Legal Advice regarding Car Sale

[Cascade360]

CarCrazyDad said:

The seller of this TVR should have been able to withdraw his TVR for sale from Seller A for any reason, it seems to me like once you say "OK I accept your offer" then you are in a contract and have no means of escape?

That is how contracts work, yes.

We wouldn't be in a very good place if people could make and break agreements at will.

Your previous post about a client breaking a contract and your legal team saying you couldn't do anything - you might want a better legal team (unless of course there something in the e-mails that made clear no contract had been formed, or the advice was it wasn't worth pursuing as it would cost too much).

[Marcellus]

Cascade360 said:

That is how contracts work, yes.

We wouldn't be in a very good place if people could make and break agreements at will.

Your previous post about a client breaking a contract and your legal team saying you couldn't do anything - you might want a better legal team (unless of course there something in the e-mails that made clear no contract had been formed, or the advice was it wasn't worth pursuing as it would cost too much).

I suspect that contract was for the company a to supply x number of widgets to company b.

Then company b effectively breached the contract.

It happens and when it does often the vendor takes a commercial view that it’s not worth pursuing.... loss of profit on the contract versus cost of going to court and ultimate ruling... not to mention if the ruling was in their favour actually getting the money!

[CarCrazyDad]

Cascade360 said:

CarCrazyDad said:

The seller of this TVR should have been able to withdraw his TVR for sale from Seller A for any reason, it seems to me like once you say "OK I accept your offer" then you are in a contract and have no means of escape?

That is how contracts work, yes.

We wouldn't be in a very good place if people could make and break agreements at will.

Your previous post about a client breaking a contract and your legal team saying you couldn't do anything - you might want a better legal team (unless of course there something in the e-mails that made clear no contract had been formed, or the advice was it wasn't worth pursuing as it would cost too much).

I can understand that for business contracts but contracts between private individuals should not be held to the same standard in my opinion - distasteful yes but I genuinely feel that the £2000 + the legal costs incurred for simply not selling to one individual doesn't really do any justice

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not talking legalities I'm just talking from a practical standpoint.

Regarding the client, I believe he just said there wasn't a way to get any money back from the company that messed us around, I'm not sure if this was due to legal rubbish or the fact it would take time, effort and costs to get anything back with no guarantee of comeback

I just think it's very bad form as this could now mean that if I agree to sell someone a TV on Facebook but then decide not to they could sue over potential losses - people change their mind, I used to think it was their right, I guess I was wrong

[Jayne Redland]

A contract is a contract. Businesses are just things run by people. A deal should be a deal whether made by a business or not. Making a promise and keeping it isnt a high standard. It's a standard most people learn as children.

[Cascade360]

CarCrazyDad said:

I can understand that for business contracts but contracts between private individuals should not be held to the same standard in my opinion - distasteful yes but I genuinely feel that the £2000 + the legal costs incurred for simply not selling to one individual doesn't really do any justice

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not talking legalities I'm just talking from a practical standpoint.

Regarding the client, I believe he just said there wasn't a way to get any money back from the company that messed us around, I'm not sure if this was due to legal rubbish or the fact it would take time, effort and costs to get anything back with no guarantee of comeback

I just think it's very bad form as this could now mean that if I agree to sell someone a TV on Facebook but then decide not to they could sue over potential losses - people change their mind, I used to think it was their right, I guess I was wrong

It's easy to avoid, though - don't make a deal you don't intend to keep. You can say "I'm happy with the offer in principle but will not accept and the car will remain on sale until you are in front of me with cash in your hands". Easy.

[daveinhampshire]

CarCrazyDad said:

Cascade360 said:

CarCrazyDad said:

The seller of this TVR should have been able to withdraw his TVR for sale from Seller A for any reason, it seems to me like once you say "OK I accept your offer" then you are in a contract and have no means of escape?

That is how contracts work, yes.

We wouldn't be in a very good place if people could make and break agreements at will.

Your previous post about a client breaking a contract and your legal team saying you couldn't do anything - you might want a better legal team (unless of course there something in the e-mails that made clear no contract had been formed, or the advice was it wasn't worth pursuing as it would cost too much).

I can understand that for business contracts but contracts between private individuals should not be held to the same standard in my opinion - distasteful yes but I genuinely feel that the £2000 + the legal costs incurred for simply not selling to one individual doesn't really do any justice

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not talking legalities I'm just talking from a practical standpoint.

Regarding the client, I believe he just said there wasn't a way to get any money back from the company that messed us around, I'm not sure if this was due to legal rubbish or the fact it would take time, effort and costs to get anything back with no guarantee of comeback

I just think it's very bad form as this could now mean that if I agree to sell someone a TV on Facebook but then decide not to they could sue over potential losses - people change their mind, I used to think it was their right, I guess I was wrong

If you agreed to sell your TV to someone on Facebook for £100 then unilaterally cancelled that sale to sell to another bidder at £120 you'd be in the same position. The court simply seemed to take the difference in the sale prices and hand it to the claimant. It was the right decision.

[cs174]

ralphrj said:

The offer is one part of forming a contract. Consideration (the exchange of cash doesn't need to happen at the same time) is another. Both are required (with other things) to form a contract.

The discussions between the seller and the buyer afterwards where an offer was made, the offer was accepted and consideration was agreed was binding.

The court was satisfied that what took place in the discussions had formed a binding contract. That's it.

In my defence, I accept there was an offer that was accepted but I don't agree that 'consideration' took place or was agreed. The Judge ruled that by agreeing the price there was an intent to enter into a contract. That tells me that we hadn't actually entered into a contract.

I've obviously learned a valuable lesson here and I hope others have too.

E-honda, you get a lot of stick on this thread but, with the benefit of hindsight, I think your suggestion for my defense is worthy of consideration. I don't know if it would have changed the outcome but it may have influenced it.

[anonymous-user]

if BV72 is still kicking about and not in a rum fuelled haze, he might proffer some advice.

[cs174]

The Spruce Goose said:

if BV72 is still kicking about and not in a rum fuelled haze, he might proffer some advice.

He already has and I should have listened to his free advice rather than listen to my paid for legal advice.

[anonymous-user]

cs174 said:

In my defence, I accept there was an offer that was accepted but I don't agree that 'consideration' took place or was agreed. The Judge ruled that by agreeing the price there was an intent to enter into a contract. That tells me that we hadn't actually entered into a contract.

Surely the judge meant that when you both agreed the price you did so with intent to create a contract.

People seem to often have trouble with a contract and performing a contract. You can agree on Monday a sale, and on Friday perform it (ie swap the cash for the article). But you still formed the contract on Monday.

[cs174]

BlackWidow13 said:

Surely the judge meant that when you both agreed the price you did so with intent to create a contract.

So why does contract law stipulate that several other requirements should be met to form a contract if agreeing a price is sufficient? Genuine question.

[Marcellus]

cs174 said:

So why does contract law stipulate that several other requirements should be met to form a contract if agreeing a price is sufficient? Genuine question.

By agreeing to exchange consideration, he probably felt it reasonable to believe that you had the intention to form a legal contract and that as it was completely legal that’s a full house.

[cs174]

Marcellus said:

By agreeing to exchange consideration,

Thanks for the reply, I don't understand what this means, can you please explain?

I'm not challenging the decision if the court, just trying to fully understand it so I don't make the same mistake again.

[Cascade360]

cs174 said:

In my defence, I accept there was an offer that was accepted but I don't agree that 'consideration' took place or was agreed. The Judge ruled that by agreeing the price there was an intent to enter into a contract. That tells me that we hadn't actually entered into a contract.

I've obviously learned a valuable lesson here and I hope others have too.

E-honda, you get a lot of stick on this thread but, with the benefit of hindsight, I think your suggestion for my defense is worthy of consideration. I don't know if it would have changed the outcome but it may have influenced it.

Agreeing the price = consideration. Why do you think otherwise?

cs174 said:

So why does contract law stipulate that several other requirements should be met to form a contract if agreeing a price is sufficient? Genuine question.

What requirements do you think are missing?

[anonymous-user]

cs174 said:

So why does contract law stipulate that several other requirements should be met to form a contract if agreeing a price is sufficient? Genuine question.

(Not trying to be difficult) Like what? I haven’t read the whole thread I admit, but you both knew what was for sale (a specific car), you both knew you were selling and the other guy was buying, you were both looking to strike a deal instead of have discussions, so what else is there to agree apart from the price? The impression I had from the first page was that you agreed a deal, but then tried to renegotiate it to get a better one.

[Marcellus]

cs174 said:

Marcellus said:

By agreeing to exchange consideration,

Thanks for the reply, I don't understand what this means, can you please explain?

I'm not challenging the decision if the court, just trying to fully understand it so I don't make the same mistake again.

Consideration agreed to pass both ways.... you agreed to give the buyer the car he agreed to give you some money.

It’s called consideration as it doesn’t have to be money that’s being exchanged, for example you give him your car and he agrees to repair your roof, a court doesn’t concern itself with the value.

This is why you hear of companies being sold for £1.

[daveinhampshire]

Marcellus said:

cs174 said:

Marcellus said:

By agreeing to exchange consideration,

Thanks for the reply, I don't understand what this means, can you please explain?

I'm not challenging the decision if the court, just trying to fully understand it so I don't make the same mistake again.

Consideration agreed to pass both ways.... you agreed to give the buyer the car he agreed to give you some money.

It’s called consideration as it doesn’t have to be money that’s being exchanged, for example you give him your car and he agrees to repair your roof, a court doesn’t concern itself with the value.

This is why you hear of companies being sold for £1.

1st year stuff in a law degree, this is a text book description.

[cs174]

Marcellus said:

Consideration agreed to pass both ways.... you agreed to give the buyer the car he agreed to give you some money.

It’s called consideration as it doesn’t have to be money that’s being exchanged, for example you give him your car and he agrees to repair your roof, a court doesn’t concern itself with the value.

This is why you hear of companies being sold for £1.

Sorry to labour this point but I didn't agree to give the buyer the car. I agreed the price to be paid at the point of exchange, i.e. when the buyer paid the agree price.

The court and most posters on here see otherwise and I respect that decision.

[Marcellus]

cs174 said:

Marcellus said:

Consideration agreed to pass both ways.... you agreed to give the buyer the car he agreed to give you some money.

It’s called consideration as it doesn’t have to be money that’s being exchanged, for example you give him your car and he agrees to repair your roof, a court doesn’t concern itself with the value.

This is why you hear of companies being sold for £1.

Sorry to labour this point but I didn't agree to give the buyer the car. I agreed the price to be paid at the point of exchange, i.e. when the buyer paid the agree price.

The court and most posters on here see otherwise and I respect that decision.

By your own admission you agreed the exchange would happen at some point in the future, that’s enough.

Exchange doesn’t have to be at the same time.

[Cascade360]

cs174 said:

Sorry to labour this point but I didn't agree to give the buyer the car. I agreed the price to be paid at the point of exchange, i.e. when the buyer paid the agree price.

The court and most posters on here see otherwise and I respect that decision.

It's very apparent you don't understand the basics of contract law. That's fine; most people don't, and you are allowed to feel aggrieved at how it has operated. You can't however argue that the judge was wrong when you don't understand the basics of the laws he applied...