Buyer paid deposit on car then pulled out. Is it refundable?
Discussion
Osinjak said:
Legalities aside, do you really want all that aggro in your life? People change their minds, it happens and holding them to ransom to the tune of £2k is a bit excessive. Me? I'd be hacked off but I'd give him his dosh back, life's too short to get into a scrap over a fairly sizeable sum and if you do withhold it, he's not going to go away without a fight that's for sure.
Pretty much where I'd sit on it if it were me but it probably explains why I simply can't be arsed selling stuff like cars privately - too much grief all around.Inform the buyer that should he wish to breach the contract of sale that you will:
1) Keep hold of his deposit so you can:
2) Readvertise the car.
3) Sell it to the best buyer in a reasonable amount of time, so:
4) If there are any surplus amounts from the eventual selling price, taking into account the monies spent at request, and any readvertisement costs, that he will have that sum returned.
So, for example, lets say the buyer agreed to buy the car at £30,000 plus the cost of tyres and other stuff at £800, and the cost for readvertisement is £100, and the car sells for £30,500, then he will be due all of his deposit, minus the £400 difference back.
OP: the blokes trying to knock you down. The Glass guide price was there before he agreed to buy, and before he asked to you prep the car at his request.
1) Keep hold of his deposit so you can:
2) Readvertise the car.
3) Sell it to the best buyer in a reasonable amount of time, so:
4) If there are any surplus amounts from the eventual selling price, taking into account the monies spent at request, and any readvertisement costs, that he will have that sum returned.
So, for example, lets say the buyer agreed to buy the car at £30,000 plus the cost of tyres and other stuff at £800, and the cost for readvertisement is £100, and the car sells for £30,500, then he will be due all of his deposit, minus the £400 difference back.
OP: the blokes trying to knock you down. The Glass guide price was there before he agreed to buy, and before he asked to you prep the car at his request.
Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 28th June 19:22
ol said:
Thanks for the replies. Does anyone know the legal position on it, or is it one of the grey areas?
I feel that in a court of law, from the emails we have exchanged, the sale was definitely confirmed, and the fact that I went above and beyond for him by doing things like putting the new tyres on and sending so many photos showed that we were both under the impression that it was a done deal.
I was in the exact same position as you only the car was advertised on ebay and I was also paying storage fees / when the buyer pulled out .....several months !! I feel that in a court of law, from the emails we have exchanged, the sale was definitely confirmed, and the fact that I went above and beyond for him by doing things like putting the new tyres on and sending so many photos showed that we were both under the impression that it was a done deal.
I claimed my expenses out of the deposit.
cost of storage fees
ebay fees , including re listing
£50 for being messed about
the rest I returned
LoonR1 said:
Perfect. Awaiting the hypocrites from this thread to post in the OP's favour
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It seems it works like this
If you're a PHer who has paid a deposit, then you can demand it back in full from the seller
If you're a PHer who has received a deposit, then you can refuse to refund it at all to the purchaser.
Fantastic
Absolutely this ^^^http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It seems it works like this
If you're a PHer who has paid a deposit, then you can demand it back in full from the seller
If you're a PHer who has received a deposit, then you can refuse to refund it at all to the purchaser.
Fantastic
Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the f
k is the point of a deposit in the first place???PorkInsider said:
Absolutely this ^^^
Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the fk is the point of a deposit in the first place???
Perhaps the way to look at it is that english contract law technically doesn't allow deposits as they can conflict with the principles of contract law.Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the f
k is the point of a deposit in the first place???Mojooo said:
Perhaps the way to look at it is that english contract law technically doesn't allow deposits as they can conflict with the principles of contract law.
So when someone comes on here bleating that they paid a deposit and the. The seller sold it to someone else anyway, you'll all agree that that's fine and dandy. LoonR1 said:
So when someone comes on here bleating that they paid a deposit and the. The seller sold it to someone else anyway, you'll all agree that that's fine and dandy.
No, coz the buyer could sue the seller for breach of contract.The losses would be calculates irrespective of what the deposit was.
I suspect in mosat cases the lossews to a buyer would be minimal.
Mojooo said:
PorkInsider said:
Absolutely this ^^^
Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the fk is the point of a deposit in the first place???
Perhaps the way to look at it is that english contract law technically doesn't allow deposits as they can conflict with the principles of contract law.Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the f
k is the point of a deposit in the first place???There's nothing wrong with the principle of a deposit being a guarantee of future performance. I'd also advise it, as it will avoid losses you'd otherwise have the hassle of suing for, or more realistically, sucking up yourself.
That's the point, the OP can physically retain the deposit, and there's bugger all the buyer can do, but take legal action and look forward to putting more money in the pot (or pit...) and let 4-6 months roll by to a hearing date. So it's an effective protection from having your time wasted.
What would a buyer be facing in legal and practical terms to try an reclaim his deposit? He'd have to argue that the amount was not a genuine pre-estimate and thus a penalty, which would be difficult if the sum is reasonable. First hurdle. The second hurdle would be that if that were the stated position of the buyer, the OP would then counterclaim for his actual losses, which of course might be more than the deposit.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 29th June 00:55
JustinP1 said:
Mojooo said:
PorkInsider said:
Absolutely this ^^^
Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the fk is the point of a deposit in the first place???
Perhaps the way to look at it is that english contract law technically doesn't allow deposits as they can conflict with the principles of contract law.Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the f
k is the point of a deposit in the first place???There's nothing wrong with the principle of a deposit being a guarantee of future performance. I'd also advise it, as it will avoid losses you'd otherwise have the hassle of suing for, or more realistically, sucking up yourself.
That's the point, the OP can physically retain the deposit, and there's bugger all the buyer can do, but take legal action and look forward to putting more money in the pot (or pit...) and let 4-6 months roll by to a hearing date. So it's an effective protection from having your time wasted.
What would a buyer be facing in legal and practical terms to try an reclaim his deposit? He'd have to argue that the amount was not a genuine pre-estimate and thus a penalty, which would be difficult if the sum is reasonable. First hurdle. The second hurdle would be that if that were the stated position of the buyer, the OP would then counterclaim for his actual losses, which of course might be more than the deposit.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 29th June 00:55
As you say ,practically speaking, because of the court system being so slow etc it makes sense to take a deposit to protect yourself.
PorkInsider said:
LoonR1 said:
Perfect. Awaiting the hypocrites from this thread to post in the OP's favour
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It seems it works like this
If you're a PHer who has paid a deposit, then you can demand it back in full from the seller
If you're a PHer who has received a deposit, then you can refuse to refund it at all to the purchaser.
Fantastic
Absolutely this ^^^http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It seems it works like this
If you're a PHer who has paid a deposit, then you can demand it back in full from the seller
If you're a PHer who has received a deposit, then you can refuse to refund it at all to the purchaser.
Fantastic
Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the f
k is the point of a deposit in the first place???The previous thread was about someone who put a deposit down on a car, then within 24hour had changed his mind and contacted the dealer, and the dealer was of the opinion he could retain the full deposit without justifying any costs
The then thread descended into total nonsense that the OP had not just lost his deposit he was at risk of losing his house and ending up in debtors prison, we can only assume that is what happened because the OP has not come back to tell us what the response to his letter was
Mojooo said:
PorkInsider said:
Absolutely this ^^^
Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the fk is the point of a deposit in the first place???
Perhaps the way to look at it is that english contract law technically doesn't allow deposits as they can conflict with the principles of contract law.Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the f
k is the point of a deposit in the first place???OP, no one here has suggested actually talking to the buyer about this problem. I know it's a weird concept....
Personally, I would email him and say, sorry to hear you don't wish to proceed. Obviously the deposit you paid was, as stated, non refundable and I have spent money on the car based on you buying it.
See what he says. He might get all huffy in which case you can negotiate with him, maybe say, look OK I can see your point of view but can you see mine, I have spent money and time on this car for you, how about I split the deposit and pay you back a grand? He has now gone from loosing two grand to "just" loosing one.
Or he might just say, fair cop mate, keep the deposit.
I think most legal problems could be solved simply if people just talked about it before quoting "law" and "rights".
Personally, I would email him and say, sorry to hear you don't wish to proceed. Obviously the deposit you paid was, as stated, non refundable and I have spent money on the car based on you buying it.
See what he says. He might get all huffy in which case you can negotiate with him, maybe say, look OK I can see your point of view but can you see mine, I have spent money and time on this car for you, how about I split the deposit and pay you back a grand? He has now gone from loosing two grand to "just" loosing one.
Or he might just say, fair cop mate, keep the deposit.
I think most legal problems could be solved simply if people just talked about it before quoting "law" and "rights".
Mojooo said:
JustinP1 said:
Mojooo said:
PorkInsider said:
Absolutely this ^^^
Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the fk is the point of a deposit in the first place???
Perhaps the way to look at it is that english contract law technically doesn't allow deposits as they can conflict with the principles of contract law.Apparently, according to PH, deposits are an utter waste of time as the buyer is perfectly entitled to demand his money back.
Therefore what the f
k is the point of a deposit in the first place???There's nothing wrong with the principle of a deposit being a guarantee of future performance. I'd also advise it, as it will avoid losses you'd otherwise have the hassle of suing for, or more realistically, sucking up yourself.
That's the point, the OP can physically retain the deposit, and there's bugger all the buyer can do, but take legal action and look forward to putting more money in the pot (or pit...) and let 4-6 months roll by to a hearing date. So it's an effective protection from having your time wasted.
What would a buyer be facing in legal and practical terms to try an reclaim his deposit? He'd have to argue that the amount was not a genuine pre-estimate and thus a penalty, which would be difficult if the sum is reasonable. First hurdle. The second hurdle would be that if that were the stated position of the buyer, the OP would then counterclaim for his actual losses, which of course might be more than the deposit.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 29th June 00:55
As you say ,practically speaking, because of the court system being so slow etc it makes sense to take a deposit to protect yourself.
