2 weeks ago
14
Hall of Justice, Port of Spain. - FORMER PNM minister Jerry Narace has lost his claim for the full cost of a luxury Mercedes-Benz S Class vehicle or the thousands he spent to have it repaired by the dealer.
Narace, through his company Investment Managers Ltd (IML), of which he is executive chairman, filed a counterclaim after the High Court, in November 2023, granted summary judgment to Sterling Service (Battoo Bros) Ltd for recovery of $68,843.85, which it claimed IML owed for service repairs.
Sterling Service had sued IML for an unpaid repair bill, and then-High Court judge Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell granted judgment in its favour, ordering Narace’s company to pay $68,843.85 and $35,766.63 in interest, along with $13,580.36 in costs.
Investment Managers was also permitted to amend its counterclaim, which was heard in a brief trial before Justice Frank Seepersad on January 7.
At the start of the trial, Seepersad denied IML’s application for an adjournment because Narace could not attend court because of laryngitis.
His witness statement was tendered into evidence, and testifying for his company were his corporate secretary Andrea Lal and Mikhail Ramsumair, an independent mechanic who serviced the vehicle when Narace, in 2020, complained about long-standing mechanical issues with the vehicle from the time of purchase in 2010.
Testifying for Sterling Service were Peter Owen, its workshop manager and Christopher Samuel, an independent expert.
Narace said the vehicle was purchased in May 2010 for $500,000, and shortly after, it experienced several issues, including engine breakdown, excessive noise, issues with the engine control unit, upstream O2 sensor issues, oxygen sensor, airmatic system compressor for air suspension, control arm, strut, air suspension strut and ignition switch.
These issues persisted for 11 years, although the vehicle was not extensively used. He said there were times when he drove it, and it would break down, refusing to start, causing him embarrassment.
“I have always been dissatisfied with the use and performance of the vehicle since purchase”
According to Narace, there were several attempts to repair the vehicle after spending significant sums, but it still did not work properly.
Narace said he suffered great loss, inconvenience and embarrassment due to the poor condition of the vehicle since purchase, and he never got to enjoy the driving experience, luxury or comfort associated with a Mercedes-Benz.
In its counterclaim, IML contended that Sterling Service was negligent, breached the conditions of the sale agreement and failed to provide reasonable skill when repairing the vehicle, and failed to ensure the vehicle was of merchantable quality. It sought either $500,000, representing the purchase price of the vehicle, for breach of contract or, in the alternative, the $297,056.33 spent for repairs.
In his ruling, Seepersad noted IML never rejected the vehicle and it remains in its possession.
“The evidence also shows, based on the various invoices, that from 2016 up until 2019, the vehicle would have been taken in at approximately 18 times, and every time the vehicle was repaired, it was received back by the customer, payment was made on account of the invoice for the work which was done, and there is absolutely no record of complaint by the customer that the work was defective, negligent, inappropriate or that the customer was dissatisfied with the service which was provided.”
Seepersad said IML’s counterclaim was filed after Sterling Service filed its claim for non-payment for a July 2019 invoice.
“And, although there was a non-payment with respect to that particular invoice
The record before the court reveals that the defendant actually took the vehicle back for repair in 2020.
“The burden of proof that the work effected on the vehicle was defective or that the vehicle was
not of merchantable quality rests with the claimant on the counterclaim, who asserts that either the vehicle was not of merchantable quality, or the work was defective or negligently performed.”
He said IML failed to prove the vehicle was not of merchantable quality or that the repairs by the dealership were defective. Seepersad held that IML’s witness inspected the vehicle many years after the various repairs were done and had not provided details on claims that it was not properly maintained.
He said, based on the evidence on IML’s counterclaim, he was “unable to conclude that this vehicle was not fit for purpose.”
In deciding the case, Seepersad said IML had “not discharged a requisite burden of proof, and the court is unable to conclude either that there was a breach of the Sales of Goods Act,” as contended.
He also noted that “given that problems started six years after the vehicle was acquired and remains in possession of the claimant to date, that there would have been some attempt at rejection of the goods, and there is absolutely no evidence to that effect.”
“Similarly, with respect to the work that was effected, it does not appear to the court that any of the servicing and repairs that were done from 2016 to 2020 were unusual, or that the customer, after each repair, registered opposition with what had been done.
”In fact, the evidence suggests that the bills were paid and the vehicle was brought back
on subsequent occasions…for different issues and not necessarily for the same issue over and over again.
“The only part that seemed to have been changed with some consistency over a two-year period was the V-belt, but the court lacks the requisite evidence as it relates to whether that was a necessary replacement on those three occasions.”
In dismissing its counterclaim, Seepersad ordered IML to pay Sterling Services costs but granted a 28-day stay of execution on its payment.
Aaron Chinibas represented IML while Daniel Nancoo represented Sterling Services.
English (US) ·