The Consumer Must Pay A Reasonable Price

Section 51 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that where a contract does not expressly fix a price or other consideration, and the contract does not say how the price is to be fixed, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the consumer must pay a reasonable price for the service.

Section 51 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that where a contract does not expressly fix a price or other consideration, and the contract does not say how the price is to be fixed, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the consumer must pay a reasonable price for the service. The court recently intervened in such circumstances where the Claimant, a qualified mechanic of over 30 years, was compelled to issue proceedings in the County Court when a customer (Defendant) failed to pay his invoice for repair work completed by the Claimant, which was £3500 for a replacement reconditioned engine and associated work.

When the Defendant’s car was taken to the garage for repair, the engine was in a non-repairable state due to overheating. The Defendant had failed to have his car serviced for over 18 months and 28,000 miles. The Claimant advised the Defendant they would install a reconditioned engine and the Defendant agreed to this. The Claimant carried out the work and the Defendant collected the vehicle professing to have only a portion of the sum owed. The Claimant allowed the Defendant to pay £700 of the invoice and take the car on the promise the invoice would be settled in full the following week.

The Defendant subsequently failed to pay and ignored follow up requests by the Claimant who issued a court claim. When the claim was issued, the Defendant submitted a defence along with a counterclaim that the work was
defective and that he did not, therefore, owe the amount claimed.

The district judge first considered the issue of the agreement between the parties. There was no written record of what was agreed about price or quotation. The parties’ recollections of the discussions varied. However, the judge concluded that a complete quote of between £1500-£2000 was given for the engine and considered it unrealistic that the job could have been undertaken for a lower sum.

The parties had exchanged text messages and there was no message from the Defendant expressing surprise or disagreement on receipt of the invoice noting the quantum. There was just a discussion about payment terms upon which, in the view of the judge, the Claimant was unusually generous. The absence of a message from the Defendant saying: “Hold on. We agreed X price.” was inexplicable, if there was an agreement of a lower price as the Defendant now alleged. The judge found that in the circumstances where he could not find there was any explicit binding quote, and as there was a dispute over the amount, it was for the court to assess what a reasonable figure was for work undertaken.

The judge had some concerns about the invoice which the Claimant could not account for and stated that the practice of adding an uplift to purchased parts is morally questionable. This involves actively representing on the invoice that an item has been charged at cost when it has not. If this is done, found the judge, a trader crosses the line into actively misleading the customer. The judge deducted £200 from the bill accordingly. The judge, however, found the invoice total of £3500 was not unreasonable nor excessive and made judgement for the Claimant in the sum claimed and ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s costs.

By Polly Davies – Legal Advisor at Lawgistics