Being sued over a car I sold :(
Discussion
BertBert said:
Presumably the mainstay of his complaint is that the fix he was told was a cheap pin turned into an expensive job. That could well be misrepresentation depending on the circumstances.
Bert
But where :Bert
1) is there any proof that the cheap pin wouldn't resolve it - all we see is a quote for a pin + expensive mechanism. who knows what the 3rd part was asked to quote for, but lets face it, it's not in their interest to quote for a £3 pin when asked to fix a tailgate?
2) the seller do anything other than allow a full inspection?
IANAL, I see no misrepresentation - though the original advert could have been better worded.
BertBert said:
Presumably the mainstay of his complaint is that the fix he was told was a cheap pin turned into an expensive job. That could well be misrepresentation depending on the circumstances.
Bert
I think you'd be hard pushed to convince a court that a private owner misrepresented the cost of a fix. Unless the seller has acted fraudulently (and good luck proving that) then you are merely taking someone's non-professional opinion on how to fix something should you wish to. Bert
I know each can take his own inferences, however, the other claims for misrepresentation and the faults as they are, I would suggest that the OP has acted reasonably and truthfully, and the buyer is out for what they can get from the OP.
Agreed I also don't think it holds water very well.
But OTOH if you went to view a car with a fault and the seller says that needs a £3 widget and that will fix it. He says I know because I is an expert/had an expert check it/my aunt looked and she is Lewis' race engineer. Then it turned out it actually needed a part that was at least £1000 even used, then it might well be misrepresented.
Bert
But OTOH if you went to view a car with a fault and the seller says that needs a £3 widget and that will fix it. He says I know because I is an expert/had an expert check it/my aunt looked and she is Lewis' race engineer. Then it turned out it actually needed a part that was at least £1000 even used, then it might well be misrepresented.
Bert
I think the SB letter is pretty misguided. It hinges totally on misrep.
A representation is a statement of fact. I am not convinced that 'problem X can be fixed by solution Y' is a statement of fact. It seems to me to be a statement of opinion. If the seller was so concerned about the tailgate issue, he could/should have made enquiries prior to purchase.
These engines go on forever - is 'mere puff' and doubt any court would deem it as a statement of fact.
Not sure what representations were made orally at the time - you should be asking them to set them out in detail.
A representation is a statement of fact. I am not convinced that 'problem X can be fixed by solution Y' is a statement of fact. It seems to me to be a statement of opinion. If the seller was so concerned about the tailgate issue, he could/should have made enquiries prior to purchase.
These engines go on forever - is 'mere puff' and doubt any court would deem it as a statement of fact.
Not sure what representations were made orally at the time - you should be asking them to set them out in detail.
johnfm said:
I think the SB letter is pretty misguided. It hinges totally on misrep.
A representation is a statement of fact. I am not convinced that 'problem X can be fixed by solution Y' is a statement of fact. It seems to me to be a statement of opinion. If the seller was so concerned about the tailgate issue, he could/should have made enquiries prior to purchase.
These engines go on forever - is 'mere puff' and doubt any court would deem it as a statement of fact.
Not sure what representations were made orally at the time - you should be asking them to set them out in detail.
Yes, it looks to be the opinion of the OP as A representation is a statement of fact. I am not convinced that 'problem X can be fixed by solution Y' is a statement of fact. It seems to me to be a statement of opinion. If the seller was so concerned about the tailgate issue, he could/should have made enquiries prior to purchase.
These engines go on forever - is 'mere puff' and doubt any court would deem it as a statement of fact.
Not sure what representations were made orally at the time - you should be asking them to set them out in detail.
OP said:
1. Faulty electric tailgate - This I ran through with him how to operate it so it works (basically a £3 retaining pin is missing - but he took an 11 year old car to a BMW main dealer and they charged him nearly £750 for a whole new unit - which he paid!)
...
In previous correspondence he has acknowledged that I explained the boot operation to him but cited that it only needed a pin to stop the ball popping out the socket. Surely enough on both the quote and invoive it states £3.42 for a pin, the bulk of the cost is for the hydraulic strut which was working fine!
and that he didn't know otherwise, hence not misrepresentation....
In previous correspondence he has acknowledged that I explained the boot operation to him but cited that it only needed a pin to stop the ball popping out the socket. Surely enough on both the quote and invoive it states £3.42 for a pin, the bulk of the cost is for the hydraulic strut which was working fine!
Just spoke with a solicitor from my companys firm, a specialist in the area, who has read all the correspondence and in his opinion doesnt' feel that he has much (if anything) to go on.
He's given me some pointers as to what to lay out in my response and has stated to me that he wouldn't get involved professionally as morally he would have a problem being instructed on a case like this that didn't warrant legal represenation.... some faith in solicitors restored
He believes that the solicitors (which he'd never heard of) would have just used a pro forma to bang off without really looking at the evidence or case and that a well worded response would invoke the solictors to explain to the claimant that persuing the case would have a small chance of success but would end up costing him a significant amount of money should he insist on legal representation througout.
So it seems like I've got a stoking letter to be written then batten down the hatches and prepare for a day in court which the solicitor explained wouldn't be until mid next year at the earliest given the backlog and the (non) severity of the case. All the while he will continue to own the car.
I'm still gobsmacked that this has happened selling an 11 year old car :S
He's given me some pointers as to what to lay out in my response and has stated to me that he wouldn't get involved professionally as morally he would have a problem being instructed on a case like this that didn't warrant legal represenation.... some faith in solicitors restored
He believes that the solicitors (which he'd never heard of) would have just used a pro forma to bang off without really looking at the evidence or case and that a well worded response would invoke the solictors to explain to the claimant that persuing the case would have a small chance of success but would end up costing him a significant amount of money should he insist on legal representation througout.
So it seems like I've got a stoking letter to be written then batten down the hatches and prepare for a day in court which the solicitor explained wouldn't be until mid next year at the earliest given the backlog and the (non) severity of the case. All the while he will continue to own the car.
I'm still gobsmacked that this has happened selling an 11 year old car :S
Vaud said:
Mediation first...
Last small claim mediation I was involved in was over the phone. A wasted hour, but an effort nonetheless.OP, I'd keep it very short. Blanket denial of any claims of misrep and a request for them to particularise each occurrence with details of what they claim was said, since they are relying on representations made orally at the time.
QuattroDave said:
Vaud said:
Mediation first...
I made an offer at the time which was rejected. I bought another car so I no longer wish to have the car back and will rescind my offer in my response. With that in mind there's very little to mediate.
Although Vaud it right, that that step is usually first, it is difficult to make middle ground where there is a meritless claim for five grand and someone misguided as a claimant.
Is your barrister cousin (IIRC) still going to write you a response?
Personally, playing out the options, this is best put to bed with a robust response in the first instance, as when he's chucked another £120 or whatever on court fees, and another few hundred quid on his solicitors filing the claim, he would have already got himself into an entrenched position where he would be losing money retracting from. In short, if he gets that far, he may as well chance his arm on the hearing.
JustinP1 said:
Quite.
Although Vaud it right, that that step is usually first, it is difficult to make middle ground where there is a meritless claim for five grand and someone misguided as a claimant.
Is your barrister cousin (IIRC) still going to write you a response?
Personally, playing out the options, this is best put to bed with a robust response in the first instance, as when he's chucked another £120 or whatever on court fees, and another few hundred quid on his solicitors filing the claim, he would have already got himself into an entrenched position where he would be losing money retracting from. In short, if he gets that far, he may as well chance his arm on the hearing.
Yes hopefully I'll get a response in the next day or so. Agree completely with your sentiment that if he throws that much money into the pot then he's likely to go all the way hence wanting to put this to bed as early as possible Although Vaud it right, that that step is usually first, it is difficult to make middle ground where there is a meritless claim for five grand and someone misguided as a claimant.
Is your barrister cousin (IIRC) still going to write you a response?
Personally, playing out the options, this is best put to bed with a robust response in the first instance, as when he's chucked another £120 or whatever on court fees, and another few hundred quid on his solicitors filing the claim, he would have already got himself into an entrenched position where he would be losing money retracting from. In short, if he gets that far, he may as well chance his arm on the hearing.
That raises an issue of professional conduct for the solicitors. A lawyer is not supposed to allege fraud without having cogent reasons for doing so. Attacking the solicitors now is not a good idea, but if and when you see the claim off, the SRA might be interested in a firm that sends out scattergun allegations of this kind without a proper foundation for them.
Chivvy your cousin along, if you can. You should respond asap. If she is too busy, let me know and I will draft you a short, polite but firm letter.
Chivvy your cousin along, if you can. You should respond asap. If she is too busy, let me know and I will draft you a short, polite but firm letter.
Breadvan72 said:
Lawyers deserve their clients and vice versa. This combo sound like right nightmares. At least the Defamation Act 2013 has put paid to nonsense law suits such as the one described above.
And about time, too. I don't know how judges kept themselves from throwing out some of the ridiculous claims under the old law with a few short words like 'Grow up, you tit!'.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff