Warranty and rights from a dealer when buying for a charity.

[OverSteery]

I would welcome advice on my rights and realistic expectations when buying a second hand vehicle from a dealer on behalf of a charity.

For myself, I invariably buy privately and accept the risks associated. But this is different and as I am spending the charity's money; I am a little paranoid about not F'ing up!

I have placed a deposit on a one owner, FSH, 33k mile, 4 year old, 15 seat minibus; from a dealer, who appears to be well established and reputable. The sale price is £17k.

I placed a £500 deposit on Saturday, which included a verbal discussion which included a 3 month warranty. Which I confirmed with him was parts and labour. I didn't press him further for details and nothing was documented.

The invoice arrived today and limits any individual claim to £500. My initial reaction was that this was low and I have just talked to the seller. He tells me that this is a typical limit, and more is rare and expensive. As a good will gesture he has offered to up the limit to £700.

I expect I will go ahead on above basis, and I have no reason to expect the bus to fail spectacularly, but its not my money so wish to ensure I act cautiously. To be honest its only 3 months anyway.

I would appreciate views and advice on:
- is a £500 (or £700) limit per claim reasonable and typical? My view is that he should have mentioned this. A major failure will leave the charity well out of pocket.
- Given this is being bought by a charity, are the usual consumer rights still active. Do I have legal expectation that the goods are fit for the purposes supplied. If I were a private buyer and the bus exploded within a few weeks I believe I am well covered, but I assume that this counts a business to business sale?

[catman]

Any warranty would be in addition to your rights under the current legislation. Under some circumstances, the Dealer would bear responsibility for any faults.

Tim

[Mill Wheel]

Have you checked to see if you can get it covered under one of these warranty insurance deals.. the sort advertised by Quinten Wilson?

[KevinCamaroSS]

catman said:

Any warranty would be in addition to your rights under the current legislation. Under some circumstances, the Dealer would bear responsibility for any faults.

Tim

This, the dealer is attempting to cover some of his responsibility as a dealer by providing a third party warranty.

[OverSteery]

KevinCamaroSS said:

catman said:

Any warranty would be in addition to your rights under the current legislation. Under some circumstances, the Dealer would bear responsibility for any faults.

Tim

This, the dealer is attempting to cover some of his responsibility as a dealer by providing a third party warranty.

As it happen, I suspect not. I suspect its his own warranty as he has a workshop.

I am still unsure if as a business to business transaction whether "my" rights are the same as if I were a private individual. I know that contracts between companies are not treated in quite the same was as those with private consumers.

[catman]

OverSteery said:

As it happen, I suspect not. I suspect its his own warranty as he has a workshop

That's even worse, then. He's trying to limit any claim you may have, by saying it's too expensive! Supposing the engine explodes, what then?

Tim

[OverSteery]

catman said:

OverSteery said:

As it happen, I suspect not. I suspect its his own warranty as he has a workshop

That's even worse, then. He's trying to limit any claim you may have, by saying it's too expensive! Supposing the engine explodes, what then?

Tim

then either I'm F**ed OR I have to revert to my rights under law, about whether the vehicle was fit for purpose.

which is why I asked originally:

"Do I have legal expectation that the goods are fit for the purposes supplied."

I also asked if this was common practice.

[bladebloke]

OverSteery said:

Given this is being bought by a charity, are the usual consumer rights still active. Do I have legal expectation that the goods are fit for the purposes supplied. If I were a private buyer and the bus exploded within a few weeks I believe I am well covered, but I assume that this counts a business to business sale?

No, consumer rights would not apply because, as you have already worked out, I think, the charity would not fall under the meaning of a consumer in the Consumer Rights Act. So the applicable legislation would be the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (the "Act").

Forget about fitness for purpose - that is requirement under the Act for things to be fit for purpose, but a vehicle made by a big manufacture almost always will be fit for its purpose as a vehicle. Under the Act though, as with any sale under either bit of legislation, the goods must be of satisfactory quality. That would be your likely route for a remedy if there was an issue.

So yes, you can expect the goods to be satisfactory quality. The far more tricky question is whether or not a particular issue stops them being satisfactory quality. If it is something very minor, almost certainly not - expectations have to be set with the fact it is a 4 year old second hand vehicle in mind - it will not be perfect. If it's something very significant AND the fault was there at the time you bought it then you would probably have a remedy, technically speaking (even if practicalities make it unrealistic to pursue).

Take note of the requirement for the fault that caused the failure being there when you bought it though - this is a point that often seems to get missed. If it developed from nowhere after the sale, the trader has no obligations to you. There is a presumption that if the failure happened within 6 months then the defect is taken the to have been there at the time of sale, but if the seller can prove that it wasn't, no remedy. The difference after 6 months is that the buyer has the burden of proving that the defect causing the problem was already there at the time of the contract.

Because it's not a consumer sale, it is possible for the trader to modify the obligations on him under the act via his terms of business. However, any modification either of the obligation itself or a limitation of the remedies available would only be enforceable if the were reasonable. If the warranty was intended to be in place of statutory rights, rather than in addition to, then on the face of it (i.e. without knowing all the facts), I think it's very unlikely a £700 limit on liability would be found to be reasonable.

So in short, the charity will have statutory protection. But any buyer takes a risk that something goes wrong under his watch - if that genuinely is the case (as opposed to a pre-existing defect making itself known later) then there is no remedy. The only way to protect against that is to seek some sort of insurance product covering repair costs in the event of a breakdown.

I would close though by saying that risks can't be avoided. If you've taken care to try to minimise them then you can sleep well and the charity should be very happy that they have somebody so diligent. If you haven't already, it would probably be worth organising an independent inspection to check for major faults though. Ultimately, it's much better to discover them now and get them sorted than try to rely on legal rights after the event, when it might be difficult or uneconomical to enforce them.

FIngers crossed for you.

[OverSteery]

bladebloke said:

lots of useful stuff

Many thanks, that's exactly what I was trying to understand. Much appreciated.

[bladebloke]

OverSteery said:

Many thanks, that's exactly what I was trying to understand. Much appreciated.

A pleasure, thanks for saying thanks.