Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Judge dismisses buyer’s claim in lawsuit against Performance Motors

SINGAPORE — Despite some sympathy for a regional sales manager who had high expectations of a S$378,100 BMW car that turned out to have 12 minor defects in 14 months, a High Court judge has dismissed his claim that the car was of unsatisfactory quality.

Singapore's Supreme Court. TODAY file photo

Singapore's Supreme Court. TODAY file photo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — Despite some sympathy for a regional sales manager who had high expectations of a S$378,100 BMW car that turned out to have 12 minor defects in 14 months, a High Court judge has dismissed his claim that the car was of unsatisfactory quality.

Mr Chan Chee Kien bought a BMW 550i in 2010 from Performance Motors and, after driving it for about two months, sent it back to the distributor’s mechanics multiple times for various defects. The top-of-the-line car remained in the workshop for much of the following 11 months, until Mr Chan decided he no longer wanted it and sued Performance Motors for misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Justice Chan Seng Onn, who had taken a test drive in the car as part of the hearing, dismissed Mr Chan’s claim, saying he was “clearly wrong” to claim a new replacement car and demand a refund.

While Mr Chan complained of 30 defects, the judge dismissed 18 of them because they were either not detectable or reproducible, or could be addressed with some greasing or setting adjustments, or were just part of normal operating characteristics.

On one of the complaints about suspension noise, Justice Chan said he had to pay “very careful attention and strain my ears to detect the very faint sound” during the test drive, adding that the sound would not be noticeable on most occasions. The car was driven several times over various humps during the test drive.

Of the remaining 12 complaints, the judge said they could be broadly classified as defects, but he found that they had been satisfactorily resolved by Performance Motors.

These included complaints about propeller sound, a “knocking noise” and “pulsating sound”, though the judge said he could not detect for himself any of these specific sounds during the test drive.

“It must be borne in mind that (Mr Chan) had not told (Performance Motors) ... that he wanted only a car that is close to being absolutely noiseless, and neither has (the car dealer) marketed the car as such,” Justice Chan wrote, in his judgment released yesterday.

Mr Chan had reportedly said the car sounded like a helicopter two months after he bought it.

The judge assessed that of the 354 days the car was in the workshop between October 2010 and January 2012, about one quarter was spent troubleshooting and on remedial work for the actual defects. The remaining time was due to Mr Chan failing to collect the car from the workshop, for which the judge let Performance Motors claim S$4,700 from Mr Chan.

Though he considered the 12 actual defects relatively minor, the judge said the cumulative effect could well be evidence of such bad workmanship as to amount to unsatisfactory quality, though not to a reasonable person in Mr Chan’s position.

“This is not an easy conclusion to arrive at on the facts, as it is not such a clear-cut case,” wrote Justice Chan, who found the balance to “tilt just slightly in favour” of Performance Motors.

The judge said he had some sympathy for Mr Chan, as he had bought an expensive car and naturally had very high expectations of its quietness and comfort.

“It did not meet his subjectively high standards. But that is not the test to determine if he is entitled to reject the car and claim the return of the purchase price,” he added.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.