Sold a Car that has broken down HELP ASAP
Discussion
Op your advert looks good to me. Are you a mechanic or engineer as I can see the buyers only hope of a case in his eyes but a near 100k highly stressed engine breaks it is sgit happens time.
I would let him write his letters, you take some proper legal advice andwait for the money claim.
I would let him write his letters, you take some proper legal advice andwait for the money claim.
btcc123 said:
Butter Face said:
I think the only thing in the advert is the 'mechanically sound' line, he could argue it wasn't, but he needs to prove it!
As the car has been to Munich,did £3k miles and had an MOT last month to me that seams the car is "mechanically sound"Sounds like they're going to try their luck though, don't give in!!!
Butter Face said:
Although it's easy to say 'caveat emptor' it doesn't always work like that in person, there was a thread on MSE recently that a private seller got taken to court and lost. Be careful.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5185951&page=15#topofpagebladebloke said:
I would urge a little caution here.
All the posts saying that in a private sale caveat emptor applies are correct and it is also true that he has no right to reject the car because it wasn't fit for purpose/satisfactory quality (the usual grounds on which goods are rejected when buying from somebody acting in the course of business).
But that is not what the buyer is alleging. He says you made misrepresentations, which is a separate cause of action and does apply to private sales. Representations aren't limited to eg what was written in the advert as has been implied above, it could be any statement that was made that didn't become part of the contract but induced him to enter it.
Having said that, I think he's probably just clutching a straws after breaking the thing/being super unlucky. Or perhaps a scam. There's certainly logic in not corresponding with him until getting some indication that he's actually going to pursue it. But you might decide to try to put it to bed would be to reply with something like:
'It is unfortunate that a problem developed after the sale of the car to you. However, I cannot respond to vague allegations of misrepresentation, as found in your letter of ........... . If you provide particulars of the alleged misrepresentation(s), I will consider responding.
For the avoidance of doubt, I deny making any misrepresentation.'
The idea here is that (assuming you did not say anything that was untrue/misleading) he won't be able to provide any such particulars and will realise that he has nothing to pursue.
^^This^^All the posts saying that in a private sale caveat emptor applies are correct and it is also true that he has no right to reject the car because it wasn't fit for purpose/satisfactory quality (the usual grounds on which goods are rejected when buying from somebody acting in the course of business).
But that is not what the buyer is alleging. He says you made misrepresentations, which is a separate cause of action and does apply to private sales. Representations aren't limited to eg what was written in the advert as has been implied above, it could be any statement that was made that didn't become part of the contract but induced him to enter it.
Having said that, I think he's probably just clutching a straws after breaking the thing/being super unlucky. Or perhaps a scam. There's certainly logic in not corresponding with him until getting some indication that he's actually going to pursue it. But you might decide to try to put it to bed would be to reply with something like:
'It is unfortunate that a problem developed after the sale of the car to you. However, I cannot respond to vague allegations of misrepresentation, as found in your letter of ........... . If you provide particulars of the alleged misrepresentation(s), I will consider responding.
For the avoidance of doubt, I deny making any misrepresentation.'
The idea here is that (assuming you did not say anything that was untrue/misleading) he won't be able to provide any such particulars and will realise that he has nothing to pursue.
Those who claim that a buyer cannot win in a private sale need to think again - see the MSE link above. If the matter goes in front of a County Court judge there is no cast iron guarantee that the seller will prevail. Decisions in one court are not binding on another so you are at the mercy of whichever judge is looking at the case. The value here is within the small claims limit so is likely to be judged on the papers (assuming that mediation is refused).
The letter may well be a bluff. The key question is what specific misrepresentations the buyer thinks have been made and on which he can rely. The options are to try and tease them out of him or just sit tight. If a claim is issued the buyer can't make vague generalisations, he will have to state what the alleged misreps are. If he is determined to press ahead the OP will have to do one of 3 things.
