Another Caveat Emptor Thread - with a slight twist
Discussion
walm said:
funkyrobot said:
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Yes. The faults are shown in the cars computer as the OP explained in the OP.And if he goes with your "garage told me it was fine" defence - multiple times (remember it had the gearbox fault 10 times with the previous owner!!), I suspect that would count as misrepresentation of a "running beautifully" car.
Prove the seller is someone with mechanical knowledge who knew exactly what was going on. Then the OP wins.
funkyrobot said:
walm said:
funkyrobot said:
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Yes. The faults are shown in the cars computer as the OP explained in the OP.And if he goes with your "garage told me it was fine" defence - multiple times (remember it had the gearbox fault 10 times with the previous owner!!), I suspect that would count as misrepresentation of a "running beautifully" car.
Prove the seller is someone with mechanical knowledge who knew exactly what was going on. Then the OP wins.
Remember the hurdle is "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Christ it's like Twelve Angry Men in here...
walm said:
Yes. The faults are shown in the cars computer as the OP explained in the OP.
And if he goes with your "garage told me it was fine" defence - multiple times (remember it had the gearbox fault 10 times with the previous owner!!), I suspect that would count as misrepresentation of a "running beautifully" car.
And if he goes with your "garage told me it was fine" defence - multiple times (remember it had the gearbox fault 10 times with the previous owner!!), I suspect that would count as misrepresentation of a "running beautifully" car.
Looking at the video of the fault the OP posted, it appears the fault was a yellow, rather than red, alert. It was also transient, and appeared to clear after a few seconds. Also appeared at random times rather than following a specific action. Unless I've misread the video...
Thus it is plausible enough to muddy the waters if the seller said 'I've never seen that happen'?
walm said:
You don't need mechanical knowledge to notice the huge flashing lights that have appeared 10 times under his ownership.
Remember the hurdle is "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Christ it's like Twelve Angry Men in here...
OP's court case is signed and sealed then. Remember the hurdle is "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Christ it's like Twelve Angry Men in here...
I hope the seller didn't log the mileage. If the car has covered 'x' amount since being sold and is still classed as dangerously broken, where does the OP stand then? Would that affect the balance of probabilities?
eldar said:
walm said:
Yes. The faults are shown in the cars computer as the OP explained in the OP.
And if he goes with your "garage told me it was fine" defence - multiple times (remember it had the gearbox fault 10 times with the previous owner!!), I suspect that would count as misrepresentation of a "running beautifully" car.
And if he goes with your "garage told me it was fine" defence - multiple times (remember it had the gearbox fault 10 times with the previous owner!!), I suspect that would count as misrepresentation of a "running beautifully" car.
Looking at the video of the fault the OP posted, it appears the fault was a yellow, rather than red, alert. It was also transient, and appeared to clear after a few seconds. Also appeared at random times rather than following a specific action. Unless I've misread the video...
Thus it is plausible enough to muddy the waters if the seller said 'I've never seen that happen'?
I bet that would be brilliant evidence in a court.
funkyrobot said:
I hope the seller didn't log the mileage. If the car has covered 'x' amount since being sold and is still classed as dangerously broken, where does the OP stand then? Would that affect the balance of probabilities?
What are you going on about now?I think we all agree that the "dangerous" description was hyperbole. That's completely irrelevant.
The car needs either a £800 or £4k fix. That's indisputable. Driving it while it has frequent faults is neither here nor there.
It isn't as described by the seller.
The issue is whether the seller knew that fact and hid it from the OP. That's it.
walm said:
What are you going on about now?
I think we all agree that the "dangerous" description was hyperbole. That's completely irrelevant.
The car needs either a £800 or £4k fix. That's indisputable. Driving it while it has frequent faults is neither here nor there.
It isn't as described by the seller.
The issue is whether the seller knew that fact and hid it from the OP. That's it.
Bang on I think we all agree that the "dangerous" description was hyperbole. That's completely irrelevant.
The car needs either a £800 or £4k fix. That's indisputable. Driving it while it has frequent faults is neither here nor there.
It isn't as described by the seller.
The issue is whether the seller knew that fact and hid it from the OP. That's it.
V6Pushfit said:
walm said:
What are you going on about now?
I think we all agree that the "dangerous" description was hyperbole. That's completely irrelevant.
The car needs either a £800 or £4k fix. That's indisputable. Driving it while it has frequent faults is neither here nor there.
It isn't as described by the seller.
The issue is whether the seller knew that fact and hid it from the OP. That's it.
Bang on I think we all agree that the "dangerous" description was hyperbole. That's completely irrelevant.
The car needs either a £800 or £4k fix. That's indisputable. Driving it while it has frequent faults is neither here nor there.
It isn't as described by the seller.
The issue is whether the seller knew that fact and hid it from the OP. That's it.
Seller states error has popped up a few times, but hasn't stopped the car. Garage told seller these things happen from time to time, but car still runs fine, nothing to worry about as it clears. Seller has his defence?
funkyrobot said:
Car still runs though, doesn't it.
So would a stationary engine, which is what OP has effectively purchased funkyrobot said:
Seller states error has popped up a few times, but hasn't stopped the car. Garage told seller these things happen from time to time, but car still runs fine, nothing to worry about as it clears. Seller has his defence?
Who stated that? If that's so why wasn't it declared at the time of sale in the ad or at some stage as its fundamental?V6Pushfit said:
Who stated that? If that's so why wasn't it declared at the time of sale in the ad or at some stage as its fundamental?
Sorry, didn't explain myself properly. Seller told garage error had appeared a few times. Garage say no problem as error clears. Seller carries on and sells car. Seller non the wiser.
funkyrobot said:
Sorry, didn't explain myself properly.
Seller told garage error had appeared a few times. Garage say no problem as error clears. Seller carries on and sells car. Seller non the wiser.
Then he shouldn't have said "The ad said 'Excellent condition throughout. APR software modified for over 1 year, runs beautifully. MUST DRIVE!'" as it was misleading.Seller told garage error had appeared a few times. Garage say no problem as error clears. Seller carries on and sells car. Seller non the wiser.
funkyrobot said:
Sorry, didn't explain myself properly.
Seller told garage error had appeared a few times. Garage say no problem as error clears. Seller carries on and sells car. Seller non the wiser.
We don't know that and its unlikely as it would have caused the same problem as OP has had so would have been causing all sorts of noticeable problems. You might as well invent an idea that the seller lent the car to a mate while he was on a moon mission and just got back the day of the sale and didn't speak to said mate so didn't know. Seller told garage error had appeared a few times. Garage say no problem as error clears. Seller carries on and sells car. Seller non the wiser.
The only plausible explanation is hes offloaded it.
Vaud said:
Then he shouldn't have said "The ad said 'Excellent condition throughout. APR software modified for over 1 year, runs beautifully. MUST DRIVE!'" as it was misleading.
If you are non the wiser, and someone in the know tells you not to worry about something, would you mention it?Also, on the vid the op posted, does the car actually go into limp mode? Can't see it at the moment.
V6Pushfit said:
We don't know that and its unlikely as it would have caused the same problem as OP has had so would have been causing all sorts of noticeable problems. You might as well invent an idea that the seller lent the car to a mate while he was on a moon mission and just got back the day of the sale and didn't speak to said mate so didn't know.
The only plausible explanation is hes offloaded it.
Right. Fair enough. Let's hope the court agree with the op should he take it that far.The only plausible explanation is hes offloaded it.
funkyrobot said:
V6Pushfit said:
We don't know that and its unlikely as it would have caused the same problem as OP has had so would have been causing all sorts of noticeable problems. You might as well invent an idea that the seller lent the car to a mate while he was on a moon mission and just got back the day of the sale and didn't speak to said mate so didn't know.
The only plausible explanation is hes offloaded it.
Right. Fair enough. Let's hope the court agree with the op should he take it that far.The only plausible explanation is hes offloaded it.
Just to clear up a couple of points.
I've not driven the car very much at all, and never on any fast roads.
Between starting this thread and taking it to the garage I didn't drive it at all. After the mechanic looked at it and changed the brake pads and topped up the oil I drove it home - no errors. A couple of days later I drove it to work to see if the message would come back, this is about a 5 mile journey on 30mph and 40mph roads - no message (dare I hope something the garage did has accidentally fixed it?). I drove it home the same route after work - no message (getting my hopes up now) so I decided to take my son to football (taking the back roads) - boom, after 5 mins the errors start going mental.
My son was in the passenger seat so I got him to video the error occurring. It triggered every time I put any sort of pressure on the accelerator. After 5 or 6 times I managed to nurse the car up to maybe 40mph and the error went away for the rest of the journey. It came back on the way home too but this time on a slightly hilly road, I was lucky to get it up the hills as any sort of torque put the engine into limp mode.
I've not driven it since and won't do until the repair on the 11th.
I've not driven the car very much at all, and never on any fast roads.
Between starting this thread and taking it to the garage I didn't drive it at all. After the mechanic looked at it and changed the brake pads and topped up the oil I drove it home - no errors. A couple of days later I drove it to work to see if the message would come back, this is about a 5 mile journey on 30mph and 40mph roads - no message (dare I hope something the garage did has accidentally fixed it?). I drove it home the same route after work - no message (getting my hopes up now) so I decided to take my son to football (taking the back roads) - boom, after 5 mins the errors start going mental.
My son was in the passenger seat so I got him to video the error occurring. It triggered every time I put any sort of pressure on the accelerator. After 5 or 6 times I managed to nurse the car up to maybe 40mph and the error went away for the rest of the journey. It came back on the way home too but this time on a slightly hilly road, I was lucky to get it up the hills as any sort of torque put the engine into limp mode.
I've not driven it since and won't do until the repair on the 11th.
funky, I think the reason such a defence fails is because a hypothetical garage saying "it's all fine" is just too far unlikely when every garage the OP has spoken to says "it's a well known fault".
And again, it's completely unfair to describe something with 10 repeated faults as "running beautifully" even if the hypothetical garage has said "it's fine" 10 times, that is still 10 trips to the garage. (Or at least a few, no?)
And again, it's completely unfair to describe something with 10 repeated faults as "running beautifully" even if the hypothetical garage has said "it's fine" 10 times, that is still 10 trips to the garage. (Or at least a few, no?)
walm said:
funky, I think the reason such a defence fails is because a hypothetical garage saying "it's all fine" is just too far unlikely when every garage the OP has spoken to says "it's a well known fault".
And again, it's completely unfair to describe something with 10 repeated faults as "running beautifully" even if the hypothetical garage has said "it's fine" 10 times, that is still 10 trips to the garage. (Or at least a few, no?)
Fine. Understood.And again, it's completely unfair to describe something with 10 repeated faults as "running beautifully" even if the hypothetical garage has said "it's fine" 10 times, that is still 10 trips to the garage. (Or at least a few, no?)
I just think that sometimes people need to be careful. If you search for similar threads on here from the seller's perspective, there is a lot of 'private sale, do one' bounded about.
I also hope the OP gets the car fixed in the cheapest way possible, and is fully aware of what can happen if he takes it further.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff