Woman who sold Lamborghini sued by car dealer over mileage discrepancy, ordered to pay $20,000

SINGAPORE – A car dealership that bought a Lamborghini Urus with a stated mileage of 9,000km sued the seller and her husband, claiming that it suffered losses after an inspection showed that the actual mileage was 18,074km.

Purpose Automobiles sought damages of $145,500 against the seller, Ms Virginia Wong, arguing that it had lost a deal to sell the super SUV to a prospective buyer.

The trial against Ms Wong’s husband, Mr Lim Wei Meng, who was the main driver of the car and handled all its affairs, was put on hold pending the assessment of damages against her.

On Nov 17, a district judge concluded that the aborted sale was not caused by Ms Wong’s breach of contract, and the company was thus not entitled to the profits it would have earned had the deal gone through.

In a written judgment, District Judge Sim Mei Ling noted that the prospective buyer decided not to proceed with the sale because the car’s warranty was voided by the authorised dealer.

The judge said it was not merely because there was a higher mileage that the warranty was voided; rather, it was because Lamborghini concluded that there had been alterations to the odometer.

She said Purpose Automobiles was only entitled to claim losses flowing directly from Ms Wong’s breach, not for losses due to the voiding of the car’s warranty.

The judge ordered Ms Wong to pay damages of $20,000, plus interest.

The sum is the difference in the value of the car with a mileage of 18,074km and the value of the car with a mileage of 9,000km.

It would be reasonable to expect that a breach of the mileage term would affect the car’s value, but not that it would void the warranty, she said.

Judge Sim noted that there was no evidence before her showing what caused the mileage discrepancy and whether Ms Wong had tampered with the odometer.

Purpose Automobiles bought the car from Ms Wong, who was the registered owner, for $908,000 in April 2023.

The vehicle purchase agreement stated that the car had a “current mileage” of 9,000 km.

In June 2023, a prospective buyer offered to buy the car at $965,000, subject to an inspection at authorised dealer Eurosports Auto.

It turned out that the mileage recorded on several independent electronic components and visible on the diagnostics protocol downloaded during recovery was double that displayed on the odometer.

Eurosports voided the car’s warranty, citing alterations to the vehicle’s odometer. 

Purpose Automobiles said the original sale fell through, and it was only able to sell the car at $800,000 in August 2023.

It also received $19,500 as commission for the financing taken up by the eventual buyer.

The company took legal action against Ms Wong for breach of contract, and against her and Mr Lim for deceit or misrepresentation.

On Feb 2, 2024, consent judgment was entered against Ms Wong, who agreed that she had breached the Sale of Goods Act.

The Act states that where goods are sold by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will match that description.

A hearing was then held to determine the quantum of damages she has to pay.

Purpose Automobiles, which was represented by Mr Tong Siu Hong, quantified its loss at $145,500, which was the price that the prospective buyer would have paid for the car, less the eventual sale price and commission.

Alternatively, it sought $88,500, which was what it paid Ms Wong for the car after deducting the eventual sale price and commission.

Ms Wong, who was represented by Mr Raymond Lye, argued that the existence of a valid warranty was not a term of the agreement.

She contended that the company was only entitled to recover the decrease in value resulting from the difference between the actual mileage and stated mileage, which she quantified as $10,000 to $20,000.

Her expert witness was Mr Wu Chong, the director of luxury and exotic car specialist All Motoring.

Purpose Automobiles countered that the difference in value was $45,000. 

Its expert witness was Mr Rodney Chua, the founder and current general manager of Auto Lease, a car financing company.

The judge said she preferred the figure of about $20,000 put forward by Mr Wu, who substantiated his view that given the car was only 1½ years old, a mileage of 18,075km was still low.

Mr Wu had referred to the warranties offered by three other car manufacturers, which work out to 33,333km per year.

At 18,075km, the car’s annual mileage was 12,000km, or only about 36 per cent of the threshold given by these manufacturers, he said.