Now, here's a first: A High Court judge, showing that he was committed to making the correct assessment by putting himself in the shoes of a consumer and then as an authority figure, had to personally test drive a S$378,100 BMW 550i before passing judgment, Today reported on Feb. 28, 2015.

This was after Chan Chee Kien, a regional sales manager, bought a BMW 550i from Performance Motors in 2010 and two months later, sent it back to the distributor’s mechanics several times for various defects.

Chan eventually decided he no longer wanted the car and sued Performance Motors for misrepresentation and breach of contract as it remained in the workshop for much of the following 11 months.

In his ruling, Justice Chan Seng Onn, who had taken a test drive in the car as part of the hearing, dismissed 18 of the 30 complaints because they were either not detectable or reproducible.

For example, Chan had reportedly said the car sounded like a helicopter. Other complaints include hearing a propeller sound, a “knocking noise” and “pulsating sound”.

However, the judge said he could not detect for himself any of these specific sounds during the test drive.

Of the remaining 12 complaints, the judge said they could be broadly classified as defects, but he found that they had been satisfactorily resolved by Performance Motors.

Not only was the claim dismissed saying he was “clearly wrong” to claim a new replacement car and demand a refund, the judge let Performance Motors claim S$4,700 from Chan as he left the car idling at the workshop.

Of the 354 days the car was in the workshop between October 2010 and January 2012, about one quarter was spent troubleshooting and on remedial work for the actual defects. The remaining time was due to Chan failing to collect the car from the workshop.

“This is not an easy conclusion to arrive at on the facts, as it is not such a clear-cut case,” wrote Justice Chan, who found the balance to “tilt just slightly in favour” of Performance Motors.

He also wrote: “It did not meet his subjectively high standards. But that is not the test to determine if he is entitled to reject the car and claim the return of the purchase price.”

Though Justice Chan considered the 12 actual defects relatively minor, he said the cumulative effect could well be evidence of such bad workmanship as to amount to unsatisfactory quality -- though not to a reasonable person in Chan’s position.

Top photo via

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.