Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
kestral said:
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.
Also I doubt ebay can over ride stautory right which is what SOGA is.
I thought that Motor auctions were non-binding, but happy to be corrected. Also I doubt ebay can over ride stautory right which is what SOGA is.
SOGA s.51 provides a remedy where the seller 'wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer'. To give rise to a right, there must be a contract that requires the seller to deliver the goods to the buyer. So eBay T's and C's, if they formed part of the contract in question, could be relevant.
cs174 said:
Thanks for all the replies. I now have a much better understanding of the situation.
In terms of the evidence provided by Buyer A to support the Online Civil Money Claim, this includes a copy of the WhatsApp messages, copies of the letters he previously sent, photo of my initial advert, photos of the car sent to him by WhatsApp prior to sale and, importantly, printout of similar cars advertised for sale to support Buyer A's valuation of the car.
It does not appear that Buyer A has actually purchased a car of similar age, mileage, condition etc. for £28,500. He is only referring to adverts of similar cars which shows the asking price. There is also no mention of him being a trader with another purchaser ready to buy. The claim does not include any other evidence to support the 'loss of bargain' other than essentially the WhatsApp messages and the adverts of similar cars.
Would Buyer A have had to actually purchase a similar car for £28,500 to have incurred a loss of £2000?
He hasn't bought a car therefore his 'loss' is speculative. In terms of the evidence provided by Buyer A to support the Online Civil Money Claim, this includes a copy of the WhatsApp messages, copies of the letters he previously sent, photo of my initial advert, photos of the car sent to him by WhatsApp prior to sale and, importantly, printout of similar cars advertised for sale to support Buyer A's valuation of the car.
It does not appear that Buyer A has actually purchased a car of similar age, mileage, condition etc. for £28,500. He is only referring to adverts of similar cars which shows the asking price. There is also no mention of him being a trader with another purchaser ready to buy. The claim does not include any other evidence to support the 'loss of bargain' other than essentially the WhatsApp messages and the adverts of similar cars.
Would Buyer A have had to actually purchase a similar car for £28,500 to have incurred a loss of £2000?
As is usual with car sales he hadnt left a deposit.
Maybe you hadn't given him time to however if he was that serious he knows he should have immediately.
I'd raise these points in your defence and state if he really was a serious buyer why hasn't he bought the same car already or left a deposit.
Everyone knows the used car market is fluid and leaving a deposit is essential both to show serious intent to complete the transaction and to show he's not just a happy shopper.
Integroo said:
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.
Auctions are binding 100% the bidder must pay and seller must deliver the goods up.I thought you would know that!
ElectricPics said:
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
We aren't talking about misrepresentation. We are talking about damages for non-delivery of goods under a contract for the sale of goods. Section 51 (and various other parts of SOGA1979) apply to non-consumer contracts.
kestral said:
Integroo said:
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.
Auctions are binding 100% the bidder must pay and seller must deliver the goods up.I thought you would know that!
In any event, I think you are wrong: https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/rules-policie...
"For items listed in Property and eBay Motors classified listings, bids are considered non-binding. When you bid on an item in these categories, you're expressing a strong interest in buying the seller's item, but no formal purchase contract is created if you're the winning bidder. For more details on non-binding bids, please see our full policy guidelines below."
Integroo said:
Yes - as mentioned above, the claimant may have a claim in law, but he may have difficulty in evidencing his loss.
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.
I agree.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.
He will not have a problem in evidencing his loss of £1000 though as it is a fact. So he really should have gone for £1000.
Integroo said:
Why would I be au fait with eBay's Terms and Conditions?
In any event, I think you are wrong: https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/rules-policie...
"For items listed in Property and eBay Motors classified listings, bids are considered non-binding. When you bid on an item in these categories, you're expressing a strong interest in buying the seller's item, but no formal purchase contract is created if you're the winning bidder. For more details on non-binding bids, please see our full policy guidelines below."
Thanks for that. I did not know property and motors where outside thier binding bid policy.In any event, I think you are wrong: https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/rules-policie...
