Ep 59. Jan v Glenn

Jan and Glenn are in a legal battle over a car that Glenn purchased from Jan. Glenn claims that he was sold a car that Jan knew was faulty, whereas Jan insists that the car was in good condition when he sold it. The dispute centers on whether Jan made any mention of a warning light in the car when he sold it to Glenn. Glenn claims that the warning light was not disclosed and that the car broke down soon after he purchased it. He is seeking compensation for the cost of repairing the car, while Jan insists that he is not responsible for any repairs because the car was sold as is.

The Judge begins the hearing by asking both parties to share their version of events. Glenn explains that he saw an ad for the car on a local classifieds website and contacted Jan to arrange a viewing. He test drove the car and checked it over before deciding to buy it. He paid Jan £2,300 in cash and took the car home the same day. However, he noticed soon after that the engine warning light was on, and the car broke down a few days later. When he took it to a garage, he was informed that it needed repairs that would cost more than he had paid for the car. He then contacted Jan to ask for a refund, but Jan refused.

Jan argues that he did disclose the presence of a warning light to Glenn when he sold him the car. He claims that Glenn was aware of the light and had even mentioned it during the test drive. Jan also says that he gave Glenn a discount on the price because of the light and warned him that the car might need repairs. However, Glenn disputes these claims and asserts that Jan never mentioned the light or any potential problems with the car during their interactions.

The Judge decides to examine the evidence in more detail by looking at text messages and emails exchanged between Jan and Glenn. It becomes clear that there is conflicting information in the messages, with some suggesting that Jan did disclose the warning light and others suggesting that he did not. The Judge notes that the messages are not conclusive and that they do not provide enough evidence to make a decision.

The next stage of the hearing involves the Judge questioning Glenn and Jan directly to try to get to the bottom of the issue. He asks Glenn whether he noticed the warning light during the test drive, but Glenn insists that he did not. Jan also maintains that he mentioned the light to Glenn and that he is telling the truth. The tension between the two parties grows as they become increasingly entrenched in their positions, and the Judge has to intervene more frequently to keep the hearing on track.

In the end, the Judge is forced to make a difficult decision based on the evidence presented. He decides that Glenn is entitled to some compensation for the cost of repairing the car, but that this amount should be reduced because he knew that the car was sold as is and chose to take a risk in purchasing it. The Judge also rules that Jan was not entirely honest in his dealings with Glenn and should have been more upfront about the warning light and potential issues with the car. However, he stops short of finding Jan guilty of any wrongdoing and instead issues a warning that he needs to be more transparent in his business dealings.

The hearing ends with both parties expressing their disappointment with the outcome but acknowledging that the Judge's decision was fair and balanced. The episode highlights the challenges of resolving disputes when there is conflicting evidence and demonstrates the importance of honesty and transparency in business transactions.