"Trade sale" cars for sale by dealers...?

[aceofspades1]

When scrolling through car ads, it's almost inevitable to stumble across an advert with a description of this nature in some way or another:


"All our vehicles offered for sale are strictly sold as seen on a trade sale basis and no warranty is implied or given.

Whilst we can supply vehicles to anybody, all our vehicles are intended for re-sale by our customers, for our customers commercial gain, so all transactions are business to business. When purchasing a vehicle from us we will acknowledge you as a sole trader or a business.

We advise that you either inspect the vehicle personally, have it inspected by a professional before purchasing, or conduct a thorough inspection upon delivery. As a trader engaged in vehicle sales, it is assumed that you possess the necessary expertise to evaluate the vehicle's condition bla bla bla"


Do adverts like these actually carry any weight from a legal standpoint? We all know that if buying from a dealer, you are normally protected by the consumer rights act (distance selling regulations, right to return with 30 days etc.)

Whether someone would be half sensible to purchase a car with a description like this is another question, but I'm curious if this is complete rubbish put together in the hope that someone will believe it or whether it actually protects the dealer against comebacks...?

[paul_c123]

Trade sale, or business-to-business (which is different) are defined by the type of buyer. To just state "its a trade sale" in itself, is somewhat meaningless except to send a signal that you're going to have an uphill battle enforcing any CRA2015 rights later down the line. Traders do occasionally buy cars from other unknown traders having seen their adverts, but normally it would be at trade price not retail price.

The other factor is the price - is it retail price or trade price for that make/model/age/mileage/condition car?

[Tisy]

aceofspades1 said:

Do adverts like these actually carry any weight from a legal standpoint? We all know that if buying from a dealer, you are normally protected by the consumer rights act (distance selling regulations, right to return with 30 days etc.)

Legal standpoint or not, the messaging is loud and clear that you are not going to be getting any money back or any issues fixed without wasting your entire life paying to drag them through the courts for a ruling in your favour, but you still won't get any money back or any issues fixed because they'll simply phoenix the company and reopen 2 days later under a new name.

Anyone stiupid enough to ignore the underlying messaging in the ad wording that the car is knackered (or likely soon will be) deserves everything they get when they try to play dumb and expect their money back or a new engine on the £500 diesel Insignia they bought an hour ago which has just seized on the side of the M1.

Sadly the world is full of entitled stupids nowadays who want their cake and eat it, hence the dealers are forced into using that kind of wording in order to dispose of their ratty stock.

[Jamescrs]

Tisy said:

Legal standpoint or not, the messaging is loud and clear that you are not going to be getting any money back or any issues fixed without wasting your entire life paying to drag them through the courts for a ruling in your favour, but you still won't get any money back or any issues fixed because they'll simply phoenix the company and reopen 2 days later under a new name.

Anyone stiupid enough to ignore the underlying messaging in the ad wording that the car is knackered (or likely soon will be) deserves everything they get when they try to play dumb and expect their money back or a new engine on the £500 diesel Insignia they bought an hour ago which has just seized on the side of the M1.

Sadly the world is full of entitled stupids nowadays who want their cake and eat it, hence the dealers are forced into using that kind of wording in order to dispose of their ratty stock.

This is the correct approach to take to it.

You have to accept that going back and quoting the consumer rights act if things go wrong isn’t going to assist.

I personally don’t have a problem with traders doing this approach because I have bought cheap cars on this basis before accepting will have to do some work at some point.

[Rough101]

I think it’s ludicrous that dealers aren’t allowed to sell vehicles on this basis and idiotic that people then try to claim CRA on them despite the warnings, undertakings and the low price.

[Don Roque]

It's a great red flag that the business is dodgy and the cars will be nails that'll leave you out of pocket. They know they're not all trade sales, so save your cash and buy from somewhere that isn't so obviously bent.

[Davie]

Jamescrs said:

Tisy said:

Legal standpoint or not, the messaging is loud and clear that you are not going to be getting any money back or any issues fixed without wasting your entire life paying to drag them through the courts for a ruling in your favour, but you still won't get any money back or any issues fixed because they'll simply phoenix the company and reopen 2 days later under a new name.

Anyone stiupid enough to ignore the underlying messaging in the ad wording that the car is knackered (or likely soon will be) deserves everything they get when they try to play dumb and expect their money back or a new engine on the £500 diesel Insignia they bought an hour ago which has just seized on the side of the M1.

Sadly the world is full of entitled stupids nowadays who want their cake and eat it, hence the dealers are forced into using that kind of wording in order to dispose of their ratty stock.

This is the correct approach to take to it.

You have to accept that going back and quoting the consumer rights act if things go wrong isn t going to assist.

I personally don t have a problem with traders doing this approach because I have bought cheap cars on this basis before accepting will have to do some work at some point.

Absolutely agree. I miss having a rake around trader part ex stock / trade ins to clear as as long as you go in eyes open, there used to be some decent enough cars to be had. Basically treat them as private sales, no come back and get in with it. They still exist but have definitely dried up lately thanks to the hand wringers / letter writers buying cheap cars then expecting perfection and going back preaching all their "rights" Such types shouldn't buy such cars.

[mikeyr]

I've bought cars this way before, usually for a couple of grand or less (although one was about £4k from a car dealer that also had very expensive stock including a Testarossa and virtually new AMG G-Wagen). I kind of get it though, people rock up with part exchange expectations and as a dealer you have certain responsibilities. Are you really going to chase around an intermittent fault code or want to deal with the issues that could arise in a 10 year old car that might emerge a couple of weeks after you sell it? Not sure where the middle ground is but the current agreement doesn't really work, not once has any seller asked me whether I am in the trade or buying for those purposes. Often the first mention is when you see an invoice after purchase!

[mikeyr]

Davie said:

...have definitely dried up lately thanks to the hand wringers / letter writers buying cheap cars then expecting perfection and going back preaching all their "rights" Such types shouldn't buy such cars.

Whilst I agree that this will often be the case, car dealers also won't have helped themselves over the years by selling cars with known faults that they've hidden.

[CMTMB]

I'm fine with the 'trade sale' concept, people should know what that means and go in expecting the car to be problematic. But where do you draw the line with a 'trade sale' though? £2k, £5k, £10k? A certain age of vehicle? At what point does it need to be a fully warranted retail sale.

[mikeyr]

Yeah, that's the tricky bit isn't it? There just isn't a giant trade market out there waiting to take on all these px cars and make them sellable. Maybe the law needs a new definition, like a non-warranted sale, that a trader can advertise cars as to anyone but has to meet some criteria. All gets complicated doesn't it? Any easy solutions out there PHers?

[Jamescrs]

CMTMB said:

I'm fine with the 'trade sale' concept, people should know what that means and go in expecting the car to be problematic. But where do you draw the line with a 'trade sale' though? £2k, £5k, £10k? A certain age of vehicle? At what point does it need to be a fully warranted retail sale.

I don’t think you can put a figure on in that way it should be considered more a percentage under the price of what would be one in a good retail condition.

[maz8062]

I spoke to an honest seller about it. It s their way of bypassing the consumer credit act, which in his view, effectively gives buyers a 6 months warranty for free. This, in his words, is a trade sale masquerading as a private sale.

[TheDrownedApe]

Recently bought a car and haggled down 5%. Dealer agreed but said "that will be classed as a trade sale".

Nonsense really

[Fred Smith]

mikeyr said:

Yeah, that's the tricky bit isn't it? There just isn't a giant trade market out there waiting to take on all these px cars and make them sellable. Maybe the law needs a new definition, like a non-warranted sale, that a trader can advertise cars as to anyone but has to meet some criteria. All gets complicated doesn't it? Any easy solutions out there PHers?

When I signed up for BCA or copart (or both) I had to say I was a car dealer (which I am, albeit I have not bought and sold my first car as a trader yet!!!!) They seem confident that if people are willing to sign that they are dealers then they are dealers... and I am sure that they have checked all this out legally and they're not at risk of consumers claiming consumer rights on auction sales.

There's also the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act for commercial leases. The Act gives tenants lots of rights. But the landlord can offer a prospective tenant a lease outside of the act, so long as they put in writing that the the lease is outside of the act, that they will not have full legal protection and they should take legal advice on the implications of this. This all needs to be done in the days (weeks?) before the lease is signed, not sprung on the tenant as they're holding the pen ready to sign.

Surely something similar could be done for cars, perhaps even a two tier system? Either way the dealer has to put the terms of the deal in writing and have them accepted in writing at least 24 hours before the transaction can happen.

(1) Higher value cars (£5k and above?) - give people the option of giving up their statutory rights, either because they are risk-takers who want a discount, or because they are happy to rely on warranties / extended warranties.

(2) Lower value cars (below £5k) - A dealer could perhaps advertise older cars as "sold as seen". Make it clear that due to the car's age and / or high mileage it is suitable for risk takers and mechanics, not ordinary buyers who need a reliable car. Make it clear that as a dealer the car simply does not work - the risk of returns or expensive repairs, when the profit is £1,000 or less, simply renders the low value consumer market unviable as a dealer. Again, maybe give the buyer the option of a warranty.