Legal Advice regarding Car Sale

[Vaud]

Mexman said:

It's your car, tell him you can sell it to whoever you want, or even withdraw it from sale if you so wish.
Everybody wants what they cannot have.
Your car, your rules, simple, like it or lump it.

Wrong. Contract law exists for a reason. The buyer wanted the car and had his offer accepted.

Ah yes, I remember from the other thread, you are a car salesman. I hope you practice better contract law with your customers...

cs174 said:

Thoughts?

On the moral side rather than the legal side

That I wouldn't want to business with you.

You were happy to screw your first buyer but then had a sudden attack of moral conscience to not screw buyer 2 and take more money...

[Mexman]

Why not.....
Customers do it to me all the bloody time.
"Changed my mind"
"Hold it for me, I definitely want it"
Never to be heard from again.
No one can force someone to sell their car if they don't want to.
Tell the buyers, its now removed from sale, change of heart, whatever, I does not matter.
This thread is all boo locks.

[tinnitusjosh]

cs174 said:

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?

I don't think that line of defence has any basis in law whatsoever, unless you had said that would sell to him on Saturday provided that no better offers arrived in the meantime. In my experience, if that is what the buyer and seller are agreeing to, then they would say so (which is why we have written contracts in the first place).

Sounds like you agreed to sell it to him on a certain day, and then failed to perform. Incidentally, my opinion is that the buyer would have been in default if he changed his mind or found a cheaper model (just in case you think I am being anti-seller!)

[Mexman]

Vaud said:

On the moral side rather than the legal side

That I wouldn't want to business with you.

You were happy to screw your first buyer but then had a sudden attack of moral conscience to not screw buyer 2 and take more money...

Yeah exactly....
Customers fk me about day in, day out.
Contract law....try telling the general public about their commitments to buy, promises, and all the other bullst excuses as to why they cannot go ahead with the deal.
And this is with a signed order form and a deposit taken.

Edited by Mexman on Wednesday 21st August 18:52

[Integroo]

cs174 said:

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?

Contract has likely been formed, particularly given he had already viewed and so no arguments the offer was made subject to inspection and no discussion was made as to deposits. I admit I haven't interrogated the case law so there may be an argument that as it is not customary for contracts for cars to be made via whatsapp so there was not an intention to enter a binding contract, but I wouldn't be confident of that.

Separately there are likely arguments around quantification of loss and causation.

[Vaud]

Mexman said:

Why not.....
Customers do it to me all the bloody time.
"Changed my mind"
"Hold it for me, I definitely want it"
Never to be heard from again.
No one can force someone to sell their car if they don't want to.
Tell the buyers, its now removed from sale, change of heart, whatever, I does not matter.
This thread is all boo locks.

He did want to sell it.
He accepted an offer and entered a contract.
It is quite simple.

What is less clear is the amount, if any the buyer can claim.

[Integroo]

Mexman said:

Why not.....
Customers do it to me all the bloody time.
"Changed my mind"
"Hold it for me, I definitely want it"
Never to be heard from again.
No one can force someone to sell their car if they don't want to.
Tell the buyers, its now removed from sale, change of heart, whatever, I does not matter.
This thread is all boo locks.

I'd stick to selling cars not giving legal advice.

[Mexman]

"Did".......want to sell it.

[tinnitusjosh]

Just for a bit of real world context, here is a Porsche dealer that had agreed (i.e. entered into a contract) to sell a GT3 to Buyer A but subsequently decided to sell to Buyer B instead. Measure of damages was the delta between the price that Buyer A would have paid, and the market value of a replacement

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/14217700.pors...

[Vaud]

Mexman said:

Yeah exactly....
Customers fk me about day in, day out.
Get over it.

So tighten up your contracts and agreements.

[Integroo]

tinnitusjosh said:

Just for a bit of real world context, here is a Porsche dealer that had agreed (i.e. entered into a contract) to sell a GT3 to Buyer A but subsequently decided to sell to Buyer B instead. Measure of damages was the delta between the price that Buyer A would have paid, and the market value of a replacement

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/14217700.pors...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/pensioner-gets-85000-payout-after-porsche-dealer-sold-his-car/amp/

Mr Hughes found out, and took the dealership to court. Initially, his claim was rejected at the Preston County Court, the judge stating that Mr Hughes had made only an “expression of interest” and had suffered no loss by not buying the car.

But Mr Hughes took his case to the Court of Appeal, where three senior judges deemed it “as plain as a pikestaff” that he had had a legally binding contract with the dealership, and awarded him £35,000 in damages, an estimate of the difference between the price Mr Hughes would have paid for the car and the value of a similar car today.

[Mexman]

Integroo said:

I'd stick to selling cars not giving legal advice.

I don't needs any advice from you thank you.
If you thing you can "force" someone to sell something then you are a bigger fool than you make yourself out to be on here.
Just the same as the "buyer" pulling out on the OP.
st happens, dismiss them as an idiot and move on.

[Integroo]

Mexman said:

I don't needs any advice from you thank you.
If you thing you can "force" someone to sell something then you are a bigger fool than you make yourself out to be on here.
Just the same as the "buyer" pulling out on the OP.
st happens, dismiss them as an idiot and move on.

You clearly do because you are spouting utter ste on this thread.

The claimant is not suing for specific performance. He is suing for damages.

The OP has literally been sued so the nonsense you are chatting is unhelpful.

[Marcellus]

cs174 said:

Whatsapp transcript

I'm sorry OP, I don't think thus strengthens your case, I'd see if you can negotiate a settlement for less than £2,000 claimed or be prepared to go to court knowing you may have to pay Buyer A the £2k, at least you know that's the most it's going to cost you.

With that being your max cost be wary of how much you spend with a Lawyer as the 2 could become 3 very easily!

[Mexman]

Vaud said:

So tighten up your contracts and agreements.

And "force" someone to complete on a deal and hand over the cash?
How exactly?

[Mexman]

Integroo said:

You clearly do because you are spouting utter ste on this thread.

The claimant is not suing for specific performance. He is suing for damages.

The OP has literally been sued so the nonsense you are chatting is unhelpful.

bks you idiot.
Damages.
What damages???????? against a private seller?????
Do me a favour.

[Vaud]

Mexman said:

Vaud said:

So tighten up your contracts and agreements.

And "force" someone to complete on a deal and hand over the cash?
How exactly?

You have misunderstood the thread. No-one is saying they can force the sale of that car to buyer 1.

The original buyer with a complete contract is seeking redress for loss.

How that loss is quantified will be examined by the judge and may or may not be proven and awarded.

[Integroo]

Mexman said:

bks you idiot.
Damages.
What damages???????? against a private seller?????
Do me a favour.

Emm...he has literally been sued for damages. Read the OP.

Then read s51 of sale of goods act (if indeed you can read, i have my doubts)

As has been pointed out to you, he isnt suing for OP to complete the sale

[Mexman]

Tell him the gearbox has just let go, or the engine is now knocking its tits off, does he still want to go ahead and complete?
Err, I bet the answer will be NO.

[ging84]

Car was advertised to the buyer on a site which clearly states

for motor vehicles and real estate (property) listed in the Classified Ad format, a bid or offer is not binding, but expresses a buyer's serious interest in the item

Give me a reason to believe it did not apply to this agreement.