Legal position after buying a second hand Porsche
Discussion
Lucozade said:
It had to be done for safety reasons. The brakes were not suitable and damn right dangerous.
Believe it or not by I take 2 small children to nursery every day in the 911 so safety was my first priority.
I have enough emails from the supplying dealer that say they won't leave me "exposed" but that was before they got a large bill.
I can see your point of view and why YOU did it that way, but when costs start racking up then that's when you find out the true colours of any dealers customer care, and generally outsourcing work and then expecting the original dealer to cover the costs just does not work.Believe it or not by I take 2 small children to nursery every day in the 911 so safety was my first priority.
I have enough emails from the supplying dealer that say they won't leave me "exposed" but that was before they got a large bill.
Well you are supposed to give the seller the opportunity to rectify the problems. You appear to have only given them a few days to consider their actions at best and that would count against you I feel.
I would say a judge would be sympathetic to you having safety issues repaired quickly if you needed regular use of the car. But the fact that the repairer has now has the car or so long suggests that the need was perhaps not that desperate, and you could therefore have waited for the seller to respond, or at least you should have notified them that if they didn't repair the car within 7 days you would have it done and bill them.
I would say a judge would be sympathetic to you having safety issues repaired quickly if you needed regular use of the car. But the fact that the repairer has now has the car or so long suggests that the need was perhaps not that desperate, and you could therefore have waited for the seller to respond, or at least you should have notified them that if they didn't repair the car within 7 days you would have it done and bill them.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 15th November 16:42
OP, what did the "120 point check" cover? One would have thought brake disc and pads at the very least as these are easy to check.
I wonder if there may be a chance you can use this to argue the vehicle was not as advertised, as the checks could not have been done at all/properly. If the brakes were truly dangerous, is this your interpretation or the specialist's, they must have been in a pretty shocking state.
But, I'm not sure how much emphasis a judge would put on the fact that you should have been able to check the brakes yourself before purchase.
I wonder if there may be a chance you can use this to argue the vehicle was not as advertised, as the checks could not have been done at all/properly. If the brakes were truly dangerous, is this your interpretation or the specialist's, they must have been in a pretty shocking state.
But, I'm not sure how much emphasis a judge would put on the fact that you should have been able to check the brakes yourself before purchase.
I am currently in dispute with a dealer - advice from CAB is;
""Your claim against will be for a breach of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
Under this legislation, goods sold, whether by a trader or a private seller, should correspond with the description provided by the seller.
If the goods sold are not as described by the seller, they may be held in breach of contract. To make a claim, you would need to produce evidence to show that the goods are not as described. The more evidence you have, the stronger your claim will be.
In this case you may argue that the trader who sold the vehicle is in breach of contract as the vehicle does not have a full service history or a rear parking sensor and so it is not as described.
You could look to reject the vehicle and claim a refund or the alternative remedy would be for financial damages to paid, to reflect the fact that the vehicle does not have a full service history and also the costs of having a rear parking sensor fitted.""
After three months of trying to resolve this I am having the sensors fitted next week as a safety feature for my wife - the lack of FSH I will leave to the court to decide on the value or lack of it.
I have a reference from CAB and a phone number if I need more guidance...
BOF
Richard Millhouse Nixon;
When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow!
""Your claim against will be for a breach of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
Under this legislation, goods sold, whether by a trader or a private seller, should correspond with the description provided by the seller.
If the goods sold are not as described by the seller, they may be held in breach of contract. To make a claim, you would need to produce evidence to show that the goods are not as described. The more evidence you have, the stronger your claim will be.
In this case you may argue that the trader who sold the vehicle is in breach of contract as the vehicle does not have a full service history or a rear parking sensor and so it is not as described.
You could look to reject the vehicle and claim a refund or the alternative remedy would be for financial damages to paid, to reflect the fact that the vehicle does not have a full service history and also the costs of having a rear parking sensor fitted.""
After three months of trying to resolve this I am having the sensors fitted next week as a safety feature for my wife - the lack of FSH I will leave to the court to decide on the value or lack of it.
I have a reference from CAB and a phone number if I need more guidance...
BOF
Richard Millhouse Nixon;
When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow!
"I bought a 2007 plate 997 Turbo from an apparently reputable dealership in Bradford for £42K."
I am sorry but not many here would so end that much on a specialist car from a Bradford indie - I didn't even have to think about the dealer I just knew and a little digging >5 mins or less would have told you not to buy it.
Best of luck
I am sorry but not many here would so end that much on a specialist car from a Bradford indie - I didn't even have to think about the dealer I just knew and a little digging >5 mins or less would have told you not to buy it.
Best of luck
BOF said:
Yes...she parks in a relatively hazardous place 3 or 4 times a week...needs a definite reference point when reversing.
BOF
I hear the vehicle mirrors are perfect for this sort of thing. Rumour has it they even teach you how to use them on the driving test. BOF
Lucozade said:
It had to be done for safety reasons. The brakes were not suitable and damn right dangerous.
Believe it or not by I take 2 small children to nursery every day in the 911 so safety was my first priority.
I have enough emails from the supplying dealer that say they won't leave me "exposed" but that was before they got a large bill.
To be brutally honest you could've had the car trailered back to the dealer, or to your house. To be even more brutal - if the brakes were that shafted then surely that's something you should've noticed before you handed over the money. I'd spend time checking over a car regardless of any third party checkup, especially when you're forking over £42k.Believe it or not by I take 2 small children to nursery every day in the 911 so safety was my first priority.
I have enough emails from the supplying dealer that say they won't leave me "exposed" but that was before they got a large bill.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff