Private car sale - being taken to court
Discussion
QuattroDave said:
Morning Mookes,
Really sorry to hear you're going through what I went through before Christmas. There's a lengthy thread on the subject that's already kindly been referenced near the start of this thread.
I'm really surprised to hear you've already got a court date, that's really very unusual that a court would allocate a date for such an issue as this considering they're all so massively busy.
I won't regurgitate what's already been mentioned in my thread but if you want to chat to someone who's been through the same thing by all means PM me and I'll send you my number and we can talk it through.
My thread not only includes the original letters received from the claimant but the responses kindly drafted by another forum member whose words finally put this debacle to bed.
I've only had a chance to skim read it thus far but the thing you need to keep at the front of your mind is that you've done nothing wrong and as such it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing bad will come of it. It's difficult to keep an eye on that when you've been accused as you have though.
Hi QuattrodaveReally sorry to hear you're going through what I went through before Christmas. There's a lengthy thread on the subject that's already kindly been referenced near the start of this thread.
I'm really surprised to hear you've already got a court date, that's really very unusual that a court would allocate a date for such an issue as this considering they're all so massively busy.
I won't regurgitate what's already been mentioned in my thread but if you want to chat to someone who's been through the same thing by all means PM me and I'll send you my number and we can talk it through.
My thread not only includes the original letters received from the claimant but the responses kindly drafted by another forum member whose words finally put this debacle to bed.
I've only had a chance to skim read it thus far but the thing you need to keep at the front of your mind is that you've done nothing wrong and as such it's overwhelmingly likely that nothing bad will come of it. It's difficult to keep an eye on that when you've been accused as you have though.
Yes I did have a look at your thread which was indicated by another forum member, its not the court date we have received as such, its a notice of allocation where we are required to attend to consider the claimants indication that expert evidence is needed.
What page of your thread can the letter that put the issue to bed so to speak be found, I'd be really keen to have a look at it.
Thankyou for your response
Mookes said:
I completely appreciate where your coming from, but surely if there was a fault with the turbo when she sold the car, then the EML light would have come on straight away (I'm no car expert so I wouldn't know), surely that's just logical. I do sympathise with the OP as this could have happened to anyone, but she cannot be held responsible for a fault that arises after the car was sold, no matter what the timeframe. whats to say he wasn't slamming the car around testing it out on the way home, this could have easily happened on the journey home from her house to his
With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
---Playing devil's advocate---With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
A car in "excellent condition" wouldn't be expected to have a new turbo or spring within a few weeks.
Obviously your better half was not in an informed position to be able to make this statement but the reality is she unfortunately has. The odds are it won't be held against her (tell her to turn on the waterworks at the hearing, if it gets that far), so just let the process take it's course
Sargeant Orange said:
Mookes said:
I completely appreciate where your coming from, but surely if there was a fault with the turbo when she sold the car, then the EML light would have come on straight away (I'm no car expert so I wouldn't know), surely that's just logical. I do sympathise with the OP as this could have happened to anyone, but she cannot be held responsible for a fault that arises after the car was sold, no matter what the timeframe. whats to say he wasn't slamming the car around testing it out on the way home, this could have easily happened on the journey home from her house to his
With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
---Playing devil's advocate---With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
A car in "excellent condition" wouldn't be expected to have a new turbo or spring within a few weeks.
Mookes said:
Hi Quattrodave
Yes I did have a look at your thread which was indicated by another forum member, its not the court date we have received as such, its a notice of allocation where we are required to attend to consider the claimants indication that expert evidence is needed.
What page of your thread can the letter that put the issue to bed so to speak be found, I'd be really keen to have a look at it.
Thankyou for your response
C'mon, it's only 25 odd pages Yes I did have a look at your thread which was indicated by another forum member, its not the court date we have received as such, its a notice of allocation where we are required to attend to consider the claimants indication that expert evidence is needed.
What page of your thread can the letter that put the issue to bed so to speak be found, I'd be really keen to have a look at it.
Thankyou for your response
If I recall I scanned in the letters so look for images from about P7 onwards
This is why I always get the buyer to sign the usual "sold as seen" and "no warranty implied" document so that there is absolutely no comeback.
Download and print off
https://www.theaa.com/resources/Documents/pdf/moto...
Download and print off
https://www.theaa.com/resources/Documents/pdf/moto...
Contigo said:
This is why I always get the buyer to sign the usual "sold as seen" and "no warranty implied" document so that there is absolutely no comeback.
Download and print off
https://www.theaa.com/resources/Documents/pdf/moto...
very good but what has that got to do with misrepresentation which is what this thread is about, not caveat emptor .Download and print off
https://www.theaa.com/resources/Documents/pdf/moto...
amusingduck said:
Sargeant Orange said:
Mookes said:
I completely appreciate where your coming from, but surely if there was a fault with the turbo when she sold the car, then the EML light would have come on straight away (I'm no car expert so I wouldn't know), surely that's just logical. I do sympathise with the OP as this could have happened to anyone, but she cannot be held responsible for a fault that arises after the car was sold, no matter what the timeframe. whats to say he wasn't slamming the car around testing it out on the way home, this could have easily happened on the journey home from her house to his
With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
---Playing devil's advocate---With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
A car in "excellent condition" wouldn't be expected to have a new turbo or spring within a few weeks.
RumbleOfThunder said:
Nothing wrong with stating excellent condition.
to me excellent condition would equate to full service history, clean interior and exterior with minimal marks/damage. 4 matching branded tyres, low past owners. It would also have an history of little faults or faults that were rectified straight away with all evidence to back this statement up. The problem is this is a subjective word.
The Spruce goose said:
to me excellent condition would equate to full service history, clean interior and exterior with minimal marks/damage. 4 matching branded tyres, low past owners. It would also have an history of little faults or faults that were rectified straight away with all evidence to back this statement up.
The problem is this is a subjective word.
As it's subjective, there is no problem.The problem is this is a subjective word.
RumbleOfThunder said:
amusingduck said:
Sargeant Orange said:
Mookes said:
I completely appreciate where your coming from, but surely if there was a fault with the turbo when she sold the car, then the EML light would have come on straight away (I'm no car expert so I wouldn't know), surely that's just logical. I do sympathise with the OP as this could have happened to anyone, but she cannot be held responsible for a fault that arises after the car was sold, no matter what the timeframe. whats to say he wasn't slamming the car around testing it out on the way home, this could have easily happened on the journey home from her house to his
With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
---Playing devil's advocate---With regards to the spring, not even the OP noticed there was anything wrong until the health check picked it up 2 weeks later, now if a qualified mechanic who did the MOT didn't see it, we didn't notice it, and not even the OP noticed it (until the health check). How on earth can she be done for misrepresentation?
A car in "excellent condition" wouldn't be expected to have a new turbo or spring within a few weeks.
Brand new cars can munch engines...I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm by no means rich, and I wouldn't waste my time pursuing £1500 out of someone.
This is why I hate selling privately, my last car I chopped in as a part ex, much less hassle taking a hit on it's value so you don't have to put up with joe public idiots like the OP is having to deal with.
This is why I hate selling privately, my last car I chopped in as a part ex, much less hassle taking a hit on it's value so you don't have to put up with joe public idiots like the OP is having to deal with.
The Spruce goose said:
very good but what has that got to do with misrepresentation which is what this thread is about, not caveat emptor .
No indeed it doesn't but the key is to not misrepresent in the first place. I've read all 25 pages of QD's thread and get it but I still maintain that if you sign that document and keep a copy of it then simply showing them that again will rescind all liabilities.
AL5026 said:
I'll happily give you a different slant on it. I bought a second hand car, unseen, well I obviously saw the advert photos. Numerous text messages were exchanged and a deal was done at the asking price. I arranged for it to be transported to me as it was close on 300 miles away. What became apparent very quickly was a number of issues with the vehicle, I had it inspected at my local garage and was disappointed with both the issues identified and the rough idea of cost to rectify.
I approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
Difference here is that you bought a car and found some faults with it which you rightly felt were contrary to its "excellent condition" description. Our OP's buyer on the other hand, is an opportunistic scumbag scammer who's making sI approached the seller about this and tried to get my money back for the vehicle or at least for the remedial work required, and I was given the caveat emptor quote too, along with the sold as seen etc etc.
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, I took him through the small claims court. Mainly because I was unhappy that his 'in excellent condition' quote in the advert wasn't quite true. His defence was similar in that a) it had an MOT with no advisories and b) he had no mechanical knowledge therefore he believed his MOT cert validated the vehicle accordingly.
I claimed for the cost of the inspection, the cost of transporting it to me and the difference in selling prices (after he refused to take the vehicle back, I sold it on with all the faults highlighted).
I did win the case; my inspection report from the garage and his 'excellent condition' words from the original advert were the key points of the case; quite simply, the vehicle was not in excellent condition. The judge did say something about his Caveat Emptor defence, something along the lines of it being superseded or less relevant, but don't quote me on that though as this was 5 years ago.
t up to extort money out of an innocent woman. The Spruce goose said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
Nothing wrong with stating excellent condition.
to me excellent condition would equate to full service history, clean interior and exterior with minimal marks/damage. 4 matching branded tyres, low past owners. It would also have an history of little faults or faults that were rectified straight away with all evidence to back this statement up.The problem is this is a subjective word.
Put simply, "that thing there, now, is it in excellent condition" is the question, the other stuff may be useful collateral, but not central to the matter.
The Spruce goose said:
V8LM said:
As it's subjective, there is no problem.
not by this thread it isn't or have you missed the whole point of stating a subjective term when selling a car?Edited by V8LM on Monday 15th February 18:13
Can we please kill this idea that writing 'sold as seen' or 'no warranty implied' on a receipt absolves you of any liability for statements made prior to the sale? A private seller may not need to worry about the terms that are implied by the Sale of Goods Act (fitness for purpose and all that), but that doesn't mean you can make any fanciful claim you like in order to get a car sold no matter how inaccurate it is. The law of misrepresentation still applies, and just saying 'sold as seen' isn't a magic defence to any claim based on misrep.
For example if you'd said a car you were selling had just had a new cambelt fitted, but it in fact hadn't been changed in 80k miles and snapped a week later, then you are not going to be able to rely on 'sold as seen' to get out of the fact you misrepresented the condition of the car.
The OP's position is clearly not as black and white as that. While 'excellent condition' is open to interpretation and will mean different things in different circumstances it is a statement as to the condition of the car that is presumably only included in the advert to entice buyers. If it could be proved that it could not reasonably have been said that the car was in 'excellent condition' when it was sold, then the seller could just be liable if it isn't (lack of knowledge on the part of the person making the statement isn't really relevant).
However, in the OP's case it would seem that proving that no reasonable person could have thought that the car was in 'excellent condition' for a 100,000 mile car at the time of sale would be very difficult, it seems far more likely that the buyer has just been unlucky, and so I don't think the OP has got anything to worry about. OP -tell 'em to F-O.
For example if you'd said a car you were selling had just had a new cambelt fitted, but it in fact hadn't been changed in 80k miles and snapped a week later, then you are not going to be able to rely on 'sold as seen' to get out of the fact you misrepresented the condition of the car.
The OP's position is clearly not as black and white as that. While 'excellent condition' is open to interpretation and will mean different things in different circumstances it is a statement as to the condition of the car that is presumably only included in the advert to entice buyers. If it could be proved that it could not reasonably have been said that the car was in 'excellent condition' when it was sold, then the seller could just be liable if it isn't (lack of knowledge on the part of the person making the statement isn't really relevant).
However, in the OP's case it would seem that proving that no reasonable person could have thought that the car was in 'excellent condition' for a 100,000 mile car at the time of sale would be very difficult, it seems far more likely that the buyer has just been unlucky, and so I don't think the OP has got anything to worry about. OP -tell 'em to F-O.
The car was driven less than a mile following an MOT. Whilst an MOT is not a sign of the vehicle's full health the buyer was offered a test drive, which was refused, and had the option to ask for an inspection if he chose, which he did not. No warranty was implied or given by the private seller.
Where is the case exactly?
Where is the case exactly?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff