When does a car change owner, when the money's paid or...

[AndyDubbya]

Mopar440 said:

AndyDubbya said:

but now I'm thinking that as it wouldn't be right for me to sell it to someone else once he'd paid, it was his once the money was transferred,

So, had someone made you a better offer after you'd agreed to the sale, and payment was made and received by you?

Not sure what you're asking, but I wouldn't have reneged on the deal after we'd agreed terms (let alone after he'd paid up!), so by that measure, it was "his" from then on, at least in my mind. But what would've transpired insurance-wise if something had happened to the car after that, I still don't really know.

[Devil2575]

I couldn't care less about the legalities. Once his money was in my account I wouldn't sell it to anyone else for more money but if it was stolen/destroyed by fire I'd deal with the aftermath and claim off my insurance.
Sometimes normal people don't need to understand the legalities to know what is the right thing to do.

[AndyDubbya]

Wind your neck in old chap. "Normal" people, sheesh.

[JustinP1]

Devil2575 said:

I couldn't care less about the legalities. Once his money was in my account I wouldn't sell it to anyone else for more money but if it was stolen/destroyed by fire I'd deal with the aftermath and claim off my insurance.
Sometimes normal people don't need to understand the legalities to know what is the right thing to do.

The point the OP I think is making is that if the car ceased to be his, the car would not be covered by his insurance.

So, if the garage burnt down, or he was the target of thieves, alright, the OP could keep shtum and forget that he'd been paid for it in full, and tried to get an insurance settlement, and refunded the buyer, but there'd be dishonesty there.

Where I think the answer lies is that whilst the exact point of formation of contract can be debated, when agreement to sell and payment is successfully received for the car, it could be argued that unless specifically agreed otherwise that this is the final point that the OP owned the car.

The OP would still have a duty of care to look after the vehicle though if it was agreed that collection would take place on a certain date.

So, the OP was exactly right not to drive the car, because if he had crashed it, this could have been seen as failing in his duty of care. Similarly, if he had parked it in a pub car park in Salford, and it got stolen, that may also be seen as a failure.

However, kept in a locked garage, this does demonstrate a very reasonable action.

[AndyDubbya]

JustinP1 said:

Devil2575 said:

I couldn't care less about the legalities. Once his money was in my account I wouldn't sell it to anyone else for more money but if it was stolen/destroyed by fire I'd deal with the aftermath and claim off my insurance.
Sometimes normal people don't need to understand the legalities to know what is the right thing to do.

The point the OP I think is making is that if the car ceased to be his, the car would not be covered by his insurance.

So, if the garage burnt down, or he was the target of thieves, alright, the OP could keep shtum and forget that he'd been paid for it in full, and tried to get an insurance settlement, and refunded the buyer, but there'd be dishonesty there.

Where I think the answer lies is that whilst the exact point of formation of contract can be debated, when agreement to sell and payment is successfully received for the car, it could be argued that unless specifically agreed otherwise that this is the final point that the OP owned the car.

The OP would still have a duty of care to look after the vehicle though if it was agreed that collection would take place on a certain date.

So, the OP was exactly right not to drive the car, because if he had crashed it, this could have been seen as failing in his duty of care. Similarly, if he had parked it in a pub car park in Salford, and it got stolen, that may also be seen as a failure.

However, kept in a locked garage, this does demonstrate a very reasonable action.

Thanks for your excellent reply. I didn't have the patience to answer so clearly, but that is exactly what I was getting at.

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

andy118run said:

I would assume it's when you complete the paperwork - once you have both signed the relevant portion of the V5 to transfer ownership.

^^ Why do people write utter crap like this?

The V5C has got nothing whatsoever to do with the ownership of the car.

For fks sake, there are words to that effect in big bold letters at the very top of the front page, in very plain English. Have you never even glanced at a V5C?

This isn't some obscure legal point that can only be understood by referring to the source legal material, for which it's easier to be forgiving if someone doesn't know it; this is in plain view on the relevant document itself that any registered keeper of a car has in their possession.

Honestly, it's time we were a lot less polite about this kind of bks. People come here for useful information and informed discussion, and comments like the above are neither.

Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Friday 27th February 08:27

[Mr Taxpayer]

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

andy118run said:

I would assume it's when you complete the paperwork - once you have both signed the relevant portion of the V5 to transfer ownership.

^^ Why do people write utter crap like this?

The V5C has got nothing whatsoever to do with the ownership of the car.

For fks sake, there are words to that effect in big bold letters at the very top of the front page, in very plain English. Have you never even glanced at a V5C?

This isn't some obscure legal point that can only be understood by referring to the source legal material, for which it's easier to be forgiving if someone doesn't know it; this is in plain view on the relevant document itself that any registered keeper of a car has in their possession.

Honestly, it's time we were a lot less polite about this kind of bks. People come here for useful information and informed discussion, and comments like the above are neither.

Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Friday 27th February 08:27

What he said.

[AndyDubbya]

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

it's time we were a lot less polite

Yeah, that'll make the world a much better place

Thanks for the well-reasoned and politely-given replies. Seems to me like no-one knows for sure.

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

AndyDubbya said:

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

it's time we were a lot less polite

Yeah, that'll make the world a much better place

If it helps to stamp out the same old ignorance that people keep posting over and over again, then yes it will make the world a better place. We've tried being polite, and it plainly doesn't work.

And by the way, being "a lot less polite" doesn't imply "being rude". I simply mean that we should robustly point out when somebody has said something so obviously and demonstrably incorrect, so that nobody else can possibly end up with the wrong idea about (in this case) the meaning of a V5C.

Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Friday 27th February 12:26

[Devil2575]

JustinP1 said:

Devil2575 said:

I couldn't care less about the legalities. Once his money was in my account I wouldn't sell it to anyone else for more money but if it was stolen/destroyed by fire I'd deal with the aftermath and claim off my insurance.
Sometimes normal people don't need to understand the legalities to know what is the right thing to do.

The point the OP I think is making is that if the car ceased to be his, the car would not be covered by his insurance.

So, if the garage burnt down, or he was the target of thieves, alright, the OP could keep shtum and forget that he'd been paid for it in full, and tried to get an insurance settlement, and refunded the buyer, but there'd be dishonesty there.

Where I think the answer lies is that whilst the exact point of formation of contract can be debated, when agreement to sell and payment is successfully received for the car, it could be argued that unless specifically agreed otherwise that this is the final point that the OP owned the car.

The OP would still have a duty of care to look after the vehicle though if it was agreed that collection would take place on a certain date.

So, the OP was exactly right not to drive the car, because if he had crashed it, this could have been seen as failing in his duty of care. Similarly, if he had parked it in a pub car park in Salford, and it got stolen, that may also be seen as a failure.

However, kept in a locked garage, this does demonstrate a very reasonable action.

I'd be interested to understand the insurance companies viewed this situation. Insuring a vehicle for several days despite it having been paid for by another party vs insuring a vehicle still technically under the control of another party and still located at their property.

I understand clearly the logic and legal principles you are applying here I'm just not sure I agree. Let me run a real and similar situation past you for comparison. I purchased a bike for my son a couple of weeks back. I went into the shop and paid in full for the bike but chose to collect it several days later. The bike once paid for is now legally my property, however if the shop was broken into would it be unreasonable of me to expect a refund? Would it be reasonable for the shop to insist that it is my problem and them wash their hands of the situation?
In the situation of a car purchased privately how many of us in a situation such as the buyer in this case would arrange for insurance the moment the funds are transfered rather than the moment the keys are exchanged? Would an insurer even cover a car in such circumstances?
The other important question then would be, who is dictating the date of exchange. I'd be far more accepting of manking the buyer responsible for insurance if they were stating that they wanted to delay collection and I needed to transfer over a policy to a new car. However if it was me who was stating when I would be availible then it would feel wrong to expect them to cover the risk. Again, I would be interested to know how an insurer would feel about this situation. When is ownership formerly transfered.
I would have absolutely no problem with not telling an insurer that I had taken payment for a car but not handed it over yet in the event of a fire/theft, assuming we are talking about a matter of a day or so.

Sorry to the OP if my initial response sounded harsh or abrupt but this genuinely isn't a situation that I would have given a second thought to.

[wibblebrain]

Devil2575 said:

I'd be interested to understand the insurance companies viewed this situation. Insuring a vehicle for several days despite it having been paid for by another party vs insuring a vehicle still technically under the control of another party and still located at their property.

I understand clearly the logic and legal principles you are applying here I'm just not sure I agree. Let me run a real and similar situation past you for comparison. I purchased a bike for my son a couple of weeks back. I went into the shop and paid in full for the bike but chose to collect it several days later. The bike once paid for is now legally my property, however if the shop was broken into would it be unreasonable of me to expect a refund? Would it be reasonable for the shop to insist that it is my problem and them wash their hands of the situation?
In the situation of a car purchased privately how many of us in a situation such as the buyer in this case would arrange for insurance the moment the funds are transfered rather than the moment the keys are exchanged? Would an insurer even cover a car in such circumstances?
The other important question then would be, who is dictating the date of exchange. I'd be far more accepting of manking the buyer responsible for insurance if they were stating that they wanted to delay collection and I needed to transfer over a policy to a new car. However if it was me who was stating when I would be availible then it would feel wrong to expect them to cover the risk. Again, I would be interested to know how an insurer would feel about this situation. When is ownership formerly transfered.
I would have absolutely no problem with not telling an insurer that I had taken payment for a car but not handed it over yet in the event of a fire/theft, assuming we are talking about a matter of a day or so.

Sorry to the OP if my initial response sounded harsh or abrupt but this genuinely isn't a situation that I would have given a second thought to.

I bought a car which was in Cornwall, after having a local person check it out for me. It was a bargain and I paid the seller by bank transfer. It did cross my mind as to what would happen if the car were stolen off his drive for the period of a few days before I collected it - this worry meant I had it insured in my name from the day that the funds were transferred.

Needless to say rigorous checks as to the identity and location of the seller were carried out before the funds were transferred. I wouldn't normally hand over any cash before actually collecting a car but on this occasion there were sound reasons for doing so.

[JustinP1]

Devil2575 said:

I'd be interested to understand the insurance companies viewed this situation. Insuring a vehicle for several days despite it having been paid for by another party vs insuring a vehicle still technically under the control of another party and still located at their property.

I understand clearly the logic and legal principles you are applying here I'm just not sure I agree. Let me run a real and similar situation past you for comparison. I purchased a bike for my son a couple of weeks back. I went into the shop and paid in full for the bike but chose to collect it several days later. The bike once paid for is now legally my property, however if the shop was broken into would it be unreasonable of me to expect a refund? Would it be reasonable for the shop to insist that it is my problem and them wash their hands of the situation?
In the situation of a car purchased privately how many of us in a situation such as the buyer in this case would arrange for insurance the moment the funds are transfered rather than the moment the keys are exchanged? Would an insurer even cover a car in such circumstances?
The other important question then would be, who is dictating the date of exchange. I'd be far more accepting of manking the buyer responsible for insurance if they were stating that they wanted to delay collection and I needed to transfer over a policy to a new car. However if it was me who was stating when I would be availible then it would feel wrong to expect them to cover the risk. Again, I would be interested to know how an insurer would feel about this situation. When is ownership formerly transfered.
I would have absolutely no problem with not telling an insurer that I had taken payment for a car but not handed it over yet in the event of a fire/theft, assuming we are talking about a matter of a day or so.

Sorry to the OP if my initial response sounded harsh or abrupt but this genuinely isn't a situation that I would have given a second thought to.

All reasonable points there.

I'll turn the situation with your son's bike around:

Lets say when you come back to collect it the following week after paying in full but the place is boarded up, and you have to contact the administrators, they've gone bust.

Clearly, in that scenario, you'd want the bike to be yours!

To answer the question technically, taking the scenario of a property burning down. On the private sale of a car, it would be natural to expect someone holding your goods to take good care of them. Leaving them locked, and in a garage is an example. If the garage burnt down, unless the owner was somehow negligent in the cause of the fire, he has not breached his duty of care.

The bike shop scenario could be analysed slightly differently, as it is trading to provide a service, and it would be reasonably common for the scenario that a bike would be left there for repair etc, or bought and collected later. A claimant might argue that the bike shop had a duty of care to the owners of those bikes and should insure them for foreseeable loss.