Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
A couple of genuine questions...
1) Does the fact that Buyer A viewed the car initially whilst it was still on Ebay mean that it could be assumed the sale falls under ebays T&C's despite the purchase not being carried out via ebay?
2) The seller offered the chance for Buyer A to increase his offer to match Buyer B's offer, Buyer A declined. Thus making it their choice not to proceed with the sale?
1) Does the fact that Buyer A viewed the car initially whilst it was still on Ebay mean that it could be assumed the sale falls under ebays T&C's despite the purchase not being carried out via ebay?
2) The seller offered the chance for Buyer A to increase his offer to match Buyer B's offer, Buyer A declined. Thus making it their choice not to proceed with the sale?
ging84 said:
Why is it a separate question?
I put up a sign offering something for sale, in my t&c I state that all offered are non binding.
No one buys, so I take down my sign.
Someone contacts me and says I saw your sign last week, is it still available, I say yes make me an offer..... offer is made, I accept. If there is no discussion on terms, is it not reasonable for me to believe the offer to be non binding?
The law would suggest not;I put up a sign offering something for sale, in my t&c I state that all offered are non binding.
No one buys, so I take down my sign.
Someone contacts me and says I saw your sign last week, is it still available, I say yes make me an offer..... offer is made, I accept. If there is no discussion on terms, is it not reasonable for me to believe the offer to be non binding?
- there is offer and acceptance
- there is consideration being exchanged (£ one way something the other)
- there was intent to create legal obligations - if not why say anything.
That’s contract full house!
If timing were critical it must be stated with the offer and/or acceptance otherwise it is deemed to be within a reasonable time.
(IANAL but this is my understanding of contract law)
Christmassss said:
A couple of genuine questions...
1) Does the fact that Buyer A viewed the car initially whilst it was still on Ebay mean that it could be assumed the sale falls under ebays T&C's despite the purchase not being carried out via ebay?
2) The seller offered the chance for Buyer A to increase his offer to match Buyer B's offer, Buyer A declined. Thus making it their choice not to proceed with the sale?
On 1) The listing had ended - so could not be bound by any terms. The comms happened outside of ebay.1) Does the fact that Buyer A viewed the car initially whilst it was still on Ebay mean that it could be assumed the sale falls under ebays T&C's despite the purchase not being carried out via ebay?
2) The seller offered the chance for Buyer A to increase his offer to match Buyer B's offer, Buyer A declined. Thus making it their choice not to proceed with the sale?
On 2) The OP had accepted the offer. After that he was in breach.
IANAL.
ShyTallKnight said:
I can understand Buyer A being a bit brassed off but to be fair to the OP he does sound like he's given Buyer A every opportunity to make a counter offer and secure the vehicle. Buyer B was the first to commit to the purchase by paying a deposit and in my book the first one to show the reddies and all that.
What I feel is outrageous is the claim of 2k in 'damages'.
I'm not a lawyer either but the world has gone mad if this sort of thing is allowed to happen.
It's not gone mad at all. It's about being dishonest and greedy and wanting it both ways. What I feel is outrageous is the claim of 2k in 'damages'.
I'm not a lawyer either but the world has gone mad if this sort of thing is allowed to happen.
If you agree to sell at a certain price then that's it. If you breach that agreement you are laible for any damages in breach. That's the law and quite correct.
Christmassss said:
2) The seller offered the chance for Buyer A to increase his offer to match Buyer B's offer, Buyer A declined. Thus making it their choice not to proceed with the sale?
By the time the seller offered Buyer A an opportunity to increase his offer, a contract had already been formed at the lower price. Christmassss said:
A couple of genuine questions...
1) Does the fact that Buyer A viewed the car initially whilst it was still on Ebay mean that it could be assumed the sale falls under ebays T&C's despite the purchase not being carried out via ebay?
2) The seller offered the chance for Buyer A to increase his offer to match Buyer B's offer, Buyer A declined. Thus making it their choice not to proceed with the sale?
1) I think ebays t&cs explictly stat that if sale not completed within eBay systems then sale/purchase not subject to eBay t&cs, it’s how they try to ensure deals remain inside their system and they earn their % of the sale.1) Does the fact that Buyer A viewed the car initially whilst it was still on Ebay mean that it could be assumed the sale falls under ebays T&C's despite the purchase not being carried out via ebay?
2) The seller offered the chance for Buyer A to increase his offer to match Buyer B's offer, Buyer A declined. Thus making it their choice not to proceed with the sale?
2) it appears as if the seller accepted the buyers offer, therefore wasn’t able to / should not have accepted buyer bs offer, possibly, allegedly, probably..... etc
Neonblau said:
Interesting thread. I have nothing to add but I do love reading threads like this where a bunch of randoms quite happily come on and spout all sorts of crap and contradict legal professionals.
You'd be pretty daft to assume anyone on here is a legal professional. Even those that say they are. Everyone is a random on the internet.On the subject of the OP however, I have sold enough stuff online/paper/ebay to know that a chap on my doorstep with a wad full of cash is worth a gazillion promises to turn up and view/promise to pay the asking price or whatsapp assertions.
I tend to tell people I'm happy to sell at the price if you are the next person to turn up at my door with said cash. I suspect if it goes to court it'll be decided by whether the magistrate has even tried to sell anything on line. If it does go against the op its because he was being held to a much higher standard than pretty much everyone I've ever bought or sold second hand stuff from.
Very few people have a 'word' which is worth 1K sterling.
ging84 said:
Nor did I say it was, nor did my example involve one
Well, for a contract formed outside of eBay the eBay T's and C's are irrelevant. Even if they weren't, I am not aware of any term or condition that says an offer under a classified ad is not binding - as far as I am aware, the position is that a winning auction bid is not binding. Happy to be proven wrong though - please cite the T's and C's. Though it is irrelevant, as the contract in question was agreed outside of eBay and as far as we know neither party say oh and the ebay ts and cs apply. julian64 said:
You'd be pretty daft to assume anyone on here is a legal professional. Even those that say they are. Everyone is a random on the internet.
On the subject of the OP however, I have sold enough stuff online/paper/ebay to know that a chap on my doorstep with a wad full of cash is worth a gazillion promises to turn up and view/promise to pay the asking price or whatsapp assertions.
I tend to tell people I'm happy to sell at the price if you are the next person to turn up at my door with said cash. I suspect if it goes to court it'll be decided by whether the magistrate has even tried to sell anything on line. If it does go against the op its because he was being held to a much higher standard than pretty much everyone I've ever bought or sold second hand stuff from.
Very few people have a 'word' which is worth 1K sterling.
Fair points every one of them, but I've no dog in this race and just read for the entertainment value.On the subject of the OP however, I have sold enough stuff online/paper/ebay to know that a chap on my doorstep with a wad full of cash is worth a gazillion promises to turn up and view/promise to pay the asking price or whatsapp assertions.
I tend to tell people I'm happy to sell at the price if you are the next person to turn up at my door with said cash. I suspect if it goes to court it'll be decided by whether the magistrate has even tried to sell anything on line. If it does go against the op its because he was being held to a much higher standard than pretty much everyone I've ever bought or sold second hand stuff from.
Very few people have a 'word' which is worth 1K sterling.
Integroo said:
As I understand it, winning an eBay auction for a car does not form a contract as per the eBay Terms and Conditions. That is entirely separate from the question as to whether or not a contract was formed over WhatsApp.
It sounds like what happened was the claimant sent the seller a message offering a sum, there was a period of haggling, then the seller said something along the lines of "okay, i'll take that, come pick it up tomorrow". That's sufficient to form a contract. The fact he then messaged the second buyer to tell him he has sold the car and cancel the inspection - and only then he got a higher offer from the second buyer - is a fairly good indication he had come to an agreement with the first buyer.
I thing you are wrong there.Ebay do state that auctions are binding. But they do nothing to enforce it. In my case I used sect 51 SOGA to sue for loss of bargin.It sounds like what happened was the claimant sent the seller a message offering a sum, there was a period of haggling, then the seller said something along the lines of "okay, i'll take that, come pick it up tomorrow". That's sufficient to form a contract. The fact he then messaged the second buyer to tell him he has sold the car and cancel the inspection - and only then he got a higher offer from the second buyer - is a fairly good indication he had come to an agreement with the first buyer.
Also I doubt ebay can over ride stautory right which is what SOGA is.
tinnitusjosh said:
IAAL but IANYL etc
on these facts i would say 100% that OP has formed a contract and then breached it. Buyer A will presumably be able to evidence the contract by producing the WhatsApp messages.
Buyer A's damages should be an amount sufficient to put him in the position he would have been but for the breach. Had OP performed the contract, Buyer A would be £26,500 down, but with a new TVR. If Buyer A is unable to source an equivalent spec / condition TVR for £26,500 (or less), he has suffered a loss. If the only other same spec / condition TVR costs £28,500, then Buyer A is £2,000 out of pocket and is generally entitled to recover that loss from the seller as a matter of law and, frankly, natural justice.
Reading all the PHers telling OP otherwise has been the highlight of my day, so thanks for that
Can't be 100% sure, but I think this scenario is literally unit one of most contract law textbooks...
I totally get this but...on these facts i would say 100% that OP has formed a contract and then breached it. Buyer A will presumably be able to evidence the contract by producing the WhatsApp messages.
Buyer A's damages should be an amount sufficient to put him in the position he would have been but for the breach. Had OP performed the contract, Buyer A would be £26,500 down, but with a new TVR. If Buyer A is unable to source an equivalent spec / condition TVR for £26,500 (or less), he has suffered a loss. If the only other same spec / condition TVR costs £28,500, then Buyer A is £2,000 out of pocket and is generally entitled to recover that loss from the seller as a matter of law and, frankly, natural justice.
Reading all the PHers telling OP otherwise has been the highlight of my day, so thanks for that
Can't be 100% sure, but I think this scenario is literally unit one of most contract law textbooks...
If the only other car available is £2k more than the OP’s, there would usually be a reason for this (lower miles, better condition etc.).
Could it not therefore be argued that the purchaser is not out of pocket at all. He’s paid £2k more, but got a car that’s worth £2k more so he’s in the same net asset position as he was before. Instead of holding cash worth £28.5k he’s now sitting in a car worth £28.5k. No loss at all!
I am certainly not a lawyer, but the ‘loss’ issue just didn’t feel quite so clear cut...
jimbobs said:
I totally get this but...
If the only other car available is £2k more than the OP’s, there would usually be a reason for this (lower miles, better condition etc.).
Could it not therefore be argued that the purchaser is not out of pocket at all. He’s paid £2k more, but got a car that’s worth £2k more so he’s in the same net asset position as he was before. Instead of holding cash worth £28.5k he’s now sitting in a car worth £28.5k. No loss at all!
I am certainly not a lawyer, but the ‘loss’ issue just didn’t feel quite so clear cut...
Yes - as mentioned above, the claimant may have a claim in law, but he may have difficulty in evidencing his loss. If the only other car available is £2k more than the OP’s, there would usually be a reason for this (lower miles, better condition etc.).
Could it not therefore be argued that the purchaser is not out of pocket at all. He’s paid £2k more, but got a car that’s worth £2k more so he’s in the same net asset position as he was before. Instead of holding cash worth £28.5k he’s now sitting in a car worth £28.5k. No loss at all!
I am certainly not a lawyer, but the ‘loss’ issue just didn’t feel quite so clear cut...
However, the fact that the car actually sold for £27.5k is at least an indication that it was worth £27.5k, and so to buy an equivalent car he would need to pay at least £27.5k.
Neonblau said:
julian64 said:
You'd be pretty daft to assume anyone on here is a legal professional. Even those that say they are. Everyone is a random on the internet.
On the subject of the OP however, I have sold enough stuff online/paper/ebay to know that a chap on my doorstep with a wad full of cash is worth a gazillion promises to turn up and view/promise to pay the asking price or whatsapp assertions.
I tend to tell people I'm happy to sell at the price if you are the next person to turn up at my door with said cash. I suspect if it goes to court it'll be decided by whether the magistrate has even tried to sell anything on line. If it does go against the op its because he was being held to a much higher standard than pretty much everyone I've ever bought or sold second hand stuff from.
Very few people have a 'word' which is worth 1K sterling.
Fair points every one of them, but I've no dog in this race and just read for the entertainment value.On the subject of the OP however, I have sold enough stuff online/paper/ebay to know that a chap on my doorstep with a wad full of cash is worth a gazillion promises to turn up and view/promise to pay the asking price or whatsapp assertions.
I tend to tell people I'm happy to sell at the price if you are the next person to turn up at my door with said cash. I suspect if it goes to court it'll be decided by whether the magistrate has even tried to sell anything on line. If it does go against the op its because he was being held to a much higher standard than pretty much everyone I've ever bought or sold second hand stuff from.
Very few people have a 'word' which is worth 1K sterling.
Integroo said:
ElectricPics said:
SOGA 1979 was superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Neither apply to private sellers.
Wrong twice, impressive.Neither apply to private sellers.
The parts of SOGA1979 that implied terms into consumer contracts were replaced by the CRA15. Section 51 is very much still in force and does not only apply to consumer contracts.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing ...
Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 21st August 12:07
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff