Buyer paid deposit on car then pulled out. Is it refundable?
Discussion
JM said:
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.
You don't know the exact costs but it wouldn't unreasonable to impute them, people do it all the time. Builders are a classic example.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.
LoonR1 said:
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?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.
Osinjak said:
JM said:
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.
You don't know the exact costs but it wouldn't unreasonable to impute them, people do it all the time. Builders are a classic example.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.
The other way to look at the deposit is that it is a pre-estimate of the probable loss involved if the buyer were to not fulfil his promise to pay in full and buy the car.
However, if both sides take that view this means that the deposit is lost in full without any further argument, whether the deposit figure ends up being the actual loss or not.
k him, keep it all. caveat emptor. None of the legal advice on here is correct.
The long and short of it is that the difference between the sum you can sensibly and fairly retain (the costs you incurred at his request) and the amount you may lawfully be able to retain (£2k) is not huge and is not worth a potentially costly scrap.
The long and short of it is that the difference between the sum you can sensibly and fairly retain (the costs you incurred at his request) and the amount you may lawfully be able to retain (£2k) is not huge and is not worth a potentially costly scrap.
Those are very confident words. Would you care to share with us your qualifications and experience that make you so positive?
On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
Breadvan72 said:
Those are very confident words. Would you care to share with us your qualifications and experience that make you so positive?
On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
Nope. But you have to watch this propensity to assume that nobody but you is a lawyer. On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
Ironic that you follow it up with exactly what I would have said had I thought more detail would have helped the OP. He doesn't want a fight over what was said, let alone the analysis of this kind of deposit (although I agree with what you say in that respect).
ORD, is it that you have no relevant qualifications and experience, or that you do, but are shy about discussing them? I had already pointed out on a previous page that a deposit may be retainable as a form of consideration and should not always be seen as a penalty. If, as you say you do, you agree with that suggestion, then your emphatic assertion that none of the legal advice given in this thread was correct would be, er, incorrect.
ORD said:
Breadvan72 said:
Those are very confident words. Would you care to share with us your qualifications and experience that make you so positive?
On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
Nope. But you have to watch this propensity to assume that nobody but you is a lawyer. On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
Ironic that you follow it up with exactly what I would have said had I thought more detail would have helped the OP. He doesn't want a fight over what was said, let alone the analysis of this kind of deposit (although I agree with what you say in that respect).
Breadvan72 said:
ORD, is it that you have no relevant qualifications and experience, or that you do, but are shy about discussing them? I had already pointed out on a previous page that a deposit may be retainable as a form of consideration and should not always be seen as a penalty. If, as you say you do, you agree with that suggestion, then your emphatic assertion that none of the legal advice given in this thread was correct would be, er, incorrect.
Touché.I got bored of reading the wrong advice and missed your correct advice amongst the nonsense. I probably owed you an apology from the outset.
I wouldn't say 'shy' - I just have no interest in telling all and sundry on here
ORD said:
I got bored of reading the wrong advice and missed your correct advice amongst the nonsense. I probably owed you an apology from the outset.
OK, where's this majority of wrong advice?I have to say that (possibly unusually) those recounting the legal position have been generally correct, and those who are stating what they would do (which is perhaps different from what the law is) have clearly stated their opinion as such.
Breadvan72 said:
Those are very confident words. Would you care to share with us your qualifications and experience that make you so positive?
On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
What about arguing it was part payment towards the purchase - can it be both?On a practical note, to avoid hassle, I would be inclined to pay back the amount received less expenses, but as a matter of legal entitlement the seller could arguably retain the whole deposit, on the basis that it was (by inference at least) stipulated as consideration for removing the car from the market and accepting delayed payment of the full price. The idea that the law as to penalties invariably applies to deposits in sale and purchase contracts is mistaken.
I suspect in reality people pay a deposit to stop a sale to someone else and then also act as part payment.
JustinP1 said:
OK, where's this majority of wrong advice?
I have to say that (possibly unusually) those recounting the legal position have been generally correct, and those who are stating what they would do (which is perhaps different from what the law is) have clearly stated their opinion as such.
Read it yourself and work it out - a lot of guff about penalties, for a start. I have to say that (possibly unusually) those recounting the legal position have been generally correct, and those who are stating what they would do (which is perhaps different from what the law is) have clearly stated their opinion as such.
But I agree that there is some unusually sensible practical advice.
The outcomes of most of these disputes that come up are not going to be determined by one party knowing his (arguable) rights better and asserting them more forcefully. The 'winner' will be the one who takes the most sensible and constructive approach in light of the fact that the parties are bound to disagree about the facts and neither will have the money or balls (or stupidity) to bring a claim over a few hundred quid and so resolve the factual disputes. And if push comes to shove, that same sensible bloke will be on the right side of the judge's grump from the start.
Legally, what would be the position of someone who has viewed a car on a dealers forecourt, gone away to think about it, then reserved the car over the phone via credit card. No paperwork has been drawn up / signed yet.
Given a good night's sleep, if the buyer no longer feels comfortable executing fully on the deal should they just call the dealer ASAP and hope for the best in regards to getting some of the deposit (£1,000) back?
Given a good night's sleep, if the buyer no longer feels comfortable executing fully on the deal should they just call the dealer ASAP and hope for the best in regards to getting some of the deposit (£1,000) back?
PurpleMoonlight said:
ol said:
From what I have read in the linked thread it looks as though "The redress for either party for a breach of contract is the recovery of any loss incurred. Anything else is a penalty and not enforceable." So this would indicate I can deduct the cost of the new tyres, as well as costs to re-advertise the car and my time lost in the whole debacle.
Your problem if you do that is you are left with a car to re-sell that is better than the one you originally sold. Is that fair on the original purchaser?As for fairness on the original purchaser, he reneged on the deal so tough titty.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff