Dear Ms. Barton,
I am writing to you under the instructions of Mr. Ed Jones, my client, with whom you have a contractual relationship under the domain of Insurance Law. It is my client’s contention that your refusal to repair or replace the used car that he purchased from your company is a culmination of your Company’s unscrupulous machinations engineered ab initio with a motive to defraud him. The factual account of this dispute is that Ed Jones bought a used car with Budget and signed a contract of warranty with Warrantech Company. After driving the car 102,000 miles since the purchase 48 months prior, the transmission broke down and he approached you for you to perform your part of the obligation and fix the car. Much as you may argue that Ed’s position was not covered by the contract, there is every factual and legal argument to controvert your position. Your reliance on a clause that you inserted in the contract and made it impossible for my client to access it clearly illustrates your premeditated malice to circumvent your obligations.
There is a conventional implied warranty in any Sale of Goods contract which requires that the goods must be of mercantile quality. This term requires that the goods must be able to effectively serve the purpose for which they are bought and that is why it is your obligation to ensure that in the event that the vehicle you sold to Ed Jones turns out to be defective, sufficient reparations have to be made in order to atone for the inconveniences occasioned to him. In the case of Rogers v Toni Home Permanent Co, Poiser J. reiterated that sellers must at all times seek to meet the best interests of buyers. Your actions are clearly in defiance of the warranty and this would entitle my client to repudiate the contract and seek damages for breach of contract from you. The company’s reliance on the exclusion clause to absolve itself from contractual obligations is unjustified and it will be traversed in the strongest terms possible. The legal underpinnings of an exclusion clause stipulate that its existence and contents must be communicated or known to the other party for it to apply. My client contends that he never knew about the existence of such a term and the company did not do anything to bring it to his attention. Therefore, going by the principle set out in Parker v SE Railway Co.  AELR, the test of applicability of exclusion clauses, is whether the defendant took reasonable measures to bring the attention of the plaintiff to the exclusion clause. In this case, the company did not and thus cannot rely on it.
Without prejudice to the foregoing, the clause in question indicates that the warranty would not apply if the vehicle had been driven for 100,000 miles and 60 months. My client concedes that he had driven it for 102,000 miles but had only stayed with it for 48 months. It …