Perera Hoodwinked

A company who is the sole franchised agent for a famous brand of Japanese Hybrid vehicle in

Sri Lanka, introduced a new model vehicle specially to permit holders and gave a guarantee as to

its fuel consumption. They widely advertised their guarantee that the vehicle would run 15 km

per liter in the city limits and 20 km per liter out of city on long runs if the guidelines given by

the company is adhered. It also says that if anybody proves that it is underperforming in the

given conditions, the company would pay Rs.500,000/= as damages. Many customers were

persuaded to buy this car on this guarantee of fuel efficiency. Mr. Perera also purchased a vehicle

and used as per the guidelines given by the company.

From the very first month of operation, Mr. Perera could not experience the car’s fuel efficiency

as per the guarantee promised by the company. He complained several times about the matter to

the company. Initially, company told him that the guaranteed fuel efficiency will be seen only

after the vehicle has been used for more than 5000 km. Mr. Perera ran the vehicle for more than

5000 km and still he could not see the guaranteed fuel efficiency. It did only 10 km in the city

limits and 12 km in the out of city on long runs. He complained the matter again to the vehicle

agent. They checked the vehicle and tuned the engine several times without any charge and ask

Mr. Perera to run the vehicle again. However the fuel efficiency did not improve. He complained

again and the company said they just can’t do anything and it is his “bad luck”. Then he referred

to the advertisement and asked for Rs.500,000/= as damages. The company declined to do so

indicating that,

1. The fuel efficiency guarantee as just a “mere puff” and advertising “gimmick”. It could
not be taken so seriously and there are many customers who had not received the claimed
fuel efficiency and nobody had gone to courts. 

2. Mr. Perera did not specially mention that he was buying the vehicle mainly because of
the fuel efficiency.

3. He has not paid a special consideration/price for the guarantee of fuel efficiency.

4. The fuel efficiency of a vehicle will depend mainly on drivers driving manner and
therefore, it could vary from driver to driver.

5. The company has done the best possible to tune the engine free of charge.

6. Mr. Perera did not service the vehicle from them and as such no guarantee could be
offered.
Mr Perera threatened the company with legal action and said “you can misguide everyone but
not me”

a) referring to Law of Contract (50 marks)
b) provisions in the Consumer Affairs Authority Act (50 marks)

You are required to cite decided cases and specific Provisions in the Act in your answer.

AccountingQueen

(3)

Status NEW Posted 19 Sep 2017 02:09 PM My Price 8.00

Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k y-----------ou -----------for----------- us-----------ing----------- ou-----------r w-----------ebs-----------ite----------- an-----------d a-----------cqu-----------isi-----------tio-----------n o-----------f m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l

Not Rated(0)

• Buy Answer