Analysis and Refutation of Specific Claims in Document

Paragraph 1

The response to this paragraph could be amended to reflect the exact detail provided under paragraph 1 of Document A. The current response shows the business of Timeless Car Auctions Limited in past tense.

Paragraph 2

The response to Paragraph two is incorrect altogether. This paragraph has two incorrect claims made by Mr. Hart.

Firstly, it is regarding the date of the contract.

a. The oral contract between Gemma Bryson and Mr. Hart was not entered on 11 September 2020. On this date, Gemma Bryson visited Mr. Hart where Mr. Hart inquired about whether or not both the cars could be placed on the 2 December auction. They discussed the valuation of the cars.

b. The response should mention the communication on 11 September 2020 between the parties where Gemma Bryson informed Mr. Hart that placing the cars on 2 December 2020 might be possible. Gemma Bryson informed Mr. Hart that she would check and confirmed whether the cars in questions could be placed in the auction on 2 December 2020.

c. The reply should mention Gemma Bryson telephone message on Hart’s voicemail on 12 September 2020 confirming that the cars could be placed on 2 December’s auction. This was the date of the oral contract.

Secondly, it is regarding the cars.

a. The oral contract was for both the cars, 1950 Bentley and 1947 Alfa Romeo and not just 1950 Bentley alone.

Paragraph 3

The response to paragraph 3 can add details to specify why the claim is denied. The contract stated that the reserve price for Bentley was £340,000 and for Alfa Romeo was £420,000. This disproves the claim in paragraph 3.

Paragraph 4

The response could specify the relevant part of the contract that Timeless Car Auctions Limited undertook all necessary reasonable skill and care. This includes:

a. placing the Bentley cars for auction on 2 December 2020 at the agreed reserved prices.

b. conducting all necessary preparations for the auction, as per paragraph 2 of the terms set out in the letter dated 14 September 2020.

Paragraph 5

The response to paragraph 5 can add details to specify why the claim is denied.

a. the Bentley was sold at the agreed reserve price of £340,000.

b. the reserve price of £420,000 was for the Alfa Romeo.

Hence, the contract was not breached as agreement.

Paragraph 6

The response to paragraph 6 could be based on responses to paragraphs 4 and 5 that:

a. the contract was for the Bentley

b. that Timeless Car Auctions Limited placed the Bentley in the 2 December auction with the agreed reserved prices

c. that Timeless Car Auctions Limited undertook all of the necessary preparations for the auction, as per paragraph 2 of the auction terms

This will show that there was no breach of contract.

In response to the sub-claims under paragraph 6:

6.1. Timeless Car Auctions Limited cannot admit this claim. The response should specify that:

a. The claimant is incorrect.

b. The representation of the Bentley in the catalogue was as per notes shared by the claimant.

c. Timeless Car Auctions Limited relied on the note as the claimant did not permit independently verification of the cars.

d. The note provided that the Bentley was installed a fully overhauled 4.5 litre engine in 2012.

e. As per the note, it was restored in 2002.

f. Gemma Bryan on 16 October 2020 shared with Mr. Hart the catalogue with information of the Bentley for his queries or amendments.

e. Mr. Hart on 19 October 2020 did not raise any issues or queries as to the information of the Bentley in the catalogue

6.2. Timeless Car Auctions Limited cannot deny this claim. The response should specify that Timeless Car Auctions Limited has included warranty terms in the catalogues as communicated with the claimant via the email dated 5 October 2020.

It should specify that the terms included no warranty to the buyer as to the quality, description, fitness and other such conditions related to the cars.

Thus, Timeless Car Auctions Limited indeed imposed the warranty on Style Vehicles Plc

Paragraph 7

The response could break up the claims under paragraph 7.

a. Timeless Car Auctions Limited should deny the claim of loss on the sale of the Bentley as the sale received the agreed reserved price.

b. Timeless Car Auctions Limited should not admit the claim of the Claimant being threatened as it does not have any knowledge about it.

c. Timeless Car Auctions Limited should not be responsible for the payment by the claimant of £50,000 to Style Vehicles Plc as the warranty terms stipulated that the buyer should satisfy themselves prior to sale as to the condition, description, or quality of the car.

Continue your exploration of An Applied Comparison of Gibbs Reflective Cycle and Scharmers Theory U with our related content.

Paragraph 8

Based on the reasoning given in the above, Timeless Car Auctions Limited should not admit particulars given in paragraph 8.

There was no loss of sale as the Bentley was sold at the agreed reserved priced.

Timeless Car Auctions Limited does not have any knowledge of the compensation paid to Style Vehicles Plc. Moreover, warranty terms relieve Timeless Car Auctions Limited from any liability.

Paragraph 9

Based on responses to paragraph 8 and above paragraphs, Timeless Car Auctions Limited should not admit paragraph 9 as there is no question of interest on damages.