Defrauded, Taunton Based Crook
Discussion
tt601 said:
Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't find your referenced thread.....
Just you -http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
This sounds rather like an exam question.
Reducing the issue to its essentials, as I understand it, the seller (S) has unconditionally agreed to sell a particular car to the purchaser (P) at a price, and a deposit is paid, but before delivery and payment of the balance, S purports to sell the car to a third party (TP).
On the assumption that the car was in a deliverable condition when the contract was made, title to the car passed when the contract was made, and it is immaterial that the time of payment of the balance of the price and delivery of the car was deferred (Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 18, rule 1). Thus, as between S and P, S had no right to sell the car to TP, because he no longer owned it.
However, notwithstanding that S no longer owned the car, he could pass a good title to another purchaser because he remained in possession after he had sold the car, provided that the [u]purchaser[/u] acted “in good faith and without notice of the previous sale” (Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 24).
Thus, provided that TP in good faith and without notice of the previous sale to P, he acquired a good title to the car.
It appears to be the law that the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, good faith and the absence of notice lies on TP: see Heap v Motorists’ Advisory Agency Ltd [1923] KB 577 (a case about the similar provisions of section 2 of the Factors Act 1889).
In any event, S was in breach of contract because he could not deliver the car to P, and liable to P both in damages (if it can be shown that the price was less than the market price – which may be very difficult) and (which is probably more important) to return the deposit.
Has the deposit been repaid? If not, why not?
Reducing the issue to its essentials, as I understand it, the seller (S) has unconditionally agreed to sell a particular car to the purchaser (P) at a price, and a deposit is paid, but before delivery and payment of the balance, S purports to sell the car to a third party (TP).
On the assumption that the car was in a deliverable condition when the contract was made, title to the car passed when the contract was made, and it is immaterial that the time of payment of the balance of the price and delivery of the car was deferred (Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 18, rule 1). Thus, as between S and P, S had no right to sell the car to TP, because he no longer owned it.
However, notwithstanding that S no longer owned the car, he could pass a good title to another purchaser because he remained in possession after he had sold the car, provided that the [u]purchaser[/u] acted “in good faith and without notice of the previous sale” (Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 24).
Thus, provided that TP in good faith and without notice of the previous sale to P, he acquired a good title to the car.
It appears to be the law that the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, good faith and the absence of notice lies on TP: see Heap v Motorists’ Advisory Agency Ltd [1923] KB 577 (a case about the similar provisions of section 2 of the Factors Act 1889).
In any event, S was in breach of contract because he could not deliver the car to P, and liable to P both in damages (if it can be shown that the price was less than the market price – which may be very difficult) and (which is probably more important) to return the deposit.
Has the deposit been repaid? If not, why not?
Let's take this in stages.
1. The contract point. As I understand it, the contract is silent as to when title passes (and does not say that it does not pass until delivery). The default rules about when title passes are those in section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. As pointed out above, rule 1 of section 18 applies to an unconditional sale of ascertained goods in a deliverable condition – unless the contract says otherwise, title passes when the contract was made. It may be that the seller needed to do something to the car to make it deliverable – in that case, title does not pass until the thing is done and the buyer has notice of that (section 18, rule 2).
2. However, whatever the position is, that does not deal with the section 24 point (as to which, see my previous post).
3. “Cancelling” the contract. By the sounds of it, you have agreed with the seller to rescind the contract, and he has acknowledged the obligation to repay the deposit. There is no real difficulty with this – if the contract has been rescinded by agreement, the obligations under it are at an end and it cannot be revived. However, the seller is obliged to repay the deposit.
In short, a claim against the third party to the car looks very difficult if not impossible, whereas the obligation on the part of the seller to repay the deposit looks straightforward. Why don’t you want to go after him?
Finally, as Breadvan would say, I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer.
1. The contract point. As I understand it, the contract is silent as to when title passes (and does not say that it does not pass until delivery). The default rules about when title passes are those in section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. As pointed out above, rule 1 of section 18 applies to an unconditional sale of ascertained goods in a deliverable condition – unless the contract says otherwise, title passes when the contract was made. It may be that the seller needed to do something to the car to make it deliverable – in that case, title does not pass until the thing is done and the buyer has notice of that (section 18, rule 2).
2. However, whatever the position is, that does not deal with the section 24 point (as to which, see my previous post).
3. “Cancelling” the contract. By the sounds of it, you have agreed with the seller to rescind the contract, and he has acknowledged the obligation to repay the deposit. There is no real difficulty with this – if the contract has been rescinded by agreement, the obligations under it are at an end and it cannot be revived. However, the seller is obliged to repay the deposit.
In short, a claim against the third party to the car looks very difficult if not impossible, whereas the obligation on the part of the seller to repay the deposit looks straightforward. Why don’t you want to go after him?
Finally, as Breadvan would say, I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer.
The key point is that you said you don't want the cat-c car so he sold it to someone else.
That's the end of that, you have no claim on that car.
It looks like you agreed to let him find another one for you using your money.
He hasn't done that yet, but might still be looking for one for you.
If you don't want him to keep looking he should return your cash.
It's probably time to call a lawyer.
That's the end of that, you have no claim on that car.
It looks like you agreed to let him find another one for you using your money.
He hasn't done that yet, but might still be looking for one for you.
If you don't want him to keep looking he should return your cash.
It's probably time to call a lawyer.
Damn, an expensive lesson learnt. Pay a deposit but I'd only ever transfer the remaining amount when I was the in the presence of the car.
Trust and faith don't exist as far as I'm concerned ed in this modern world.
Contact a solicitor, and look to raise a money claim aimed at him and his mother if it was her bank account the money was put into. Gather all evidence and justify every point you make with it, stay emotionless and rational.
Trust and faith don't exist as far as I'm concerned ed in this modern world.
Contact a solicitor, and look to raise a money claim aimed at him and his mother if it was her bank account the money was put into. Gather all evidence and justify every point you make with it, stay emotionless and rational.
Also do this immediately, longer you leave it the less money there will be at the end.
"no fixed abode" so where we're you picking the car up from? What kind line did he give you? What did he say to gain your trust to the tune of over £3k? I imagine that just means he lives with mum?
"no fixed abode" so where we're you picking the car up from? What kind line did he give you? What did he say to gain your trust to the tune of over £3k? I imagine that just means he lives with mum?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff