So in the example you gave, the fault occurred in the car due to the claimant's negligence and not due to an inherent fault. Struggling to understand where you read my negligence? 43 days old, 1300miles and not even a tiny wall scratch and the dealer agrees its probably a manufacturer fault?

Just read up on section 75, I did bang £7000 on my credit card for the remaining deposit of which I am shortly to clear! But does that allows me a scatter gun affect on both AMEX Lloyds and Volvo?

Thanks for reply mate, I think I will have to pay tomorrow as I am now running on a space saver! I will pursue this as more than anything the more I read up on SOGA the less the legs they have to stand on. They are telling me I have to deal with Continental, I never contracted Continental I entered a contract of sale with Volvo, I had no idea they use Continental, how can they stand a chance just 43 days later to peddle basically that it is not there issue. The thing that really gets my goat up is the tyre is not £215, the tyre is probably £115 and they are going to profit by way of mark up and potentially leave me with a car that could have 3 other faulty tyres of which I they are happy for me to transfer by 10 month old baby son around in!

Volvo, 1333 Miles, 43 days old, Continental tyre, egg hanging out of the offside front wheel. Orpington dealership "Parkside" emailed me copied pictures for the "warranty" claim they are putting in for me because in the service managers words there is absolutely no evidence of user damage and there may be a faulty line! However even though my solicitor states this is in no doubt a "latent" fault in other words hidden and could not have been detected by me at the point of sale inspection and therefore is not a warranty issue but an issue of statutory rights in relation to a faulty product wold they still maintain I should pay £215 for a new tyre, of which as no doubt an "admission of guilt" they will not be "troubling" me with a labour charge! 43 days, 1333 Miles and that was the mileage at the dealership, I found out the day before at around 1300 miles! Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. Key Facts: • Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety. • It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract. • If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances) How can a dealership side step the act. AND more importantly... I have asked Volvo whom are the so called epitome of safety if they are prepared for my familys safety to freely check the other 3 tyres in case they are part of a faulty line as decribed by the dealer and there further response is no they will not carry this out! Any comments?