Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
Cascade360 said:
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...
I'm not arguing that the Jude was wrong, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the decision so I don't make the same mistake again.cs174 said:
Cascade360 said:
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...
I'm not arguing that the Jude was wrong, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the decision so I don't make the same mistake again.cs174 said:
After the Ebay listing ended, I received an offer via WhatsApp from Buyer A that I agreed to. I then informed Buyer B so he could cancel the inspection. Buyer B then made a counter-offer without seeing the car. So, an hour after accepting Buyer A’s offer via WhatsApp, I informed Buyer A of the counter-offer from Buyer B and asked if he would consider increasing his offer.
It's easy. Once you have agreed an offer, then honour that offer and don't do the other things. Durzel said:
CarCrazyDad said:
Pit Pony said:
My humble opinion on this is that there's an unwritten and obvious convention, that and item is not sold until, you pay a none-refundable deposit.
If buyer A knew he was getting a bargain he should have offered a deposit of at least £200, to secure the deal.
The seller (the OP) shoukd always make it clear during negotiations that the agreement is only final when a deposit is received.
I honestly think my defence, had I made the mistake of not making that clear, would be: I didn't trust that he was going to buy it, as he didn't offer a deposit. I thought it would be obvious that it's still for sale until a deposit is taken.
Quite. My view too. I've sold a few cars privately (generally trade in at dealerships) and every single time I had 5 time wasters for every genuine interest. Countless times I had "I'll view it in 2 days" type messages only for a no show to occur.If buyer A knew he was getting a bargain he should have offered a deposit of at least £200, to secure the deal.
The seller (the OP) shoukd always make it clear during negotiations that the agreement is only final when a deposit is received.
I honestly think my defence, had I made the mistake of not making that clear, would be: I didn't trust that he was going to buy it, as he didn't offer a deposit. I thought it would be obvious that it's still for sale until a deposit is taken.
What happens if the seller doesn't agree to sell the car any more (change of heart for example, decides to keep it)? Is the private, individual seller then legally bound to sell the car?
I don't think that would fly...
For starters it would mean unwinding the subsequent contract with Buyer B. IANAL, but I think a court would be reluctant to go down that road.
cs174 said:
Ok, so the consensus is that once you agree a price, there is a contract in place. That's clear now, thank you.
Turn the situation around and think about how you’d feel and what you’d do;- guy comes to see your car, likes it and says “I’ll give you £26,500” for it which you accept.
- you then agree that he’ll come on Tuesday the £26,500 in cash
- Tuesday comes he arrives and says “I’ve seen one for £1000 cheaper, so only brought £25,500 with me, sorry”
Would you feel/think he is breaching your contract and tell him to do one?
Marcellus said:
Turn the situation around and think about how you’d feel and what you’d do;
- guy comes to see your car, likes it and says “I’ll give you £26,500” for it which you accept.
- you then agree that he’ll come on Tuesday the £26,500 in cash
- Tuesday comes he arrives and says “I’ve seen one for £1000 cheaper, so only brought £25,500 with me, sorry”
Would you feel/think he is breaching your contract and tell him to do one?
I wouldn't feel we had a contract. If they had left a deposit it would be different and if they didn't want to proceed at the agreed price they could lose said deposit - guy comes to see your car, likes it and says “I’ll give you £26,500” for it which you accept.
- you then agree that he’ll come on Tuesday the £26,500 in cash
- Tuesday comes he arrives and says “I’ve seen one for £1000 cheaper, so only brought £25,500 with me, sorry”
Would you feel/think he is breaching your contract and tell him to do one?
I appreciate that may not be how the law is applied
Back when I was at school it was offer -acceptance and consideration before a contract was formed.
Hello lovelies, I have biffed most social media, PH included, and life is better for it, but someone I know has asked me to post on this thread because it's one of those rare ones in which the OP has disclosed the outcome of a bit of litigation madness, and it's also one where my limited fortune telling powers turned out to be working.
First of all, props to the OP for owning up to the kicking he received from the Court. OP, your lawyers sound like bozos, because this was a very clear case that you were always very likely to lose. To those still arguing the toss, the law of contract is not all that complicated in its essentials. It applies to all bargains, whether made by businesses or by people not in business, and it reflects common sense. All private law is fundamentally about the obligations that people undertake to one another through words, conduct, or relationships. Absent any relevant statutory rules (eg rules about sales of land, and rules about protecting consumers) a deal really is a deal in most cases. Most contracts require no formality, and a contract can be made by or evidenced by spoken words, a handshake, written words, email, text message, and so on.
What happened in this case is very simple. The OP made a clear agreement from which no essential term was missing. He agreed to sell a car for X pounds. The other party agreed to buy that car for X pounds. There is no implied term or custom that requires the payment of a deposit to confirm an agreement to buy and sell a car. The eBay terms were irrelevant. The OP changed his mind and broke the contract. The other party invoked the law to enforce the contract. The law usually replaces performance by compensation, and did so in this case.
The other party may indeed be somewhat bloody minded for litigating the issue, but no more so than many who post here about their litigiousness over small matters. The OP was given correct advice from the lawyers posting on this thread, but terrible advice from the lawyers he paid for in real life. One problem with High Street solicitors and general common law barristers (I am assuming that the OP did not hire Clifford Chance and someone from Brick Court Chambers) is that they forget basic stuff about the law of contract.
Anyway, the Judge got the easy question right, and the OP has been sanguine enough to tell us about this and to move on. Those who seek to over complicate the simple basics of the law of contract, or who have a bizarre wish to live in a world in which commitments have no meaning, can no doubt carry on debating the issue. Cheery bye, I'm outta here.
First of all, props to the OP for owning up to the kicking he received from the Court. OP, your lawyers sound like bozos, because this was a very clear case that you were always very likely to lose. To those still arguing the toss, the law of contract is not all that complicated in its essentials. It applies to all bargains, whether made by businesses or by people not in business, and it reflects common sense. All private law is fundamentally about the obligations that people undertake to one another through words, conduct, or relationships. Absent any relevant statutory rules (eg rules about sales of land, and rules about protecting consumers) a deal really is a deal in most cases. Most contracts require no formality, and a contract can be made by or evidenced by spoken words, a handshake, written words, email, text message, and so on.
What happened in this case is very simple. The OP made a clear agreement from which no essential term was missing. He agreed to sell a car for X pounds. The other party agreed to buy that car for X pounds. There is no implied term or custom that requires the payment of a deposit to confirm an agreement to buy and sell a car. The eBay terms were irrelevant. The OP changed his mind and broke the contract. The other party invoked the law to enforce the contract. The law usually replaces performance by compensation, and did so in this case.
The other party may indeed be somewhat bloody minded for litigating the issue, but no more so than many who post here about their litigiousness over small matters. The OP was given correct advice from the lawyers posting on this thread, but terrible advice from the lawyers he paid for in real life. One problem with High Street solicitors and general common law barristers (I am assuming that the OP did not hire Clifford Chance and someone from Brick Court Chambers) is that they forget basic stuff about the law of contract.
Anyway, the Judge got the easy question right, and the OP has been sanguine enough to tell us about this and to move on. Those who seek to over complicate the simple basics of the law of contract, or who have a bizarre wish to live in a world in which commitments have no meaning, can no doubt carry on debating the issue. Cheery bye, I'm outta here.
e-honda said:
Not until someone explains why it's broken
The eBay classified advert was just that, an advert. It did not constitute an offer. The contract was entered into between two private individuals, with no reference to the eBay terms and conditions. An offer was made, and accepted - there was a contract. That contract did not include (explicitly or implicitly) the eBay terms and conditions.
e-honda said:
Spleen said:
Guess you'll just have to stop playing that broken record then, won't you?
Not until someone explains why it's brokenA contract was formed outside of eBay, therefore eBay terms do not apply.
eBay is just an advertising tool in this case.
Website terms & conditions have to (or should) follow UK law, not the other way around.
eBay could say that you need to wear a red hat when you turn up to buy a car, and if you don't the whole thing is void. Good luck using that in court if it came to it.
Why anyone would think that a random website's T&Cs would in and of itself carry legal weight is beyond me.
eBay could say that you need to wear a red hat when you turn up to buy a car, and if you don't the whole thing is void. Good luck using that in court if it came to it.
Why anyone would think that a random website's T&Cs would in and of itself carry legal weight is beyond me.
Durzel said:
Website terms & conditions have to (or should) follow UK law, not the other way around.
eBay could say that you need to wear a red hat when you turn up to buy a car, and if you don't the whole thing is void. Good luck using that in court if it came to it.
Why anyone would think that a random website's T&Cs would in and of itself carry legal weight is beyond me.
yes there terms are contractionary as well, classified adverts allow offers now, which doesn't relate to there terms, it is obviously copypasta from ebay USA, no one would really ever challenge it anyway.eBay could say that you need to wear a red hat when you turn up to buy a car, and if you don't the whole thing is void. Good luck using that in court if it came to it.
Why anyone would think that a random website's T&Cs would in and of itself carry legal weight is beyond me.
E honda seems fixated on it when it is irrelevant.
e-honda said:
What in UK law says 2 people cannot make an agreement that say when we reach an agreement on price neither of us will regard it as a contract.
Nothing. You could say "I'm happy with the price in principle but I am not accepting your offer and it remains for sale until you've put cash in my hand".OP didn't do that though.
Cascade360 said:
e-honda said:
What in UK law says 2 people cannot make an agreement that say when we reach an agreement on price neither of us will regard it as a contract.
Nothing. You could say "I'm happy with the price in principle but I am not accepting your offer and it remains for sale until you've put cash in my hand".OP didn't do that though.
If you want to caveat your acceptance of an offer, then do so. As BV72 said - "no essential term was missing". A reasonable person would believe, as the Judge did, that payment would be traditional and that the matter of fulfillment of the contract would be ordinary, and therefore the expectation for both parties is that it would be executed.
As said previously - if you want to sell something and basically let anyone gazump that person up until the point you have cash in your hand, then make that clear so any potential buyer is informed. The OP didn't do this. Buyer A had every reason to believe that the contract would be fulfilled, and had Buyer B not come along it most likely would have been.
I appreciate the OP coming back to update the thread, and I don't think he's particularly unique in terms of thinking that it's perfectly fine - both morally and legally - to renege on a deal if someone offers more money before its been completed, but as is clear - the law is not on his side, and it just takes a disgruntled person to enforce it. That 99% of buyers (and sellers) don't, doesn't alter this fact.
e-honda said:
What in UK law says 2 people cannot make an agreement that say when we reach an agreement on price neither of us will regard it as a contract.
Absolutely nothing - as long as there is a caveat stating that agreement. OP didn't make that caveat.
Buyer A made an offer. OP accepted.
OP did not say "Offer accepted, unless someone else comes along before you collect the car and offers a better deal for me"
Cascade360 said:
e-honda said:
What in UK law says 2 people cannot make an agreement that say when we reach an agreement on price neither of us will regard it as a contract.
Nothing. You could say "I'm happy with the price in principle but I am not accepting your offer and it remains for sale until you've put cash in my hand".OP didn't do that though.
Seller says right before you view the car, The car remains on sale untill you put the cash in my hand the car remains on, if we agree a sale it is an agreement in principle not a binding contract.
That is not allowed?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff