Alliance Motors, 2 Others Facing $96,000 Lawsuit Over Sale Of Defective Vehicle To Happy Man Bitters CEO – Details

A lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Motors Ghana Limited, AFCL Ghana, and Jaguar Land Rover in South Africa over the sale of a faulty car to Emmanuel Borkety Bortey.

The vehicle, a 2020 model Land Rover, was bought on July 29, 2020, and its damaged engine was later found. The vehicle is “not fit for use,” according to the plaintiff, who is requesting a refund of the amount paid for it.

 

According to court records seen by this portal, the plaintiff is asking the defendants to reimburse the $96,000 total that was paid in installments starting in August 2020 and continuing until the final date.

Additionally, the plaintiff is asking for unspecified contract breach damages, expenses, and attorney fees.

 

Mr. Bortey, the plaintiff, claimed in his writ that he paid US$168,000 to Alliance Motors, the first defendant, for the car.

 

At the completion of the sale negotiations, the first defendant identified AFCL Ghana Limited, the second defendant, as a business that may offer the plaintiff financing for the purchase.

It also stated that in order to finance the purchase, a credit facility with a disbursement agreement issued for US$151,200 was to be repaid over a 36-month period at an interest rate of 11% per year, bringing the total amount to approximately US$184,144 and 32 cents.

 

He claims that in October 2021, following the repayment of the instalments, he took the car to the mechanic for standard maintenance and noticed that the “Check Engine” and “Tyre Pressure” warning lights on the instrument cluster had become dim and had stopped flashing.

The engine needed to be replaced as it was later found to be flawed.

 

According to court records, Mr. Borketey was informed of the development and that an agreement had been reached to replace the engine with the Jaguar Land Rover corporation, the third defendant.

 

A loaner car was then promised to him for short periods of time.

 

The court filing said that because the defendant failed to deliver the courtesy car, the plaintiff was forced to use other methods of transportation at substantial expense.

The court filing said that because the defendant failed to deliver the courtesy car, the plaintiff was forced to use other methods of transportation at substantial expense.

 

He told the Alliance Motors officers that he was no longer interested in the car because it couldn’t live up to its reputation as a reliable and effective vehicle.

 

Therefore, Mr. Bortey asserts that the first and second defendants clearly intended to deprive him of the money he used to pay for the car.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *