A couple of Tipps fail in their claim on an old demo car

A couple who had filed a lawsuit for an old demo car purchased had failed in the High Court to overturn an arbitrator's decision that he should have accepted an offer that 80% of the cost of repairs would be paid .

Patrick and Ann Ryan of Mullinahone, a Tipperary company, filed a lawsuit against dealer Kevin O 'Leary (Clonmel), who sold them the Opel Meriva car at a price of 17,650 euros in May 2013. Manufacturers General Motors were then joined in the case.

The car had been used as a demonstration model from 2012 and had 24,000 km on the meter.

The Ryans had three years of trouble-free driving, traveling an additional 70,000 km, when the car broke down and had to be towed back to the garage. It broke down on two other occasions and the Ryans had to pay for both repairs.

There was a dispute between mechanics hired by the Ryans and O'Learys about the cause of the problem.

The Ryans engineer said it was a manufacturing defect while the dealership engineer thought the problem was an overheated fuel pump caused by wear over the years.

The car has been out of business since February 2016 and has been stored by a member of the Ryans family.

Attempts to solve the problem were unsuccessful and General Motors, on behalf of O 'Learys, offered to cover 80% of the $ 5,000 repair bill.

The Ryans did not accept it and wanted to return the car and recover the purchase price as well as towing and repair costs.

They brought an action in Circuit Court against O 'Learys, but the case was suspended for the dispute to be submitted to arbitration under a clause of the sales contract.

The referee, who joined General Motors as a defendant, concluded last December that the couple should have accepted the 80% of proposed repairs.

The Ryans then asked the High Court to set aside the arbitral award for reasons, including irrational, contrary to recognized legal principles, and that the arbitrator had not considered the evidence which he had.

O & # 39; Learys and General Motors opposed the request.

Judge David Barniville of the High Court dismissed the motion, stating that he "had no basis in any of the grounds or arguments put forward."

The judge admitted that the Ryans were honest and honest people who had suffered problems with the car.

They are now in the very unfortunate situation that the car has been in storage for more than two and a half years, he said.

Although he does not have the express power to do so and the defendants are not required to follow through on his comment, it would be very helpful for them to think carefully if there is planned to reactivate the 80% repair offer or otherwise attempt to restore the relationship. with the Ryans.

It would also encourage Ryans to respond positively to such an initiative, he said.