Buyer paid deposit on car then pulled out. Is it refundable?

[Osinjak]

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.

I hate to say this but you sound like a right joyless individual and hellbent on making this bloke's life a misery. I agree, he's arsed you about but if, as has been suggested, you know the costs incurred dealing with this bloke, take 'em off, return the balance and move on. Life's too short to be a throbber, do the right thing.

[JustinP1]

Garybee said:

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.

This is the misconception and logic failure from the first thread:

The remedy for breach of contract is not to put both parties back where they were before they met. The remedy is to as best as possible put the innocent party into the same position as if the contract had not been breached.

That's what the law is. It is there as for some 'my word is my bond' is meaningless, and without redress, it would mean people could go round and breach contracts without impetus otherwise.

Garybee said:

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.

No, holding the deposit means that the OP is using the monies placed as part of the (breached) promise to buy to make sure he's not out of pocket himself. That's the point of the deposit.

With regards to offering the buyer who changed his mind potential profits, that's not how it works - in law, you don't get to breach contracts and then stand to profit from the innocent party!

[speedking31]

ol said:

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.

You don't feel guilty that someone else has paid for new tyres that you will benefit from when you sell the car? Maybe not monetarily but by having a car that is more attractive to other potential purchasers.

[Mojooo]

Breadvan72 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.

Kindly state authority for that proposition! OK, trick question, you can't, because there is no such rule in English contract law. A stipulation for a deposit is not automatically a penalty clause. A deposit can be the consideration payable for deferring purchase, and for locking out other possible buyers. As usual, context is everything.

Clearly we have case law which govern contracts - so I think you kenw what I meant.

I never said a deposit woudl automatically be a penalty - but often the amoutn take as a deposit will often outweight the 'losses' incurred if the buyer refuses to buy/breaches contract.

[Devil2575]

bhstewie said:

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.

I think there's grief when you get into complicated arrangements. If someone wants to buy a car then they do so when they see it.

I've had people offer deposits to hold a car as they can't get to view it for x days and i've always declined. Also getting work done on it for the buyer in advance is not something i'd entertain. If they want that level of service then they need to be buying from a dealer.

[JustinP1]

Osinjak said:

I hate to say this but you sound like a right joyless individual and hellbent on making this bloke's life a misery. I agree, he's arsed you about but if, as has been suggested, you know the costs incurred dealing with this bloke, take 'em off, return the balance and move on. Life's too short to be a throbber, do the right thing.

Is the 'right thing' to do promise to pay in full for an expensive item, on that basis get them to do a load of work, and then break that promise?

Is it the right thing to do to agree a price and get someone to take a car off sale use every trick in the book to knock the seller down for your financial benefit?

The OP is the innocent party here. Why should he pick up the cost in time and hassle because an individual is trying to (quite wrongfully) renegotiate a deal after it has been done?

[Osinjak]

Innocent party this, innocent party that. Lovely legalese and I'm sure it pays you well and gets you through the day but the law isn't the be all and and all of every one of life's daily activities. The buyer's been (being) a chopper, OP is in a position to recoup his losses and move on and the buyer will have to take that on the chin for messing him around. No-one comes out of this happy but at least it avoids prolonging any misery and difficulty. It doesn't have to be all wigs and contract law.

[JustinP1]

speedking31 said:

ol said:

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.

You don't feel guilty that someone else has paid for new tyres that you will benefit from when you sell the car? Maybe not monetarily but by having a car that is more attractive to other potential purchasers.

If only all the money we spend 'improving cars' would be totted up and we got the money back again when it was sold!

I don't think the OP has specified what he would do in this exact scenario but should the new tyres and work done actually increase the eventual selling price of the car by the same amount as the additional costs, then in theory the old buyer can get his deposit back in full.

If there's any shortfall, then of course that comes from the deposit.

[ikarl]

OP, I think you're doing the right thing.

Refund what you can once the sale is completed. It may be the whole amount, it may be part of it, but by all accounts I think you are being very reasonable.

[JustinP1]

Osinjak said:

Innocent party this, innocent party that. Lovely legalese and I'm sure it pays you well and gets you through the day but the law isn't the be all and and all of every one of life's daily activities. The buyer's been (being) a chopper, OP is in a position to recoup his losses and move on and the buyer will have to take that on the chin for messing him around. No-one comes out of this happy but at least it avoids prolonging any misery and difficulty. It doesn't have to be all wigs and case law (or whatever it is).

You can call this legal mumbo jumbo, wigs and whatever, but all of contract law originates from the same concept that 4 year olds get taught:

"Once you make a promise, you must stick to it."

This is the fundamental crux of business. If you lose that, or the ability to enforce a contract, then you make it very difficult to trust anyone, or run a business.

[Osinjak]

JustinP1 said:

You can call this legal mumbo jumbo, wigs and whatever, but all of contract law originates from the same concept that 4 year olds get taught:

"Once you make a promise, you must stick to it."

This is the fundamental crux of business. If you lose that, or the ability to enforce a contract, then you make it very difficult to trust anyone, or run a business.

I understand that and I agree with you but you can use the law as guidance rather than slavishly following it to the letter. I just don't understand why the OP just doesn't take out his expenses, literal and for his time, and just cut his losses. Just seems like an utter waste of time to hang onto a sizeable chunk of money when he really doesn't need to.

Each to their own and all that, it's just not how I'd do business even if the other party has been a bell end.

[JustinP1]

Osinjak said:

JustinP1 said:

You can call this legal mumbo jumbo, wigs and whatever, but all of contract law originates from the same concept that 4 year olds get taught:

"Once you make a promise, you must stick to it."

This is the fundamental crux of business. If you lose that, or the ability to enforce a contract, then you make it very difficult to trust anyone, or run a business.

I understand that and I agree with you but you can use the law as guidance rather than slavishly following it to the letter. I just don't understand why the OP just doesn't take out his expenses, literal and for his time, and just cut his losses. Just seems like an utter waste of time to hang onto a sizeable chunk of money when he really doesn't need to.

Each to their own and all that, it's just not how I'd do business even if the other party has been a bell end.

So if the car took another 3 months to sell, and you'd spent hours readvertising, entertaining numerous tyre kickers, only to have to accept an offer £1000 less than he sold the car for 3 months ago, you'd be happy, and you'd just pick up all those costs yourself?

[Osinjak]

JustinP1 said:

So if the car took another 3 months to sell, and you'd spent hours readvertising, entertaining numerous tyre kickers, only to have to accept an offer £1000 less than he sold the car for 3 months ago, you'd be happy, and you'd just pick up all those costs yourself?

Might take a week, might take a year. He might get more, he might get less. it's a spurious and pointless argument as there are so many potential variables. I've said my piece, OP can take it or leave it, makes no odds to me and in the meantime you can crack on with your various scenarios to bolster your viewpoint.

Edited by Osinjak on Monday 29th June 14:05

[LoonR1]

Garybee 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

Except that isn't what is being suggested here is it?

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.

Whilst my comment was both early in the life of the thread and partially tongue in cheek, it does raise the point over hypocrisy in here dependent on which side of the argument the PHer is. The subsequent discussion, since you posted the above comment, tends to support my opinion much more than yours.

[JustinP1]

Osinjak said:

JustinP1 said:

So if the car took another 3 months to sell, and you'd spent hours readvertising, entertaining numerous tyre kickers, only to have to accept an offer £1000 less than he sold the car for 3 months ago, you'd be happy, and you'd just pick up all those costs yourself?

Might take a week, might take a year. He might get more, he might get less. it's a spurious and pointless argument as there are so many potential variables. I've said my piece, OP can take it or leave it, makes no odds to me and in the meantime you can crack on with your various scenarios to bolster your viewpoint.

Edited by Osinjak on Monday 29th June 14:05

I'm not talking about various scenarios, you suggested the OP would be a 'throbber' for taking his stance.

Again, would you be happy going from the position of a 'sold' car, to picking up the readvertisement costs yourself? Would you look forward to having to entertain more people viewing the car, and would you accept £1000 lower with a smile on your face?

The reality is that you would not, right?

[Osinjak]

JustinP1 said:

I'm not talking about various scenarios, you suggested the OP would be a 'throbber' for taking his stance.

Again, would you be happy going from the position of a 'sold' car, to picking up the readvertisement costs yourself? Would you look forward to having to entertain more people viewing the car, and would you accept £1000 lower with a smile on your face?

The reality is that you would not, right?

Well of course I wouldn't, what a stupid question. I find your reasoning quite unfathomable and a little bit juvenile. Give me your crystal ball will you? I've just ordered a new BMW and the new quarter starts tomorrow so if there's a better deal in there I might be able to cancel this order and reorder on Weds.

The OP might get run over by a bus, he might win the lottery, he might sell his car for £1000 over and above his asking price tomorrow, he might just break even next week or he might lose a shedload in six months. You don't know what's going to happen and selecting ONE possibility out of hundreds is just bizarre.

And I've told you already, take out the costs (advertising included as you keep referring to) and give the remainder back. It's not difficult.

Edited by Osinjak on Monday 29th June 14:25

[JustinP1]

Osinjak said:

Well of course I wouldn't, what a stupid question. I find your reasoning quite unfathomable and a little bit juvenile....

The OP might get run over by a bus, he might win the lottery, he might sell his car for £1000 over and above his asking price tomorrow...

OK mate, you made your point.


You'd give the buyer his deposit back. That's great of you. But is the OP a 'throbber' for not doing the same? Not if you ask me. We can agree to disagree.

[Osinjak]

Fine, I take back the gratuitous name-calling but I still think he's being vindictive. My original point was to just give it all back which I now think is wrong. Reclaim your costs, actual and predicted, and give the rest back. As I said before, everyone is different but that's what I'd do. If the OP decides to do different and it looks like he has then he's obviously got more fight in him than I could be bothered to deal with. My worldview is clearly very different to his.

[Devil2575]

JustinP1 said:

Osinjak said:

Well of course I wouldn't, what a stupid question. I find your reasoning quite unfathomable and a little bit juvenile....

The OP might get run over by a bus, he might win the lottery, he might sell his car for £1000 over and above his asking price tomorrow...

OK mate, you made your point.


You'd give the buyer his deposit back. That's great of you. But is the OP a 'throbber' for not doing the same? Not if you ask me. We can agree to disagree.

What if the car grenaded it's engine tomorrow?

Had the other person bought it it wouldn't have been his problem but as he didn't then it's an extra expense. Would you say he is justified in taking the cost of repair from the deposit?

I actually hold the view that the buyer paid a deposit so should lose it. Without the risk of losing it what is the point in paying it?

People may like to chop and change their minds as they wish but that isn't the sellers problem. You pay a non returnable deposit then you lose it if you change your mind. It should be that simple.

However the learning is that until the car is paid for in full you aint bought it and I will sell be advertising it for sale. There's a point where i'd be prepared to be reasonable and hold a car with a deposit for a couple of days on the understanding that I will keep it advertised. But I simple don't get why people would entertain all the stuff that the OP did. I never go to view cars unless I have funds in my account to buy them there and then, or at least if I do I go to a dealer, not a private sale.

[JM]

Osinjak said:

Reclaim your costs, actual and predicted, and give the rest back.

How do you know the 'predicted' costs?

Simple answer you don't, so the logical/sensible thing is to wait till the car is sld and return the balance after all the costs are deducted if relevant.