Alliance Motors, 2 Others Facing $96,000 Litigation Over Sale Of Faulty Vehicle to CEO of Happy Man Bitters – Details

Alliance Motors Ghana Limited, AFCL Ghana, and Jaguar Land Rover in South Africa are being sued over the sale of a defective vehicle to Emmanuel Borkety Bortey.

The vehicle in question, a 2020 Land Rover model, was purchased on July 29, 2020, but was later found to have a defective engine.

The plaintiff is seeking a refund for the amount paid for the vehicle, claiming it is “not fit for purpose.”

- Advertisement -

He is demanding the defendants return the total sum of US$96,000, which he has been paying in installments since August 2020, according to court documents.

Additionally, the plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages for breach of contract, as well as costs, including solicitor’s fees.

- Advertisement -

In his writ, Mr. Bortey revealed that he purchased the vehicle from Alliance Motors, the first defendant, for US$168,000. During the purchase process, the first defendant introduced AFCL Ghana Limited, the second defendant, as a company that could provide credit for the purchase.

The financing agreement included a disbursement of US$151,200, to be repaid over 36 months at an interest rate of 11% per annum, bringing the total repayment to approximately US$184,144.32.

After making several installment payments, Mr. Bortey took the vehicle for routine checks in October 2021 and noticed the ‘Check Engine’ and ‘Tyre Pressure’ indicator lights were on and wouldn’t turn off. It was later discovered that the engine was defective and needed replacement.

- Advertisement -

According to the court documents, Jaguar Land Rover, the third defendant, was informed of the issue, and an agreement was made to replace the engine. Mr. Bortey was also promised a courtesy car for temporary use.

However, the defendant failed to provide the courtesy car, forcing Mr. Bortey to seek alternative transportation at significant personal cost.

Mr. Bortey informed Alliance Motors that he no longer wanted the vehicle, as it failed to meet the expectations of being a robust and efficient vehicle. He contends that the first and second defendants have shown a clear intent to deprive him of the funds he paid for the vehicle.

- Advertisement -

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here