Any laywers in this morning?

[rhinochopig]

Can anyone give me an idea of what the legal rights are if you buy a car which doesn't match the advertised specification - what recourse do you have, and specifically is actually worth chasing?

Is it a case of just put it down to one of life's many lessons as it'll cost a fortune in court or would it be a simple thing to resolve. The cost of the difference is circa £2k is this helps.

Thanks

[Engineer1]

Private or Trade? Do you still have the advert? Did you look at the car before you bought it? Brand new or second hand?

[JacksHereR]

who needs a lawyer with an engineer like that!

[rhinochopig]

Engineer1 said:

Private or Trade? Do you still have the advert? Did you look at the car before you bought it? Brand new or second hand?

Trade and took screen dumps of advert.

[Lastinclass]

Distance purchase over the internet? There are different laws regarding distance purchase if I remember correctly but it's still misrepresented by the sounds of it.

[Jem Thompson]

From my very shallow knowledge of contract/sale of goods law, you could get the contract for sale cancelled (return the car), if an essential term (condition, mileage, anything that was important to your decision to buy the car), was not as advertised.

I think this is the case anyway, no doubt there is a lot more to it though.

[rhinochopig]

Jem Thompson said:

From my very shallow knowledge of contract/sale of goods law, you could get the contract for sale cancelled (return the car), if an essential term (condition, mileage, anything that was important to your decision to buy the car), was not as advertised.

I think this is the case anyway, no doubt there is a lot more to it though.

Thanks Jem - any pointers as to where to read what exactly the law says.

Lastinclass - The car was purchased seen, but the component difference would only be noticed by an expert and if the car was put on a ramp.

[TomJS]

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm

Sale of Goods Act 1979 - look at sections 12 and 13.

The dealer should be extremely nervous here; his greater knowledge mean a high standard of care.

Also look at the Misrepresentation Act 1967

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/Revised...

Damages under misrep are a real bundle of joy for the claimant. An innocent misrep is dealt with in the same way as the tort of deceit, so any damage that occurs (time spent dealing with the matter, sourcing an alternative vehicle at greater cost etc) flow from the misrepresentation.

I'd say you're in a strong position here, provided you can prove it doesn't match its description & how it was represented.

[rhinochopig]

TomJS said:

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm

Sale of Goods Act 1979 - look at sections 12 and 13.

The dealer should be extremely nervous here; his greater knowledge mean a high standard of care.

Also look at the Misrepresentation Act 1967

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/Revised...

Damages under misrep are a real bundle of joy for the claimant. An innocent misrep is dealt with in the same way as the tort of deceit, so any damage that occurs (time spent dealing with the matter, sourcing an alternative vehicle at greater cost etc) flow from the misrepresentation.

I'd say you're in a strong position here, provided you can prove it doesn't match its description & how it was represented.

Is an electronic copy, and printed version, of the car advert with the spec and pics of the car considered to be proof in law?

ETA Thanks very useful information.

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 18th March 10:46

[JustinP1]

rhinochopig said:

TomJS said:

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm

Sale of Goods Act 1979 - look at sections 12 and 13.

The dealer should be extremely nervous here; his greater knowledge mean a high standard of care.

Also look at the Misrepresentation Act 1967

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/Revised...

Damages under misrep are a real bundle of joy for the claimant. An innocent misrep is dealt with in the same way as the tort of deceit, so any damage that occurs (time spent dealing with the matter, sourcing an alternative vehicle at greater cost etc) flow from the misrepresentation.

I'd say you're in a strong position here, provided you can prove it doesn't match its description & how it was represented.

Is an electronic copy, and printed version, of the car advert with the spec and pics of the car considered to be proof in law?

ETA Thanks very useful information.

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 18th March 10:46

I concur. This is not too difficult a case legally at all.

Electronic copies are fine. The issue would only come if the Defendant blankly denied they were real, which is unlikely.

[rhinochopig]

JustinP1 said:

rhinochopig said:

TomJS said:

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm

Sale of Goods Act 1979 - look at sections 12 and 13.

The dealer should be extremely nervous here; his greater knowledge mean a high standard of care.

Also look at the Misrepresentation Act 1967

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/Revised...

Damages under misrep are a real bundle of joy for the claimant. An innocent misrep is dealt with in the same way as the tort of deceit, so any damage that occurs (time spent dealing with the matter, sourcing an alternative vehicle at greater cost etc) flow from the misrepresentation.

I'd say you're in a strong position here, provided you can prove it doesn't match its description & how it was represented.

Is an electronic copy, and printed version, of the car advert with the spec and pics of the car considered to be proof in law?

ETA Thanks very useful information.

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 18th March 10:46

I concur. This is not too difficult a case legally at all.

Electronic copies are fine. The issue would only come if the Defendant blankly denied they were real, which is unlikely.

The obvious question then is would it end up costing me more than the 2k to pursue do you think and would it be a protracted process?

[JustinP1]

A lot less than £2k.

The court costs would be about £100 for filing off the top of my head.

The issue is though is that as long as both parties do not doubt the facts there is no reason why this would get to court. It would just be negotiation on what is a fair recourse.

You could chase this up personally with the seller, although for a couple of hundred quid a solicitor could write you a formal letter which may do the job. Court is really the 'stick' which you threaten with if the other party do not accept a fair resolution - because if they lose the case they end up with the costs.

[rhinochopig]

JustinP1 said:

A lot less than £2k.

The court costs would be about £100 for filing off the top of my head.

The issue is though is that as long as both parties do not doubt the facts there is no reason why this would get to court. It would just be negotiation on what is a fair recourse.

You could chase this up personally with the seller, although for a couple of hundred quid a solicitor could write you a formal letter which may do the job. Court is really the 'stick' which you threaten with if the other party do not accept a fair resolution - because if they lose the case they end up with the costs.

Seller will fight tooth and nail I suspect.

[TomJS]

JustinP1 said:

A lot less than £2k.

The court costs would be about £100 for filing off the top of my head.

The issue is though is that as long as both parties do not doubt the facts there is no reason why this would get to court. It would just be negotiation on what is a fair recourse.

You could chase this up personally with the seller, although for a couple of hundred quid a solicitor could write you a formal letter which may do the job. Court is really the 'stick' which you threaten with if the other party do not accept a fair resolution - because if they lose the case they end up with the costs.

And no (or very limited) costs here.

OP you should fight it & it shouldn't cost you much.

[JustinP1]

rhinochopig said:

JustinP1 said:

A lot less than £2k.

The court costs would be about £100 for filing off the top of my head.

The issue is though is that as long as both parties do not doubt the facts there is no reason why this would get to court. It would just be negotiation on what is a fair recourse.

You could chase this up personally with the seller, although for a couple of hundred quid a solicitor could write you a formal letter which may do the job. Court is really the 'stick' which you threaten with if the other party do not accept a fair resolution - because if they lose the case they end up with the costs.

Seller will fight tooth and nail I suspect.

That depends.

Sometimes when someone gets legal advice telling them they are stuffed, their attitude changes.

How clear cut are the differences? Is it something which could be argued such as a difference in condition, or is it something clear cut, for example engine size?

[TomJS]

Btw OP how did you pay? By credit card? Look up S 75 consumer Credit Act if so = CC severally & jointly liable & can reclaim money from them or from the seller of the car.

[rhinochopig]

JustinP1 said:

rhinochopig said:

JustinP1 said:

A lot less than £2k.

The court costs would be about £100 for filing off the top of my head.

The issue is though is that as long as both parties do not doubt the facts there is no reason why this would get to court. It would just be negotiation on what is a fair recourse.

You could chase this up personally with the seller, although for a couple of hundred quid a solicitor could write you a formal letter which may do the job. Court is really the 'stick' which you threaten with if the other party do not accept a fair resolution - because if they lose the case they end up with the costs.

Seller will fight tooth and nail I suspect.

That depends.

Sometimes when someone gets legal advice telling them they are stuffed, their attitude changes.

How clear cut are the differences? Is it something which could be argued such as a difference in condition, or is it something clear cut, for example engine size?

Although this isn't the difference, it is as obvious as saying the vehicle has ABS when it doesn't. I suspect in defence of the dealer they probably didn't realise although they do claim to be specialists.

[JustinP1]

What do they know about the situation so far?

Do they agree that the Part X is missing?

Basically your recourse is to ask them to fit Part X to the car. If they fail to do that, you get a quote to fit it and you ask them for the money, if necessary taking legal action. If it says it on the advert and it is not there, then this is pretty clear cut.

[Jasandjules]

What has the dealer said in response to your communications in respect of the defect?

[rhinochopig]

In essence: Some cars came with component some didn't. Not our responsibility to check, you drove it, you were happy with how it drove. The details in the web advert are generic and not specific to the car you bought - despite being clearly listed in the spec list with more details coming soon at the bottom . No chance of refund.

Dealer thinks I'm rejecting on the basis that the model type is not correct though, when it's the spec I'm quibbling - I have just put him right though.

IMO (and confimed by the dealer whop found the difference) the spec makes the car much harder to move on although and value may be different. One suggest the same, another less.

However, being a reasonable chap, I have just sent an e-mail offering a compromise. Net cost to me to fit new bits would be circa £1200-1300 - buying second hand bits and selling the bits replaced. The offer is to meet me half way.

I'll see what happens. It's not the money really, it's a principle thing.

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 18th March 12:16