove it wasn't?

jetfiremuck · 26-10-2020 2:42am

3 months warranty, if it went in the 4th....tough luck. However I think you went towards a goodwill gesture and asked him to bring it back. He didnt. Solicitors are just that letters....an intent to take legal proceedings.

If his friend borrowed the car and wrung the nuts off it............. then what.....have you to guarantee that too

Peregrinus · 26-10-2020 2:51am

Del2005 wrote: »

Isn't a fault assumed to be a manufacturing defect, in this case the engine rebuild was defective, within the first 6 months and up to the service provider to prove it wasn't?

I'm not aware that there is.

But, in any event, if there is such a presumption, then presumably for a manufacturing defect you would sue either the manufacturer or the the merchant who sold you the vehicle - not the mechanic who later did work on the vehicle.

GerardKeating · 26-10-2020 1:15pm

Jack Frost2020 wrote: »

Ok, back story. I rebuilt and fitted an engine for a person who blew the engine in his car.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

On the balance of probabilities - two engines went for some reason. Exceptionally unlikely.

Is it actually two engines, i took it that the OP rebuilt the origional engine, but maybe it could be read either way.

Del2005 · 26-10-2020 3:12pm

jetfiremuck wrote: »

3 months warranty, if it went in the 4th....tough luck. However I think you went towards a goodwill gesture and asked him to bring it back. He didnt. Solicitors are just that letters....an intent to take legal proceedings.

If his friend borrowed the car and wrung the nuts off it............. then what.....have you to guarantee that too

Warranty is in addition to your consumer rights and that's up to 6 years. If the person wrecked the rebuilt engine it's up to the OP to proof as it's within 6 months of the work being done.

EU consumer legislation has provided a sort of ‘legal guarantee’ that entitles consumers across Europe to seek this redress when a good is faulty for a period of two years. Under Irish law, the limitation period is actually six years

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not aware that there is.

If a fault arises within the first six months of purchase, it is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery and it is up to the seller to prove otherwise or provide remedies

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, in any event, if there is such a presumption, then presumably for a manufacturing defect you would sue either the manufacturer or the the merchant who sold you the vehicle - not the mechanic who later did work on the vehicle.

Traders, as well as consumers, need to be aware that the sales contract is with the seller and so it is up to them to provide redress

The OP rebuilt the engine so they are the person that has to deal with it under consumer law. If it turns out that the parts where faulty it's up to the OP to chase up the supplier and they will dealing in a business to business issue so they don't have consumer law to back them up

All on the ECC site

Peregrinus · 27-10-2020 1:59am

This seems to confirm what I said - if there's a defect in the engine its the person who sold the engine that you sue. But the OP didn't sell the engine - he worked on it. The customer had previously bought the engine, as part of the car, from - presumably - a car dealer. If you want to argue that the repeated failure of the engine is the result of a defect in the engine, then it's the car dealer you sue, not the mechanic who repaired the engine after the first failure.

If, as part of the repair job, the OP supplied and fitted a new part and that part was defective, then you can sue the OP. He'd have to repair or replace the defective part for free. I don't think he'd have to repair or replace the entire engine, unless you could establish that he had been negligent - i.e. he used a part which he knew, or should have known, was defective.

rock22 · 27-10-2020 8:49am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This seems to confirm what I said - if there's a defect in the engine its the person who sold the engine that you sue. But the OP didn't sell the engine -...

If, as part of the repair job, the OP supplied and fitted a new part and that part was defective, then you can sue the OP. He'd have to repair or replace the defective part for free. I don't think he'd have to repair or replace the entire engine, unless you could establish that he had been negligent - i.e. he used a part which he knew, or should have known, was defective.

We don't know who sold the engine, this sentence "I rebuilt and fitted an engine"
could mean the op did supply a rebuilt secondhand engine.
In either case , as i pointed out before, the customer has protection when buying a service under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 - the hint is in the title.

But, importantly, the customer has deprived the op of an opportunity to examine the cause of the failure and attempt repair. So, perhaps he can just ignore as the solicitor seems unaware of consumer rights.

Peregrinus · 27-10-2020 8:52am

rock22 wrote: »

We don't know who sold the engine, this sentence "I rebuilt and fitted an engine"
could mean the op did supply a rebuilt secondhand engine.
In either case , as i pointed out before, the customer has protection when buying a service under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 - the hint is in the title.
Yeah, but SoGoSoS Act give different protections in the case of supply of a service than it does in the case of sale of goods. So it crucially matters which we are dealing with here.

rock22 wrote: »

But, importantly, the customer has deprived the op of an opportunity to examine the cause of the failure and attempt repair. So, perhaps he can just ignore as the solicitor seems unaware of consumer rights.

My guess is that solicitor is aware of them, and is aware that they won't give his client a remedy in this instance.

(Other possiblity is that client withheld car from the OP and took it elsewhere before consulting the solicitor.

Del2005 · 27-10-2020 10:39am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This seems to confirm what I said - if there's a defect in the engine its the person who sold the engine that you sue. But the OP didn't sell the engine - he worked on it. The customer had previously bought the engine, as part of the car, from - presumably - a car dealer. If you want to argue that the repeated failure of the engine is the result of a defect in the engine, then it's the car dealer you sue, not the mechanic who repaired the engine after the first failure.

If, as part of the repair job, the OP supplied and fitted a new part and that part was defective, then you can sue the OP. He'd have to repair or replace the defective part for free. I don't think he'd have to repair or replace the entire engine, unless you could establish that he had been negligent - i.e. he used a part which he knew, or should have known, was defective.

The customer blew their engine from the OP so it looks like they knew there was no fault from the original sale, the OP repaired the engine and repairs have to be permanent and the engine has now failed again.

They provided a service and that has now failed, which is when consumer law kicks in. The problem for the OP is that they need to proof it wasn't their work which caused the engine to blow again and this is why nixers aren't easy money. Even franchise dealers have engines fail after rebuilds.

MarkR · 27-10-2020 10:44am

Did the first letter mention the friend who just happened to overhear the warranty?

Lenar3556 · 27-10-2020 10:59am

Terms like ‘rebuilt’ would to me suggest a significant level of comprehensive overhaul, and it would not seem unreasonable to me that such a process would attract some degree of wholistic warranty.

Unless he attracts a significant premium, it may be more in the OP’s interests to ‘repair’ faults found in engines rather than this ‘rebuilding’ which the courts may see as different to a repair.

I.e even if a part has now failed that was original to the customers engine, it could be put to the OP that he should have replaced or repaired this too during the rebuild, given that it was clearly on its last legs.

ohnonotgmail · 27-10-2020 2:01pm

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Terms like ‘rebuilt’ would to me suggest a significant level of comprehensive overhaul, and it would not seem unreasonable to me that such a process would attract some degree of wholistic warranty.

Unless he attracts a significant premium, it may be more in the OP’s interests to ‘repair’ faults found in engines rather than this ‘rebuilding’ which the courts may see as different to a repair.

I.e even if a part has now failed that was original to the customers engine, it could be put to the OP that he should have replaced or repaired this too during the rebuild, given that it was clearly on its last legs.

that a part has failed does not imply it was clearly on its last legs.

Lenar3556 · 27-10-2020 5:48pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that a part has failed does not imply it was clearly on its last legs.

It could certainly be suggestive of it. If it was an additional failure of an original component, did he undertake any tests or verification of this component at the time of the rebuild? Should it have been incumbent on him to do so?

The primary difficulty I would see is the broad nature of the OP’s undertaking in rebuilding this engine. I certainly wouldn’t be in any rush to court, unless perhaps there was evidence of inappropriate or non typical use by the customer - for example racing.

Peregrinus · 28-10-2020 2:01am

The bottom line here, though, is that the OP was not selling goods; he was supplying a service. And, as already pointed out, the warranties implied in a supply of service are:

- that OP has the necessary skill to render the service,

- that he supplied the service with due skill, care and diligence,

- that any materials he used in supplyin the service were sound and reasonably fit for purpose

- that any goods he supplied as part of the service were of merchantable quality.

The fact that the engine blew up five months after the rebuild does not in itself prove that any of these warranties were breached, and the onus will be on the customer to show that they were. He's going to have to do two things - first, show what caused the engine to blow up. Secondly, show that that was a breach of one of the above warranties.

For example, he might have the car examined by another mechanic, who is prepared to give evidence that the engine blew up because part X failed. If part X is a part supplied by OP as part of the rebuild, he can then argue that part X's failure after so short a time is evidence that it was not of merchantable quality, wasn't sound or fit for purpose. But running this line of argument does depend on finding a mechanic who is willing to say that the cause was the failure of part X, and on part X being something supplied by the OP. Neither of which is a given.

What if the other mechanic says that it was part Y, and part Y was not supplied by the OP? Now you have to argue that a mechanic with the proper skill, care and diligence would have seen that part Y was degraded and in need of replacement, or that part Y would routinely be replaced in an engine rebuild by a competent mechanic. Again, you're going to need expert evidence on this.

Or, what if the other mechanic says there is no evidence that the failure of the engine was attributable to the failure of any component? Or of any poor workmanship in the rebuild? What if he says that he cannot say why the engine failed, or that he cannot rule out that the failure might have been caused by something that happened after the rebuild? If the mechanic says any of these things, customer is stuffed.

Bottom line; customer is going to have to lay out a signficant amount of money having the destroyed engine examined in detail by a mechanic of considerable expertise, in the hope that that examination will disclose a breach of SoGaSoS Act conditions by the OP, which it might very well not.

And this probably explains why, to judge from what we have been told of the solicitor's letters, customer isn't running this argument. He is arguing that the OP gave a six-month warranty on the rebuilt engine. OP concedes that he gave a 3-month warranty. Customer will produce a witness who says that he heard the OP give a six-month warranty. OP will counter this by pointing to evidence of his own practice/a trade practice of giving a 3-month warranty in these circumstances, and by impugning the creditibility of customer's witness. And that's what the case will turn on.

AndrewJRenko · 28-10-2020 2:10am

Op- did you source and provide the rebuilt engine? Or did the owner source it?

Jack Frost2020 · 14-01-2021 10:49am

Apologies for only getting back to this post now, have been busy with work etc. Thank you all for your replies, all very helpful may I add.
Just to recap, I originally told the customer to bring the car back to me so I could assess it, he didn't, instead getting a solicitor involved (bully boy tactics I believe as in doing inquiries about this 'gentleman' it seems he has form...a good man for sending the solicitors letters to get his way). Twice I informed the solicitor in writing I would take back the car to look at and assess the damage and if it was a fault on my part I would take care of it.

Last week I received yet another letter telling me his client is willing to "return the engine for a full refund". Now if I'm reading this correctly, he has the engine taken out and wants to bring it back expecting a full reimbursement, I could be wrong though, but why would the solicitor just not say he was willing to bring the vehicle back?

Another question I have is any letter I receive from the solicitor is in a plain envelope, their return address is not on it, is this ok? Also, the letters are poorly presented and written, grammar mistakes and spelling mistakes corrected in biro!

I really don't know what to do now, except write another letter, reiterating my original stance.... bring back the car and I'll take a look at it. I've been rebuilding engines for thirty years so I've a fairly good idea what causes engines to go bad by examining them in situ, whether it's parts failure or lack of maintenance on the owners part.
Thank you for any help in this matter

beauf · 14-01-2021 11:07am

All sounds very suspicious. Maybe it's not a scam but it's kinda looks like it.

yamaha4life · 14-01-2021 11:13am

Sounds a bit like the guy is going to try give you a blown engine from a scrap car of the same make model, did you take note of his engine number just in case this is the case?

Considering he didnt bring the car back id be very cautious id like to think 2/3 people would come back and give you the benefit of the doubt even if the 3 month warranty seems a little short but then again the customer could be wringing the cars newly rebuilt engine from cold every day for 3 months not checking oil levels of newly built engine which tend to use a bit bedding in.

So all in all there's alot of variables here the solicitors letters sound very unprofessional have you tried ringing them to make sure its legit, as others have mentioned be worth getting onto your own solicitor.

Gooey Looey · 14-01-2021 11:19am

Send them back a solicitors letter saying exactly what you've already said

the_pen_turner · 14-01-2021 11:32am

Did you fit the engine or someone else.

Muppet Man · 14-01-2021 11:39am

Was the solicitors letter on headed paper with a business address etc.?

Smells of fish tbh.

Jack Frost2020 · 14-01-2021 11:44am

So all in all there's alot of variables here the solicitors letters sound very unprofessional have you tried ringing them to make sure its legit, as others have mentioned be worth getting onto your own solicitor.[/QUOTE]

I called the solicitor after the first letter as the letter itself was written on the law firms stationary that had been photocopied... the solicitor is legit however on researching said solicitors firm, they really leave a lot to be desired, bad reviews, proven allegations against the firm etc, pretty shady in my opinion... bottom feeders at their finest.

Jack Frost2020 · 14-01-2021 11:49am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Did you fit the engine or someone else.

I fitted the engine, the owner blew the original engine in his car, I removed it, rebuilt it, new pistons, gaskets etc and reinstalled it.
My reading into the situation is he has now got someone else to replace the engine and wants to dump the one I rebuilt back to me, with no way of me seeing the condition of the car, i.e., the radiator, was it run without water, the state of the oil etc

Johnthemanager · 14-01-2021 2:27pm

Jack Frost2020 wrote: »

I fitted the engine, the owner blew the original engine in his car, I removed it, rebuilt it, new pistons, gaskets etc and reinstalled it.
My reading into the situation is he has now got someone else to replace the engine and wants to dump the one I rebuilt back to me, with no way of me seeing the condition of the car, i.e., the radiator, was it run without water, the state of the oil etc

If he has removed the engine, before he got an engineers report to Assess any "damage" with the engine in situ, I wouldn't even entertain him anymore.

Sounds dodgy to be honest, if the solicitor is crossing out spelling mistakes with a biro!

Is the phone number that of a registered solicitor, or just a mobile?

enricoh · 14-01-2021 2:37pm

I wouldn't spend a fiver on him with solicitors letters, ignore him. I wouldn't write back or anything, a spoofer hoping you'll crack.

You can get your phone records to show the dates of calls to verify your timeframe if needed.

Jack Frost2020 · 25-02-2021 3:41pm

Again thank you all for the replies.

I responded to the letter, telling the solicitor to inform his client to bring back the car so I could assess it (my third time asking for car to be brought back, twice in writing and once via telephone call)
Another solicitor letter today, (complete with spelling mistakes) telling me that due to the faulty engine, his client had to have it taken out and replaced with another one and I need to pay his client for the engine and come pick it up from his house....

I take offence to the line regarding the faulty engine, as it was 100% leaving my premises. I certainly can’t assess the engine now to see why it failed, it’s thrown in a corner somewhere and who knows what damage was done to it taking it out.
I am a reasonable person, I’m in this game with 40+ years of experience and if I has the car with engine in situ, I could tell a lot as to why the engine packed up, was the oil changed after 10k km like I told him to break in the rebuilt engine, was it run without water, how did the radiator look, etc etc etc. Might I also mention this person tows his livestock also, so weight of trailer/load can also be factored in, ie if the weight exceeded the recommended limit what’s to say he didn’t redden the engine??
If i determined the fault was due to an error on my behalf, I would 100% take care of it, however I was not given the chance.

I have not consulted with a solicitor on this as I was managing away by myself responding to the letters, but I’m wondering if I need to. However before I do, any ideas on how to respond to this latest shakedown?
Thanks

Seve OB · 25-02-2021 3:52pm

What a chancer.
OP I think you need a solicitor to write a letter back at this stage. I would imagine a good solicitor will point out all the legal aspects where your client has cocked up and absolve you of any liability.

Sounds like a nice fella anyway!

Jack Frost2020 · 25-02-2021 4:16pm

Thank you Seve OB, yes the man in question is a really nice fella...have since found out this is his MO, I’m not the first mechanic to get a solicitors letter from him, but I’m prob the first to stand my ground and not cave to his demands...

Jack Frost2020 · 06-10-2023 11:13am

Just getting back to this saga…. As I suspected all along, this was nothing but a complete shakedown from a despicable individual who destroyed the engine I replaced towing horse boxes which the car was clearly not designed to pull. The same man thinks nothing of sending solicitors letters to bully his way through life, heard he pulled a similar stunt with another mechanic prior to me working on his car. That poor mechanic caved and did whatever work yer man demanded, losing money.

The last letter I got from the solicitor was to demand I take the engine from the clients yard, at my expense, after he got someone else to replace it, and give him an undetermined amount of money for it. At this stage I decided to cease contact and wait for them to issue court proceedings.

Now here is the kicker….. on examining the solicitors letters, they start off describing the vehicle, eg. Toyota Avensis, registration 07-D-22224 (just an example), however the cars registration is 07-D-22225. The wrong registration on all the letters, which would be for a different vehicle altogether

Now, is it a stupid error on the solicitors part? You’d imagine they’d have the correct reg, or is it just what I thought all along, the threat of a solicitors letter and I would do anything for them.

PS, I have rebuilt and fitted approx 100 engines since then and not one returned back with any issues

Seve OB · 09-10-2023 10:55pm

Thanks for update

have they left you alone since?

Jack Frost2020 · 09-10-2023 11:27pm

Not a word from them since the last letter from February 2022, so I imagine case closed!!!

I guess all their threats of bringing me to court backfired, I was all set to go there, which I’d imagine they didn’t want, as I’m sure it would have got thrown out, over the incorrect registration number

enricoh · 10-10-2023 8:25am

Well done for calling their bluff. Hopefully they are down a few hundred from their solicitors letters- thatsif they were real ones!

Jack Frost2020 · 10-10-2023 8:24pm

Funny enough, the letters were real, as I called the solicitor involved. The letters were very unprofessional though, as if they were typed by a ten year old, spelling mistakes corrected in biro, poor grammar, laughable really coming out of a solicitors’ office. But then again when one of the solicitors in said office gets themselves struck off, kinda shows the calibre of people they are and represent.

I would be very concerned if I employed a solicitor engaging in sloppy work like this.

chrisd2019 · 10-10-2023 8:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121200614#Comment_121200614

Did you check with the law society and online ect, that the solicitor was genuine, not the car owners buddy with some mobile number?

Previously had an incident myself with such letters, where once I did some digging I discovered the solicitor was a friend who had done a law course and was impersonating a genuine solicitor by using a mobile number and a virtual mailbox as an address for correspondence. He also didn't seem to know about spell checker !

alleged warranty over car engine rebuild

Comments