Another Caveat Emptor Thread - with a slight twist

[Burwood]

i see your point Justin-but was he a professional mechanic or just someone who mucks about at home with a few spanners?

[singlecoil]

JustinP1 said:

He didn't trust the seller's opinion, he got his own opinion from a mechanic (who I understand he paid) to check whether the car was indeed 'running beautifully', or not, and case law outlines that it is seen that in this scenario the buyer relies on the investigations of his agent NOT the statement of the seller. If the OP's agent missed that for some reason it was not 'running beautifully', that is unfortunate, however in law, it is the mechanic's professional opinion the OP has relied upon to enter into the sale.

Did he get the mechanic to check whether it was 'running beautifully' or not, or did he get the mechanic to check the condition of the brakes and see if he could spot anything else wrong?

Surely he could argue that he relied on the seller for the 'running beautifully' and the mechanic for other aspects of its condition.

[deckster]

Burwood said:

i see your point Justin-but was he a professional mechanic or just someone who mucks about at home with a few spanners?

Does it matter? The OP took him along as an independent expert and paid him; ergo, he was not just relying on what the seller had said.

It's not the seller's fault if the OP's expert wasn't any good.

[chriswg]

deckster said:

It's not the seller's fault if the OP's expert wasn't any good.

To reiterate, the problem could not possibly be diagnosed without plugging in a cable and viewing the fault codes. It wouldn't have mattered who I took with me the result would have been the same. This is an electronic fault (as far as I know) and only manifests itself after a reasonable amount of driving (circa 30 mins). Once it starts, it won't stop until the car is left to completely cool down.

Annoyingly we didn't run the car for any time before the drive otherwise I'm certain we would have seen the error and he'd be on to his next potential victim.

[JustinP1]

singlecoil said:

JustinP1 said:

He didn't trust the seller's opinion, he got his own opinion from a mechanic (who I understand he paid) to check whether the car was indeed 'running beautifully', or not, and case law outlines that it is seen that in this scenario the buyer relies on the investigations of his agent NOT the statement of the seller. If the OP's agent missed that for some reason it was not 'running beautifully', that is unfortunate, however in law, it is the mechanic's professional opinion the OP has relied upon to enter into the sale.

Did he get the mechanic to check whether it was 'running beautifully' or not, or did he get the mechanic to check the condition of the brakes and see if he could spot anything else wrong?

Surely he could argue that he relied on the seller for the 'running beautifully' and the mechanic for other aspects of its condition.

He could argue that if those were the facts, yes.

My feeling here that as the alleged misrepresentative statement is so general about the general mechanical state of the car, the OP will have to get over the question of if you don't employ an engineer to check the general mechanical state of the car, then what are you paying them for!?

If the statement was, for example, "No dashboard warnings since the last service.", and as a result of that the OP, or his agent took him at his word and did not perform any checks on that single factor, then as I mentioned on the last page that argument might fly.

However, this comes down to the facts of this case. Did the OP just employ someone to only check the brakes? Or, was the agreement with his agent a more general check on the whole car to give an opinion whether underlying issues exist?

My hunch is that it's the latter, on my understanding that this was a professional mechanic, paid by the OP, and they took the car on a test drive.

[eps]

Vaud said:

eps said:

Hmm... I think if I'd been spending 17k on a car I'd have taken it for a bit more of a test drive. E.g. A road / Dual Carriageway and at least until the oil in the engine was up to temp. Especially if from a private buyer.

I think the OP is aware of the benefit of hindsight and is looking for constructive legal advice.

Agreed - sorry I read the recent post by the OP and commented on that - but 100% agree with your post.

[JustinP1]

chriswg said:

deckster said:

It's not the seller's fault if the OP's expert wasn't any good.

To reiterate, the problem could not possibly be diagnosed without plugging in a cable and viewing the fault codes. It wouldn't have mattered who I took with me the result would have been the same. This is an electronic fault (as far as I know) and only manifests itself after a reasonable amount of driving (circa 30 mins). Once it starts, it won't stop until the car is left to completely cool down.

Annoyingly we didn't run the car for any time before the drive otherwise I'm certain we would have seen the error and he'd be on to his next potential victim.

This is why it would come down to the judge on the day to pick apart the exact facts, such as:

Who was the engineer? Did you pay him? What was the nature of the checks he carried out? And what was the agreed scope of the checks and the engineer's liability?

There is the solid argument against you that you chose an agent, and you relied upon their opinion. You could have employed a different engineer with a laptop who would have checked the fault codes. You could have employed an engineer who had the experience to run the car for a longer period of time before advising you. Nevertheless you employed an agent.

[C70R]

chriswg said:

V6Pushfit said:

Did you take a mechanic and look over it for an hour?

I took the husband of a friend of my wifes does some work on cars as I was concerned about driving it without having proper insurance. He didn't even look under the bonnet. I must admit I thought he was going to take some stuff with him to plug into the car but alas not. Cost me £60 too! To be fair, the car drives great when cold, it's only after about 20 mins that you get the sense something isn't right.

All-in we were there for about an hour which included the test drive and haggling.

I'd missed this bit initially, in my haste to reply. This doesn't bode well if the seller was aware of it.

Attwood v Somebody, from memory.

EDIT - beaten to it.

Edited by C70R on Thursday 6th October 15:03

[C70R]

Burwood said:

i see your point Justin-but was he a professional mechanic or just someone who mucks about at home with a few spanners?

The law doesn't really discriminate. He was paid for his time, ergo he was acting as an agent of the buyer.

[chriswg]

C70R said:

The law doesn't really discriminate. He was paid for his time, ergo he was acting as an agent of the buyer.

The most annoying thing is, I only took him as he had a company insurance policy and I was worried about driving it on mine. I paid him to come along and drive the car, not give a detailed technical analysis of it.

He can change the radiator on an old transit van, but is by no means an Audi specialist which is what this would have needed.

[Burwood]

And this comment from a seller who, for a living owns an IT company providing software development and IT support. Someone who knew enough to chip the car via APR(code). A complete mystery you say.

I have no idea how a modern car works and find the sheer complexity of the electronic and control systems baffling to use and a complete mystery.

The Road Traffic Act also states it's an offence to sell an unroadworthy car. Defined as anything which could be a danger to any person. I would argue losing all power not being too flash.

Even if the fault codes had been read at the time of purchase, no faults would have been shown (the history for a specific code not all codes is a detailed test). Fault codes only show up if encountered 'at ignition'.

Justin in correct in that is will come down to the judge on the day. Whether the OP is convincing(to the court) that the seller did genuinely induce him to buy. My feeling is the seller will be squirming under questioning and if the judge smells any lie then he is fked

[funkyrobot]

Anyone got anything out of Audi for this apparent heap of st design?

Just throwing this in there. If it is such a common fault, why do people go near these things and why aren't Audi being taken to the cleaners?

[walm]

Burwood said:

Even if the fault codes had been read at the time of purchase, no faults would have been shown (the history for a specific code not all codes is a detailed test). Fault codes only show up if encountered 'at ignition'.

That is absolutely not true for BMW.
You have to actively wipe the fault codes for any time the MIL has come on, even if it goes off again.

[Burwood]

funkyrobot said:

Anyone got anything out of Audi for this apparent heap of st design?

Just throwing this in there. If it is such a common fault, why do people go near these things and why aren't Audi being taken to the cleaners?

all fixed under warranty in early years. outside warranty, by Audis good grace. The car is now 6 years old.

[C70R]

Burwood said:

And this comment from a seller who, for a living owns an IT company providing software development and IT support.

Are you suggesting that the judge might consider him to be more than a layman on the basis of this? If so, I'd suggest that's a very shaky basis to bring a case to court on.

[funkyrobot]

Burwood said:

all fixed under warranty in early years. outside warranty, by Audis good grace. The car is now 6 years old.

Still doesn't explain why people bother with these vehicles.

Do they offer so much fun that the risk of a £4k gearbox bill is worth it?

[Burwood]

C70R said:

Burwood said:

And this comment from a seller who, for a living owns an IT company providing software development and IT support.

Are you suggesting that the judge might consider him to be more than a layman on the basis of this? If so, I'd suggest that's a very shaky basis to bring a case to court on.

Not in isolation, no. Just looking at the totality of his comments, the dates and high degree of coincidence. He is lower than a snakes belly.

[Burwood]

funkyrobot said:

Burwood said:

all fixed under warranty in early years. outside warranty, by Audis good grace. The car is now 6 years old.

Still doesn't explain why people bother with these vehicles.

Do they offer so much fun that the risk of a £4k gearbox bill is worth it?

according to my VAG garage owner who i was chatting to this morning about this very issue. It's not that common, it's the only major fault on this car and the issue was completely resolved by 2011 production but yes, not a nice surprise.

[JustinP1]

Burwood said:

Justin in correct in that is will come down to the judge on the day. Whether the OP is convincing(to the court) that the seller did genuinely induce him to buy. My feeling is the seller will be squirming under questioning and if the judge smells any lie then he is fked

Agreed. Two new points from the new info:

1) Regardless of the hypothetical scenarios at a hearing, the OP might wish to file a claim anyway. As I mentioned before, if the seller knows he is lying, and that he will inevitably in a position where he has to lie face to face to a judge, then he may fold.

2) If it *was* genuinely the case that the OP's agent was simply a driver, and was employed for this purpose solely, and he did not check the car out mechanically, then the judge may decide on the facts presented that that was the case.

However, the fact remains that even if the judge believes that the seller was lying, that would be trumped *if* the judge decides the mechanic was there to judge whether the car was 'running beautifully' or similar. The reason is that action misrepresentation must have both parts, the mis-statement AND the reliance on it to be induced into the contract.

[C70R]

funkyrobot said:

Still doesn't explain why people bother with these vehicles.

Do they offer so much fun that the risk of a £4k gearbox bill is worth it?

I suppose that depends on your definition of "fun", but this looks like a right laugh to me... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24a-H9o36Fo

Burwood said:

Not in isolation, no. Just looking at the totality of his comments, the dates and high degree of coincidence. He is lower than a snakes belly.

And this is the problem.
I agree wholeheartedly with you - but being all emotional and sentimental about it is of no help to the OP. He needs good legal advice, not people saying "ooh, what a nasty man".