"For items listed in Property and eBay Motors classified listings, bids are considered non-binding. When you bid on an item in these categories, you're expressing a strong interest in buying the seller's item, but no formal purchase contract is created if you're the winning bidder. For more details on non-binding bids, please see our full policy guidelines below."
But what happens if someone does renege on an ebay auction for a car?
Yes the contract with ebay buyer and seller is not broken but does a civil contract between the two parties involved over ride a statutory right under sec51 SOGA 1979?
Normally one does not give up ones statutory rights no matter what. IE Lundretts put up notices saying "by using these machines you accept that the lundrett is not liable in anyway for damage caused to clothing" which is not true as the SOGAS act enforces the right to have care taken by the laundrette.
Interesting!
kestral said:
Thanks for that. I did not know property and motors where outside thier binding bid policy.
But what happens if someone does renege on an ebay auction for a car?
Yes the contract with ebay buyer and seller is not broken but does a civil contract between the two parties involved over ride a statutory right under sec51 SOGA 1979?
Normally one does not give up ones statutory rights no matter what. IE Lundretts put up notices saying "by using these machines you accept that the lundrett is not liable in anyway for damage caused to clothing" which is not true as the SOGAS act enforces the right to have care taken by the laundrette.
Interesting!
SOGA S.51 isn't a statutory right in the way that you are thinking - it does not imply a term into the contract. It sets out a remedy for breach of contract. But what happens if someone does renege on an ebay auction for a car?
Yes the contract with ebay buyer and seller is not broken but does a civil contract between the two parties involved over ride a statutory right under sec51 SOGA 1979?
Normally one does not give up ones statutory rights no matter what. IE Lundretts put up notices saying "by using these machines you accept that the lundrett is not liable in anyway for damage caused to clothing" which is not true as the SOGAS act enforces the right to have care taken by the laundrette.
Interesting!
In involving themselves in an eBay auction, both parties agree to eBay's terms.
Marcellus said:
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!
tinnitusjosh said:
The bit in bold isn't as clear-cut as it seems - in that situation, the defaulting seller would be arguing that, at that stage, he did not have an intention to create a legal relationship as all the relevant terms had not yet been agreed / deposit paid etc.
This should be the starting and ending point for defending this case. You accepted their offer but in order for it to be deemed more than a speculative bid you would expect the buyer to put some skin in the game. When you received a better offer, you pointed this out to your would-be buyer and they declined the invitation, then only after the second (actual) buyer had shown real intent with a deposit became interested in making this meaningful.An absence of a deposit isn't necessarily a defence to there being a contract, but you could reasonably argue that in order to consider the contract agreed an initial consideration had to be made to demonstrate real intent, especially when dealing with billy bunters and the sale or purchase of used cars.
My money is on an armchair lawyer telling his mate he could get some money out of you, "guaranteed". I think you stand a reasonable chance of defending this, obviously depending on any details both as presented and absent from this thread. The claimant's lack of TVR certainly adds weight to your argument that it was a speculative bid that you felt had limited merit, and you may get away with a mild telling off about accepting offers without applying conditions in the first instance...
Pegscratch said:
This should be the starting and ending point for defending this case. You accepted their offer but in order for it to be deemed more than a speculative bid you would expect the buyer to put some skin in the game. When you received a better offer, you pointed this out to your would-be buyer and they declined the invitation, then only after the second (actual) buyer had shown real intent with a deposit became interested in making this meaningful.
An absence of a deposit isn't necessarily a defence to there being a contract, but you could reasonably argue that in order to consider the contract agreed an initial consideration had to be made to demonstrate real intent, especially when dealing with billy bunters and the sale or purchase of used cars.
My money is on an armchair lawyer telling his mate he could get some money out of you, "guaranteed". I think you stand a reasonable chance of defending this, obviously depending on any details both as presented and absent from this thread. The claimant's lack of TVR certainly adds weight to your argument that it was a speculative bid that you felt had limited merit, and you may get away with a mild telling off about accepting offers without applying conditions in the first instance...
It really depends on what the messages say, but I would not be confident in defending the case on the basis that no contract was formed if the messages really are as straight-forward as will you take 25k, no I'll take 27k, what about £26.5k, okay I accept you can come collect on Saturday. An absence of a deposit isn't necessarily a defence to there being a contract, but you could reasonably argue that in order to consider the contract agreed an initial consideration had to be made to demonstrate real intent, especially when dealing with billy bunters and the sale or purchase of used cars.
My money is on an armchair lawyer telling his mate he could get some money out of you, "guaranteed". I think you stand a reasonable chance of defending this, obviously depending on any details both as presented and absent from this thread. The claimant's lack of TVR certainly adds weight to your argument that it was a speculative bid that you felt had limited merit, and you may get away with a mild telling off about accepting offers without applying conditions in the first instance...
Pegscratch said:
An absence of a deposit isn't necessarily a defence to there being a contract, but you could reasonably argue that in order to consider the contract agreed an initial consideration had to be made to demonstrate real intent, especially when dealing with billy bunters and the sale or purchase of used cars.
.
Only if the messages said "Ok if you pay a deposit" or similar. If the messages are silent on any such deposit (and I rather suspect they are) the OP and Buyer A agreed a price and thus the deal appears to have been struck, the contract formed. .
Integroo said:
It really depends on what the messages say, but I would not be confident in defending the case on the basis that no contract was formed if the messages really are as straight-forward as will you take 25k, no I'll take 27k, what about £26.5k, okay I accept you can come collect on Saturday.
How could you honestly believe those to be the actions of people wanting to form a legal contract with a value more than most people make in a year?No discussion on what happens if it's damaged between now and completion of the sale? No requirement for a deposit no discussion of payment terms.
Those are the actions of people expressing a strong intention to make a sale contract in person on Saturday, not people both wanting to legally binding themselves into a sale immediately via text messages.
I'd bet my life that if the buyer turned up on Saturday to see a burnt out tvr, he'd not be handing over the cash and booking a tow truck.
As others have said Buyer A arguably has grounds for a breach of contract claim.
One thing to consider if the various defences in terms of offer/acceptance outlined above fail then there are 2 potential lines of argument I would think about
1. His losses are speculative until he actually purchases a car, adverts are simply that and a degree of negotiation is anticipated and a court cannot infer a value based on these - out of interest what was the figure you were seeking for the car? Have you checked the Glasses Guide price?
2. A potential argument could be that Buyer A has not mitigated his losses. He is claiming £2000 but as I understand it you sold the car for £27,500, his last proposal was £26,500. It could be argued that he could have increased his offer and bought your car for more than he offer but less than he is claiming.
I would think seriously about making a offer to make it go away - it would save the hassle and will also paint you in a favourable light in front of a judge.
One thing to consider if the various defences in terms of offer/acceptance outlined above fail then there are 2 potential lines of argument I would think about
1. His losses are speculative until he actually purchases a car, adverts are simply that and a degree of negotiation is anticipated and a court cannot infer a value based on these - out of interest what was the figure you were seeking for the car? Have you checked the Glasses Guide price?
2. A potential argument could be that Buyer A has not mitigated his losses. He is claiming £2000 but as I understand it you sold the car for £27,500, his last proposal was £26,500. It could be argued that he could have increased his offer and bought your car for more than he offer but less than he is claiming.
I would think seriously about making a offer to make it go away - it would save the hassle and will also paint you in a favourable light in front of a judge.
ging84 said:
How could you honestly believe those to be the actions of people wanting to form a legal contract with a value more than most people make in a year?
No discussion on what happens if it's damaged between now and completion of the sale? No requirement for a deposit no discussion of payment terms.
Those are the actions of people expressing a strong intention to make a sale contract in person on Saturday, not people both wanting to legally binding themselves into a sale immediately via text messages.
I'd bet my life that if the buyer turned up on Saturday to see a burnt out tvr, he'd not be handing over the cash and booking a tow truck.
Well a contract can be verbal. He could have said sold subject to contract or deposit being paid or whatever but it appears he did not.No discussion on what happens if it's damaged between now and completion of the sale? No requirement for a deposit no discussion of payment terms.
Those are the actions of people expressing a strong intention to make a sale contract in person on Saturday, not people both wanting to legally binding themselves into a sale immediately via text messages.
I'd bet my life that if the buyer turned up on Saturday to see a burnt out tvr, he'd not be handing over the cash and booking a tow truck.
If he pays A £1000 he will be in exactly the same position as he would if he had honoured the original transaction, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I think you're expecting too much black and white. The courts are famously staffed by human beings who are (contrary to popular belief) not only susceptible to mistakes but also to a massive helping of reasonableness. If the messages simply ceased at "go on then, £26.5k" with no discussion of when/how then it is not entirely unreasonable to argue that all the necessary elements required to call it a contract are not present. In order for it to be a contract which someone could rely upon you could argue that there would need to be an understanding of how that contract would be completed and when that would be. Without these elements it could be construed as a contract, but it could also be argued that it was a statement of intent rather than a contract.
If however the OP is indeed sat on a message saying "Awesome, I'll collect it Saturday and pay by bank transfer" (important the absence of "pending inspection; contracts are rarely permitted one-way flexibility) then he's on a much more difficult path.
Important question up there OP. Was any of Buyer A's communication "subject to inspection" or "as long as it's as good as you say it is", or verbiage to that effect? This may provide you with a fairly easy get out of jail free card as the buyer can't expect to be able to walk away whilst holding you to contract. I think similar was asked earlier in a much less constructive "if it was damaged between the text and collection" argument. That would firmly place this into the statement of intent category.
If however the OP is indeed sat on a message saying "Awesome, I'll collect it Saturday and pay by bank transfer" (important the absence of "pending inspection; contracts are rarely permitted one-way flexibility) then he's on a much more difficult path.
Important question up there OP. Was any of Buyer A's communication "subject to inspection" or "as long as it's as good as you say it is", or verbiage to that effect? This may provide you with a fairly easy get out of jail free card as the buyer can't expect to be able to walk away whilst holding you to contract. I think similar was asked earlier in a much less constructive "if it was damaged between the text and collection" argument. That would firmly place this into the statement of intent category.
Thanks for all the responses. The content of the WhatsApp messages are along the lines of:
Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want.
OP: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.
Buyer A: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange
OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning
Buyer A: OK
OP: Buyer B has offered £27,500. Would you consider increasing your offer
Buyer A: I thought we had reached an agreement. I've viewed, made you the offer, you counter-offered and I've agreed. I don't want to get involved in a Dutch auction.
OP: In that case, I need to accept the higher offer.
Buyer A: I admit that I really did want your car. How much more than his offer would I have to pay to get it?
OP: Sorry Buyer A, I've now taken a deposit, the car is now sold.
The important points for me is his offer is to buy it as soon as I want which was agreed to be the following Saturday. My understanding, rightly or wrongly, was that we agreed the price that I would sell Buyer A the car at on the following Saturday. Buyer B then bought the car before the Saturday.
Thoughts?
Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want.
OP: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.
Buyer A: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange
OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning
Buyer A: OK
OP: Buyer B has offered £27,500. Would you consider increasing your offer
Buyer A: I thought we had reached an agreement. I've viewed, made you the offer, you counter-offered and I've agreed. I don't want to get involved in a Dutch auction.
OP: In that case, I need to accept the higher offer.
Buyer A: I admit that I really did want your car. How much more than his offer would I have to pay to get it?
OP: Sorry Buyer A, I've now taken a deposit, the car is now sold.
The important points for me is his offer is to buy it as soon as I want which was agreed to be the following Saturday. My understanding, rightly or wrongly, was that we agreed the price that I would sell Buyer A the car at on the following Saturday. Buyer B then bought the car before the Saturday.
Thoughts?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff