Oh FFS! Buyer of my car issued court summons!
Discussion
Whether or not this is relevant, I suspect not as its pretty cut and dried imho, but I've seen no reports from 'specialist' (don't even know who he took it to!), I've not been invited to view it, he's not asked at any point to return it for a refund, and also stated that he wasn't able to stop using it until works could be carried out.
The whole thing *could* be made up.
The whole thing *could* be made up.
I'd be very grateful for that, thank you, although I suspect it'll be a little more than statement of the fact it was a private sale completed after seeing the vehicle three times and having driven it. Maybe also that the buyer only made me aware the problems with *his* vehicle a week later after visiting a specialist but don't want to complicate issues or look at all pissy in front of the court. I didn't know there were any problems with it, I didn't mis-describe or mis-represent in any way, and I feel under no obligation to bring his car up to his standard.
Sorry for badly formatted post, sent it from my mobile
Cheers everyone
Sorry for badly formatted post, sent it from my mobile
Cheers everyone
Mr XXXXXX inspected the car drove the car and was satisfied with the vehicle as described and only after he had satisfied himself did he pay me for the vehicle
Mr XXXXX could have had an inspection prior to purchase however he was happy to verify the cars condition himself
I feel this claim is a frivolous attempt to obtain money
Mr XXXXX could have had an inspection prior to purchase however he was happy to verify the cars condition himself
I feel this claim is a frivolous attempt to obtain money
too much?
The claimant bought a nine year, 115,000 mile old motor car from the defendant, a private individual, having inspected it on two separate occasions.
On the third occasion that the claimant and the defendant met, at a location suggested by the claimant, the claimant made payment and signed a receipt which clearly indicated that no warranty was implied or intended.
The claimant therefore did not, and can not, have placed any reasonable reliance upon anything stated by the defendant, either orally or otherwise.
There was sufficient time between the second inspection, and meeting the defendant to collect the car, for the defendant to have commissioned a professional inspection. The claimant appeared to be more than happy with the motor vehicle, and remained so until they visited an Audi ‘specialist’ after approximately one week of ownership.
The defendant was not, at any time, aware of any of the defects claimed by the defendant.
The Claimant claims that "Excellent condition for year" is sufficient grounds to bring a claim under Misrepresentation. However, Misrepresentation requires a statement of fact, it is the case that "excellent condition for year" is an expression of my opinion of the vehicle's condition. It is mere sales puff and accordingly there is no cause of action in respect of the same.
The vehicle was sold by private treaty and it is my view that this claim is an attempt to circumvent caveat emptor.
For the reasons given above this claim is without merit and the court is invited to dismiss the same at this pre-allocation stage in accordance with its powers of case management.
The Defendant claims costs.
The claimant bought a nine year, 115,000 mile old motor car from the defendant, a private individual, having inspected it on two separate occasions.
On the third occasion that the claimant and the defendant met, at a location suggested by the claimant, the claimant made payment and signed a receipt which clearly indicated that no warranty was implied or intended.
The claimant therefore did not, and can not, have placed any reasonable reliance upon anything stated by the defendant, either orally or otherwise.
There was sufficient time between the second inspection, and meeting the defendant to collect the car, for the defendant to have commissioned a professional inspection. The claimant appeared to be more than happy with the motor vehicle, and remained so until they visited an Audi ‘specialist’ after approximately one week of ownership.
The defendant was not, at any time, aware of any of the defects claimed by the defendant.
The Claimant claims that "Excellent condition for year" is sufficient grounds to bring a claim under Misrepresentation. However, Misrepresentation requires a statement of fact, it is the case that "excellent condition for year" is an expression of my opinion of the vehicle's condition. It is mere sales puff and accordingly there is no cause of action in respect of the same.
The vehicle was sold by private treaty and it is my view that this claim is an attempt to circumvent caveat emptor.
For the reasons given above this claim is without merit and the court is invited to dismiss the same at this pre-allocation stage in accordance with its powers of case management.
The Defendant claims costs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff