I deem that reasonable, going back to same example used above, in my McLaren F1 (or even Toyota 2000GT - only 337 ever made) is written off - what does the current law give me in return - because chances are it is not going to be able to return me to the previous position of owning the said car in a same/similar condition.
Writen off :o
- Thread starter Walkerie
- Start date
I deem that reasonable, going back to same example used above, in my McLaren F1 (or even Toyota 2000GT - only 337 ever made) is written off - what does the current law give me in return - because chances are it is not going to be able to return me to the previous position of owning the said car in a same/similar condition.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
No, but had their clients negligence not occured your vehicles value would be irrelevent. If you only ever buy brand new cars for £30k is it fair to expect you to now either:
a) Take a £10k payout, find another £20k of your own cash, and go out and buy another brand new car as a result of somebody elses negligence
b) Take a £10k payout and purchase a used car as a result of somebody elses negligence
No, it isn't, which is why if such a case went to court it would likely side with the third party and the repair would go ahead.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
The current law would give you current estimated market value which would be arrived at by a panel of experts (and decided in a court of law if you contested it). You would then be at liberty to use that settlement figure to obtain the nearest possible match for a replacement (Koenigsegg CCXR?) - to expect anything else would be deemed unreasonable (and rightly so imo).
I'm glad someone understands where I'm coming from. However, if the car was written off as unsafe to repair, then market value would be a reasonable offer and would be the likely conclusion arrived at in court - which is supported by existing case law.
Last edited by a moderator:
amigafan2003; but that still would not return me to the previous position of owning the same car - so it means I as a victim would still be coming out at a loss over my previous position.
I think that it is unreasonable to expect the victim to come out at a material or financial loss - the victim should be put back to the same material AND financial position as they were before (unless they take the option to take a monetary settlement rather than have the material object replaced).
This sort of thinking does get very complicated once you go down the route of only 3 of something ever made; or in fact "last surviving". Because here, no matter what you do still means the victim can not really ever get back to the same financial or material position.
However (And this is just my view); even if something is the "last ever" - a near perfect replica can still be built; and once again (while hugely expensive) that option should be given to the person - for the simple fact that doing any less would leave the victim not fully reimbursed [plenty of people own things not for their monetary value but for other reasons - simply giving them money in return is not good enough].
I would be interested if there are any previous court cases where someone had argued for a like for like replacement for a very rare item and what the court thought of this argument.
I think that it is unreasonable to expect the victim to come out at a material or financial loss - the victim should be put back to the same material AND financial position as they were before (unless they take the option to take a monetary settlement rather than have the material object replaced).
This sort of thinking does get very complicated once you go down the route of only 3 of something ever made; or in fact "last surviving". Because here, no matter what you do still means the victim can not really ever get back to the same financial or material position.
However (And this is just my view); even if something is the "last ever" - a near perfect replica can still be built; and once again (while hugely expensive) that option should be given to the person - for the simple fact that doing any less would leave the victim not fully reimbursed [plenty of people own things not for their monetary value but for other reasons - simply giving them money in return is not good enough].
I would be interested if there are any previous court cases where someone had argued for a like for like replacement for a very rare item and what the court thought of this argument.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If you get down to the last surviving or impossible to get another, you would normally get a "premium" on top of the settlement to cover the non monetary losses - everything has it's price 
Current law only states *reasonable* attempts must be made to *try* to restore someone to their previous position I mentioned earlier. And reasonable and try are usually jusged by your peers and the court.
A change to the law to FORCE a restoration of property (including requisition from another person owning the same item as you mentioned previously) would be unworkable and getting dangerously close to the way Hitler treated the "jewish question".
Mkenzie vs Lloyds 1983.
Rare diamond with sapphire cut in. Only 6 others known to be in existence. Valued at £19000. Claim settled for £31000 - premium added to aid in the search of a replacement.
Current law only states *reasonable* attempts must be made to *try* to restore someone to their previous position I mentioned earlier. And reasonable and try are usually jusged by your peers and the court.
A change to the law to FORCE a restoration of property (including requisition from another person owning the same item as you mentioned previously) would be unworkable and getting dangerously close to the way Hitler treated the "jewish question".
Mkenzie vs Lloyds 1983.
Rare diamond with sapphire cut in. Only 6 others known to be in existence. Valued at £19000. Claim settled for £31000 - premium added to aid in the search of a replacement.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not necessarily say it should be FORCED restoration ; but it should be an "almost budget less" attempt to restore (or only market value money payment)- as you said anything has its price - so for enough money a new exact replica can be built or another car sourced from somewhere.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
That's the way it does work.
But in your example, a reasonable person (and remember the judiciary don't hang out in OCUK motors like us) would deem a CCXR, Ferrari etc to be a reasonable replacement for a Mclaren F1 plus a premium for exclusivity etc.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If someone offered me £3 million, I'd deem that a reasonable replacement.
I bet Mclaren would build you another if you offered them £3m.
I bet Mclaren would build you another if you offered them £3m.
An F1 sold at auction for £2.5mil last year; so while 3mil might cover you getting a new one - you would have to wait for one to turn out for sale - and it does not happen that often.
Alternatively you could make an offer to an existing owner - but chances are they'd want more than 3mil for it.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
So you're actually agreeing with me that monetary compensation could be a reasonable offer?
No, I'm saying provided that compensation allowed me to source a replacement (within a relatively short timeframe - so no waiting for the chance it comes out for sale) - and chances are any compensation offered would not allow you to make a private offer for something that a person who has little interest in selling might consider.
That still does leave the person having to do the donkey work though; ideally it should be for the insurance company to do the donkey work.