The onus is then on the deposit placer if they truly believe in their legal right to have it back to take action, make legal argument, and later prove to the satisfaction of the court that that legal argument is sound.
It all comes back to the fact that if you believe a deposit is an unfair amount on legal principle, then don't give a deposit, or agree one you don't mind losing if you change your mind.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 29th June 09:45
JumboBeef said:
OP, no one here has suggested actually talking to the buyer about this problem. I know it's a weird concept....
Personally, I would email him and say, sorry to hear you don't wish to proceed. Obviously the deposit you paid was, as stated, non refundable and I have spent money on the car based on you buying it.
See what he says. He might get all huffy in which case you can negotiate with him, maybe say, look OK I can see your point of view but can you see mine, I have spent money and time on this car for you, how about I split the deposit and pay you back a grand? He has now gone from loosing two grand to "just" loosing one.
Or he might just say, fair cop mate, keep the deposit.
I think most legal problems could be solved simply if people just talked about it before quoting "law" and "rights".
Get the hell out of here and take that perfectly reasonably and well thought out suggestion with you!!!!Personally, I would email him and say, sorry to hear you don't wish to proceed. Obviously the deposit you paid was, as stated, non refundable and I have spent money on the car based on you buying it.
See what he says. He might get all huffy in which case you can negotiate with him, maybe say, look OK I can see your point of view but can you see mine, I have spent money and time on this car for you, how about I split the deposit and pay you back a grand? He has now gone from loosing two grand to "just" loosing one.
Or he might just say, fair cop mate, keep the deposit.
I think most legal problems could be solved simply if people just talked about it before quoting "law" and "rights".
LoonR1 said:
Perfect. Awaiting the hypocrites from this thread to post in the OP's favour
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It seems it works like this
If you're a PHer who has paid a deposit, then you can demand it back in full from the seller
If you're a PHer who has received a deposit, then you can refuse to refund it at all to the purchaser.
Fantastic
Except that isn't what is being suggested here is it?http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It seems it works like this
If you're a PHer who has paid a deposit, then you can demand it back in full from the seller
If you're a PHer who has received a deposit, then you can refuse to refund it at all to the purchaser.
Fantastic
The general consensus on this thread appears to be that it would be fair for the OP to withold actual costs incurred from the deposit. The general consensus where a prospective buyer posts is the same...that the dealer should not withold a deposit beyond costs incurred.
There are individual posts which contradict this but they are in the minority. If you have an example of an individual arguing in the way you describe maybe you could quote them specifically.
It appears that you are reading selectively but choosing to interperet a few posts as being representative of the entire community. Then getting all bent out of shape if at some point in the future one person within that community contradicts that view.
OK, well I have tried to settle it with him reasonably, but he seems set on the Glass' price guide being the be all and end all, even though there is not a car in the country for sale within about £5,000 of what they give as the value.
I have told him that should he wish to break our contract I will be holding on to the deposit until I have secured a sale elsewhere, at which time I will refund him less the associated advertising costs, cost of the tyres, and less any amount under the initial agreed sale price.
I think that's fair enough.
Thanks for all the advice.
I have told him that should he wish to break our contract I will be holding on to the deposit until I have secured a sale elsewhere, at which time I will refund him less the associated advertising costs, cost of the tyres, and less any amount under the initial agreed sale price.
I think that's fair enough.
Thanks for all the advice.
ol said:
OK, well I have tried to settle it with him reasonably, but he seems set on the Glass' price guide being the be all and end all, even though there is not a car in the country for sale within about £5,000 of what they give as the value.
I have told him that should he wish to break our contract I will be holding on to the deposit until I have secured a sale elsewhere, at which time I will refund him less the associated advertising costs, cost of the tyres, and less any amount under the initial agreed sale price.
I think that's fair enough.
Thanks for all the advice.
That doesn't sound reasonable to me at all. You know what your costs are at this moment to put you back in the position you were before you agreed the sale. That would be morally the correct ammount to withold from the deposit. You could then return the remainder and be no worse off than when you started. I have told him that should he wish to break our contract I will be holding on to the deposit until I have secured a sale elsewhere, at which time I will refund him less the associated advertising costs, cost of the tyres, and less any amount under the initial agreed sale price.
I think that's fair enough.
Thanks for all the advice.
Holding on to the deposit makes it appear as if you are trying to profit from the failed sale. Especially as you make no mention of reimbursing him any ammount that you receive over and above your original agreed sale price.
Garybee said:
you are trying to profit from the failed sale.
His sale didn't fail, just the buyer has failed to buy, he has a deposit for the sale, i.e. part payment. It is now the buyer who is failing to pay in full for the goods he agreed to buy. It's absolutely reasonable for him to wait till he knows his final position before refunding the buyer and difference he might be morally due.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff