The client commenced proceedings alleging misrepresentation and defects in machinery she purchased. She is representing herself and relies on online translation and research tools. An application to strike out the claim is currently outstanding.
The first issue concerns the Consumer Rights Act, under which the client does not qualify as a consumer because the contract was entered into by a business. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act, no unfair term has been identified. The Sale of Goods and Services Act may arguably apply, but the client has provided no evidence demonstrating that the machines were unfit for purpose and has not obtained any expert report. The alleged breach of contract fails to identify any specific contractual term that was broken or any unilateral right to return the machines. Finally, the client’s allegations under the Fraud Act are speculative and unsupported by admissible evidence.
Counsel advised that success depends on establishing a viable legal foundation supported by concrete evidence rather than merely filing an N244 application. The client was directed to supply a copy of the Defence together with expert or documentary evidence regarding the machines’ fitness for purpose. Counsel cautioned that, without addressing these deficiencies, the client risks incurring the opposing party’s costs should she seek to amend or settle the claim. It was strongly recommended that the client retain professional representation on a full-time basis to avoid further procedural missteps and to preserve her prospects of success.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy