Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
treone

E39 M5 MV Disputes Tribunal

Recommended Posts

Yep but i think the $2000 for "use of vehicle" should not have been deducted from the original amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good outcome, and I agree with @hotwire

 

Who paid for the repair work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with above and here is Herald:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12056334

Can't understand why the tribunal took Hibberd's valuation of "low 30's" into consideration.  Clearly anything coming out of that guys mouth has no credibility.  They should have taken the actual obtained valuations and worked with those, and not deducted a further $2k.  If the repair is well documented and carried out by reputable company then there is no reason why this car can't go on to live a long and happy life and now valued at an appropriate point.  The "stigma" may well dilute over time.  It's a great looking M5, just needs euro plates, a number plate surround, and original grilles :)

A relief of sorts for you Max. Well done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but he declined offer of 35k and is trying to sell it to that lady who joined for 40k.

and looks like decision was made a month ago.

easy 10k profit there aye?

 

edit:

[8] Mr Flaws says that the vehicle is worth significantly less because of this undisclosed history. Mr Flaws has now applied to the Tribunal, claiming that he was misled about the vehicle’s history and seeking to recover the purchase price plus compensation of $15,000.

 

12 hours ago, hotwire said:

Yep but i think the $2000 for "use of vehicle" should not have been deducted from the original amount.

[44] In fixing the actual damages to be awarded to Mr Flaws, I must then take account of the fact that he has owned the vehicle for 16 months, over which time it has been driven approximately 6,000 kms. Mr Flaws has obtained value from this vehicle during that time, and I would not be doing justice by the parties if I failed to take account of the value of that use. However, I must also acknowledge that a well-maintained BMW M5 does not depreciate significantly in value. Mr Hibberd acknowledged this during the hearing, and agreed that such vehicles hold their value well. As a result, although the vehicle has been used by Mr Flaws, that use will not have led to a substantial depreciation in the vehicle’s value. 
[45] Taking account of those factors, I consider it appropriate to reduce any damages award by $2,000 to reflect the benefit Mr Flaws has received from his use of the vehicle. Consequently, I consider that Mr Flaws’ loss, as a result of being misled about the history of this vehicle, was $7,850.

 

I think the $2000 deduction is more than fair and the judge has taken careful consideration in this judgement according to the above extract.

 

 

Edited by qube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the law took a fairly appropriate course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, treone said:

Congrats on the positive outcome:

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZMVDT/2018/79.html

Can I be banned from my own post? 😊 Just kidding and genuinely sincere in my congratulations - a great outcome!

 

the car dealer in question on Trademe

 https://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/used-cars/ford/auction-1640418995.htm?rsqid=d2275ae8ea1b410980afc869890b4f2a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×