- Admit the full claim
- Admit it in part
- Defend it
Is it all B&B? Who knows? If the buyer does go ahead, one thing is for sure. He is going to incur up front fees - https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/small-claims-court...
GC8 said:
Worthless, so pointless. All that matter is misrepresentation and dangerous condition.
And your qualifications for dismissing the suggestion are ..........Perhaps instead of listening to a lot of barrack room lawyers ,the OP should try registering here and get advice from genuine legal experts FOC
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/index.p...
MX51ROD said:
GC8 said:
Worthless, so pointless. All that matter is misrepresentation and dangerous condition.
And your qualifications for dismissing the suggestion are ..........Perhaps instead of listening to a lot of barrack room lawyers ,the OP should try registering here and get advice from genuine legal experts FOC
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/index.p...
Good day.
Red Devil said:
^^This^^
Those who claim that a buyer cannot win in a private sale need to think again - see the MSE link above. If the matter goes in front of a County Court judge there is no cast iron guarantee that the seller will prevail. Decisions in one court are not binding on another so you are at the mercy of whichever judge is looking at the case. The value here is within the small claims limit so is likely to be judged on the papers (assuming that mediation is refused).
The letter may well be a bluff. The key question is what specific misrepresentations the buyer thinks have been made and on which he can rely. The options are to try and tease them out of him or just sit tight. If a claim is issued the buyer can't make vague generalisations, he will have to state what the alleged misreps are. If he is determined to press ahead the OP will have to do one of 3 things.
- Admit the full claim
- Admit it in part
- Defend it
Is it all B&B? Who knows? If the buyer does go ahead, one thing is for sure. He is going to incur up front fees - https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/small-claims-court...
^^^ Again, this ^^^Those who claim that a buyer cannot win in a private sale need to think again - see the MSE link above. If the matter goes in front of a County Court judge there is no cast iron guarantee that the seller will prevail. Decisions in one court are not binding on another so you are at the mercy of whichever judge is looking at the case. The value here is within the small claims limit so is likely to be judged on the papers (assuming that mediation is refused).
The letter may well be a bluff. The key question is what specific misrepresentations the buyer thinks have been made and on which he can rely. The options are to try and tease them out of him or just sit tight. If a claim is issued the buyer can't make vague generalisations, he will have to state what the alleged misreps are. If he is determined to press ahead the OP will have to do one of 3 things.
- Admit the full claim
- Admit it in part
- Defend it
Is it all B&B? Who knows? If the buyer does go ahead, one thing is for sure. He is going to incur up front fees - https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/small-claims-court...
Caveat emptor is a vastly over-used phrase which sounds good cos it's Latin but isn't a cast iron guarantee when things go to court. A judge will look at the whole facts and decide on the balance of probabilities what the outcome should be.
So, say the buyer in court papers claims that, in conversation with the seller (just as much a part of the description as anything printed) he asked if the car was reliable. The seller, obviously, replies that it is and that (say) he'd trust it to go to Munich again. The seller denies that this conversation ever took place.
A judge may well decide that it's more likely than not that a buyer would ask that question, and that the seller (given what he's put in the advert) could very likely have given a reply along those lines. So the judge decides that, on the balance of probabilities, the seller had described it as reliable and mechanically sound. Yet it blew up within 10 minutes of sale.
Add to that the fact that you've changed cars several times this year, which won't be hard for the buyer to find out if you've been posting adverts regularly, and it raises more potential questions for a judge to consider.
If you put over-used Latin to one side for a moment, you should all be bright enough to see where that could be heading.
OP, by all means deny responsibility for it but do not ignore the guy or tell him to sod off. Your safest bet is to engage in the process of resolving it - offering to cover the cost of a Honda diagnostic is a good suggestion if the ECU will log over-revs etc. If it does go to court then you're far more likely to be seen as "more likely than not" believable if you've acted reasonably and in the way you'd hope someone would act towards you in the same situation - especially if it turns out that the engne hadn't been thrashed in those 10 minutes.
The Spruce goose said:
But the judge would decide how valid the argument is, I.e seller says he lied when looking at the facts the selker was truthful in description etc.
Agreed, but the judge isn't a mechanic and you have to assume not a car enthusiast (or even, necessarily, a driver!). So, if the seller (more likely than not) said that it was mechanically sound and reliable in conversation with the buyer then the non-mechanic, non-enthusiast, non-driver, judge may find it hard to swallow the idea that the engine on a mechanically sound car just happened to blow up 10 minutes after the sale.
Granted, all of that sort of thing could be sorted out on appeal if needed, but better to try and avoid it ever going that far.
Variomatic said:
OP, by all means deny responsibility for it but do not ignore the guy or tell him to sod off. Your safest bet is to engage in the process of resolving it - offering to cover the cost of a Honda diagnostic is a good suggestion if the ECU will log over-revs etc. If it does go to court then you're far more likely to be seen as "more likely than not" believable if you've acted reasonably and in the way you'd hope someone would act towards you in the same situation - especially if it turns out that the engne hadn't been thrashed in those 10 minutes.
I disagree with that. I'd ignore him until he sends you a real legal eagle letter, not some jibber jabber that he has cut and paste from knob ends law.com.Offering to pay for anything at this stage is not the right way to go IMO. If the car was fine when you sold it and it shart itself when in his 'care' thats just the way it goes. You have your description for your for sale ad. Anything that is not in writing is just like a fart in the wind, makes you screw your face up for a moment but after that there's no proof of its existence.
It doesn't matter whether he's mistreated it or it just died through bad luck. You described it as best you could (according to your posts here) and sold it in good faith. He inspected it, bought it and then it failed for whatever reason.
Like a previous poster has said, how long does he expect you to be liable for the condition of the car? Days months weeks or longer?
Ignore him until he sends a real legal letter. Then you'll have to take it from there. He's a prick.
k off.No Bend said:
I disagree with that. I'd ignore him until he sends you a real legal eagle letter, not some jibber jabber that he has cut and paste from knob ends law.com.
Offering to pay for anything at this stage is not the right way to go IMO. If the car was fine when you sold it and it shart itself when in his 'care' thats just the way it goes. You have your description for your for sale ad. Anything that is not in writing is just like a fart in the wind, makes you screw your face up for a moment but after that there's no proof of its existence.
It doesn't matter whether he's mistreated it or it just died through bad luck. You described it as best you could (according to your posts here) and sold it in good faith. He inspected it, bought it and then it failed for whatever reason.
Like a previous poster has said, how long does he expect you to be liable for the condition of the car? Days months weeks or longer?
Ignore him until he sends a real legal letter. Then you'll have to take it from there. He's a prick.
Funnily enough, pretty much all that same advice was given on the MSE thread linked above. The seller lost. Offering to pay for anything at this stage is not the right way to go IMO. If the car was fine when you sold it and it shart itself when in his 'care' thats just the way it goes. You have your description for your for sale ad. Anything that is not in writing is just like a fart in the wind, makes you screw your face up for a moment but after that there's no proof of its existence.
It doesn't matter whether he's mistreated it or it just died through bad luck. You described it as best you could (according to your posts here) and sold it in good faith. He inspected it, bought it and then it failed for whatever reason.
Like a previous poster has said, how long does he expect you to be liable for the condition of the car? Days months weeks or longer?
Ignore him until he sends a real legal letter. Then you'll have to take it from there. He's a prick.
The last page or two of the thread are many of the same posters saying how outrageous it was that (curiously) the judge on the day didn't follow their advice
Variomatic said:
Funnily enough, pretty much all that same advice was given on the MSE thread linked above. The seller lost.
The last page or two of the thread are many of the same posters saying how outrageous it was that (curiously) the judge on the day didn't follow their advice
Lack of consistency from the judiciary makes a mockery of the whole system, I was involved in two cases that were being heard in courtrooms beside each other one time (not at band camp) for the same offence. One had much less compelling evidence than the other, but it was proved, whereas the one that was a shoo in was dismissed. The last page or two of the thread are many of the same posters saying how outrageous it was that (curiously) the judge on the day didn't follow their advice
Variomatic said:
the seller had described it as reliable and mechanically sound.
No he didn't. However, it something I'm always careful of avoiding when advertising cars, always stick to facts that you can substantiate...never give an opinion on condition...certainly never use that well known phrase "as good as new".OP...did you confirm the fault when you met the buyer at KFC?
OP if you do wish to reply - just to look reasonable and of course that is always handy if push comes to shove...
Something like:
Dear Mr XX
I note the contents of your email however the contents are denied.
As you are aware a private sale is not covered by the Sale of Goods Act.
Furthermore, I note your assertion that the vehicle was misrepresented. This is denied. However in the interests of full disclosure at this stage and to seek to prevent litigation, kindly provide the full details of the misrepresentation you allege has been made. If orally, please state the date and time and approximate words used.
Finally, I regret to advise that should you issue proceedings, I will have no alternative but to make an application to strike out that claim before allocation and I will thereafter seek my full costs (you are of course aware that one is entitled to pre-allocation costs in accordance with the CPR).......
Something like:
Dear Mr XX
I note the contents of your email however the contents are denied.
As you are aware a private sale is not covered by the Sale of Goods Act.
Furthermore, I note your assertion that the vehicle was misrepresented. This is denied. However in the interests of full disclosure at this stage and to seek to prevent litigation, kindly provide the full details of the misrepresentation you allege has been made. If orally, please state the date and time and approximate words used.
Finally, I regret to advise that should you issue proceedings, I will have no alternative but to make an application to strike out that claim before allocation and I will thereafter seek my full costs (you are of course aware that one is entitled to pre-allocation costs in accordance with the CPR).......
Jasandjules said:
OP if you do wish to reply - just to look reasonable and of course that is always handy if push comes to shove...
Something like:
Dear Mr XX
I note the contents of your email however the contents are denied.
As you are aware a private sale is not covered by the Sale of Goods Act.
Furthermore, I note your assertion that the vehicle was misrepresented. This is denied. However in the interests of full disclosure at this stage and to seek to prevent litigation, kindly provide the full details of the misrepresentation you allege has been made. If orally, please state the date and time and approximate words used.
Finally, I regret to advise that should you issue proceedings, I will have no alternative but to make an application to strike out that claim before allocation and I will thereafter seek my full costs (you are of course aware that one is entitled to pre-allocation costs in accordance with the CPR).......
That sounds like the right sort of waffle to combat his waffle. Something like:
Dear Mr XX
I note the contents of your email however the contents are denied.
As you are aware a private sale is not covered by the Sale of Goods Act.
Furthermore, I note your assertion that the vehicle was misrepresented. This is denied. However in the interests of full disclosure at this stage and to seek to prevent litigation, kindly provide the full details of the misrepresentation you allege has been made. If orally, please state the date and time and approximate words used.
Finally, I regret to advise that should you issue proceedings, I will have no alternative but to make an application to strike out that claim before allocation and I will thereafter seek my full costs (you are of course aware that one is entitled to pre-allocation costs in accordance with the CPR).......
CaptainSlow said:
No he didn't. However, it something I'm always careful of avoiding when advertising cars, always stick to facts that you can substantiate...never give an opinion on condition...certainly never use that well known phrase "as good as new".
But the buyer claims that, in conversation, he asked if it was reliable and the Op says it was. That's an inherently likely conversation to take place so, no matter how much the Op denies it, there's a good chance the judge will believe it happened.Add to that multiple car changes this year, which suggests the likelihood of the OP being a trader on the side, and a "clear case of caveat emptor" can very quickly turn into an expensive loss in court.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff