“sold on consignment”
Discussion
What are the legal implications of "sold on consignment"? Specific case: a car is owned by someone I know, Mr A. Car is advertised as for sale by Mr D (a dealer) on D’s web site (no mention of ownership), described as “totally restored, newly completed”. I contact A as I am interested in buying the car: he does not respond but I get a mail from D saying “I understand you have contacted Mr A, but the car is on consignment from A for sale through me, so all questions should go through me”. I respond and ask some questions; on basis of D’s replies, ad description and a visual inspection I buy the car (sole contact is Mr D). D then says “since car is on consignment from the owner A, make payment to A’s account, here are the details”. On delivery the car is immediately found to be faulty: an engineer inspection shows several very serious faults (car is not roadworthy). There is no explicit contract of sale, just an exchange of e mails with no special terms mentioned. Does D have a responsibility in law for goods not as described, or can he say “nothing to do with me guv, I was just giving the description I was given by A”?
NormanP said:
a car is owned by someone I know, Mr A.
NormanP said:
I contact A as I am interested in buying the car
As you said that you know Mr A anyway, presumably you knew the car and were aware of the work done. Did you have the car inspected prior to the sale, or did you just go by your prior knowledge?Who did you actually pay? Mr A or the dealer?
I’m looking for general advice on the concept “on consignment”; I will be taking legal advice on the specific case, just trying to frame my expectations and what approach to take, and also thought others might benefit from the reply, as it is a common enough way of selling. But the answers to specific q’s:
As above, the payment was made into A’s account on the instructions of D who gave me the details. I have not communicated with A at all.
No, I did not know the car – I simply knew that A owned one as I had seen a picture of it and then saw it for sale on D’s site. Perhaps I should have said I “know of” A rather than know him. I did a visual inspection, but the faults it turns out are not obvious and needed an engineer to get to the bottom of what is wrong.
As above, the payment was made into A’s account on the instructions of D who gave me the details. I have not communicated with A at all.
No, I did not know the car – I simply knew that A owned one as I had seen a picture of it and then saw it for sale on D’s site. Perhaps I should have said I “know of” A rather than know him. I did a visual inspection, but the faults it turns out are not obvious and needed an engineer to get to the bottom of what is wrong.
Looks like the dealer is trying to avoid the consumer protection legislation to me.
If it was advertised on their website, they responded to queries and they instructed where to send payment, even if not their bank account, I would argue they are responsible for any mis-discription of the car.
How long ago what this? Could you try the distance selling legislation.
If it was advertised on their website, they responded to queries and they instructed where to send payment, even if not their bank account, I would argue they are responsible for any mis-discription of the car.
How long ago what this? Could you try the distance selling legislation.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 5th March 14:45
PurpleMoonlight said:
Looks like the dealer is trying to avoid the consumer legislation to me.
If it was advertised on there website and they instructed where to send payment, even if not their bank account, I would argue they are responsible for any mis-discription of the car.
How long ago what this? Could you try the distance selling legislation.
Sounds like they are acting as an agent or broker. If it was advertised on there website and they instructed where to send payment, even if not their bank account, I would argue they are responsible for any mis-discription of the car.
How long ago what this? Could you try the distance selling legislation.
Unfortunately, you should never buy a car without some kind of inspection or at least a thorough test drive, so to be honest, I'd be inclined to feel embarrassed if I'd done what you did. Still, I would have thought that the dealer would have some interest in helping as it can't do his reputation much good if he is seen as someone facilitating the sale of crap though him, has to be a knock on effect.
grumpy52 said:
You bought a 'restored' car without getting it inspected ?
SVTRick said:
Why do people part with funds without inspecting the good first is beyond me.
daytona355 said:
Unfortunately, you should never buy a car without some kind of inspection
Er…thank you for the comments. These points are not news to me. As I said in the original post there was a visual inspection (and a test drive) before the sale: a couple of hours in fact, which was satisfactory (spotted a few known items to fix which were noted). The main problems are ones that could not have been picked up on a short inspection and so only became apparent later: in particular when one known item could not be fixed as expected from the initial inspection (mysteriously) this led to an automotive engineer having to spend several hours doing detailed measurements and dismantling before he could determine what the real underlying problem was - unlikely to have been acceptable on a pre-sale inspection, and not considered necessary due to the information provided. A further item was concealed. I don’t intend to discuss the details here any further as that is missing the point – I was only asking about “on consignment” (as the forum topic is "...the law") and made the mistake of trying briefly to put the reason for my question into context, which has led to some misunderstanding. In my previous experience with buying cars, not all problems which are not declared by a seller are apparent on an inspection, despite best efforts; some degree of surprise is inevitable and acceptable, but a serious mis-description crosses the boundary. Edited by NormanP on Sunday 6th March 11:17
Surely if the sale was advertised as a 'sold on consignment' you should have been aware that you are buying from A, and not the dealer. All liability for the description and condition of the car would sit with A, not the dealer who's just facilitating the sale as an agent.
You bought the car off A, so any claims should be directed to A rather than the person who put the parties together.
Apologies to add, knowing solicitors, you will be advised to pursue everybody involved including the dealer.
You bought the car off A, so any claims should be directed to A rather than the person who put the parties together.
Apologies to add, knowing solicitors, you will be advised to pursue everybody involved including the dealer.
Edited by The Surveyor on Sunday 6th March 12:10
Not sure I have ever come across consignment used in this context.
"Stock held on consignment" I understand to be stock that someone will hold physically, but only pay for it when it is used (in a manufacturing or service environment). Whoever this stock ends up with, whether as part of a product or service sold, the end beneficiary/customer would (ordinarily) have a sales contract with the user rather than the original supplier of the stock.
I'm not sure if this translates to the situation here or if this is customary in the motor trade.
Is it just that D is confused with terminology, when in practice he is simply acting as agent in the sale?
If not, then is the nature of the arrangement that at the point D sells to vehicle to you, this triggers an acquisition of the vehicle by D from A (so D does not actually carry the risk of holding stock). In that case, your contract would be with D.
"Stock held on consignment" I understand to be stock that someone will hold physically, but only pay for it when it is used (in a manufacturing or service environment). Whoever this stock ends up with, whether as part of a product or service sold, the end beneficiary/customer would (ordinarily) have a sales contract with the user rather than the original supplier of the stock.
I'm not sure if this translates to the situation here or if this is customary in the motor trade.
Is it just that D is confused with terminology, when in practice he is simply acting as agent in the sale?
If not, then is the nature of the arrangement that at the point D sells to vehicle to you, this triggers an acquisition of the vehicle by D from A (so D does not actually carry the risk of holding stock). In that case, your contract would be with D.
I've sold a car this way before. I wouldn't do it again (despite being well acquainted with the garage owner).
I had a contract with the garage and they had a contract with the buyer. At the end of the day your recourse is defined by the 'contract' you entered in to when you bought the car. I assume you got a receipt; who signed it as the vendor and were there any disclaimers relating to liabilities?
I had a contract with the garage and they had a contract with the buyer. At the end of the day your recourse is defined by the 'contract' you entered in to when you bought the car. I assume you got a receipt; who signed it as the vendor and were there any disclaimers relating to liabilities?
s2kjock said:
Not sure I have ever come across consignment used in this context.
If not, then is the nature of the arrangement that at the point D sells to vehicle to you, this triggers an acquisition of the vehicle by D from A (so D does not actually carry the risk of holding stock). In that case, your contract would be with D.
This is way I always did it.If not, then is the nature of the arrangement that at the point D sells to vehicle to you, this triggers an acquisition of the vehicle by D from A (so D does not actually carry the risk of holding stock). In that case, your contract would be with D.
Customer gets better protection and pays slightly more accordingly.
NormanP said:
The Surveyor said:
Surely if the sale was advertised as a 'sold on consignment'
It wasn'tGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff