Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
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...
Kevin is a mate of mine. You wouldn't believe the bill Pendragon ended up with. Frightening. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/14217700.pors...
kestral said:
rallycross said:
Often in these threads you come across more like a first year distance learning legal student who has the books but has very little idea on how these things play out when they hit you in real life.
It only plays out in real life like it has with you because you have allowed it to.The law is clear if you do not want to enforce agreements you have reached with people that is your prerogative.
Other people do enforce their rights.
It seems to me on this thread that everyone is sticking to their guns, and the whole thing is descending into madness.
The problem, as I see it, with this sort of claim is that it is often hard to predict, on any given day, what a judge on the Small Claims Track is going to decide (assuming it gets that far).
For instance, Rallycross: you may well have been advised not to pursue and, for your situation, your legal advisor may well have been right - was the time and (potential) lawyering cost worth the possible / probable return? But that doesn't make Integroo wrong when he advises (quite clearly and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, correctly) that there is - in law - a case to answer.
Note that Integroo has never said to the OP "no chance, pay in full" but instead has been careful to say, in essence, "yes, there's a case to answer - you might want to think about offering to settle rather than taking it to court." Those aren't the same things. Pragmatically, £1k to settle might be a decent deal, depending upon how the OP values his time. After all, on the Small Claims Track, the OP can't get his lawyering costs back even if he wins.
By another token, Mexman: you're quite right that people back out of seemingly-binding contracts all the time, and often do so without penalty. Should the world work that way? No, but equally who wants to go around suing their customers rather then selling cars? And, whether we like it or not, consumers have a lot of rights on their sides when dealing with businesses who are, to an extent, expected to "suck it up" a bit in return for being allowed to sell cars for a living. Like I say, not fair, but it doesn't mean that the OP doesn't have a case to answer that a Judge might actually decide to agree with - funny things, Judges...
The problem with asking for legal advice is that it will often be just that, legal advice. And people get het up about it. But legal advice is just that, legal advice. If I ask "is it legal for me to drive at 90 in a 30 zone" then I'm going to be told "with a small number of exceptions that probably don't apply to you, no, it isn't legal." What I then do with that advice is up to me. I may still drive that way.
Equally, I might ask "is it legal for me to back out of this contract; what could happen if I did?" and be told "no, it isn't legal" but decide that I wanted to do it anyhow, taking a balanced risk decision that I think I'll do better from doing so than from staying in the deal. Neither is "right" or "wrong" because the context is different.
In the current case, were it me, I might say "give me legal advice" and be told "you've got a case to answer." If I then asked a barrister "give me some litigation advice" he might say "don't be silly, offer him £100 for his trouble and put it down to experience."
And if I were advising myself? If I couldn't get the other party on the phone or in person and practice "shrewd negotiation" then I'd probably write a without prejudice letter explaining that I'm not a professional car seller, that I wasn't used to doing deals (and certainly don't do them for a living), that I may have used the wrong words in explaining what I was doing, that I really didn't want to mess him around, and that in recognition of his upset and trouble and time and mileage in coming to view and so on I'd be delighted to offer him £250 (say) in return for his dropping this claim + his fees (£105 for this size claim I think). That would be £355 for definite (if he accepts) versus a chance of £0 (plus my time) or a chance of £2000 (plus my time).
Every person will make a different (commercial) judgement; the legal advice is just one component of the equation about what to do next.
The only piece of advice I'll offer on this? Don't fight on principle. Victory will never be worth it, the stress will never be worth it, the risk of making things far worse will never be worth it. This is, as it were, "just business" and the time to fight has to be weighed against the legal weight of the other side's argument and the value of the OP's time and peace of mind.
The above is a sensible post. Legal advice is all about balancing risks - it is rarely black and white.
I would however add that Rallycross' anecdotes are distinguishable from the present circumstances - i agree with the advice he was given that it would be difficult in law to either force someone to complete a sale or for a car dealer to recover lost profits because someone pulled out of a sale. However in the present case the claim is for the difference in value between that agreed and that of an equivalent car. It is a different claim on different facts and one that is not entirely unrealistic.
I would however add that Rallycross' anecdotes are distinguishable from the present circumstances - i agree with the advice he was given that it would be difficult in law to either force someone to complete a sale or for a car dealer to recover lost profits because someone pulled out of a sale. However in the present case the claim is for the difference in value between that agreed and that of an equivalent car. It is a different claim on different facts and one that is not entirely unrealistic.
Whatever you do don't ignore the money claim. You will need to acknowledge receipt, and state whether you are accepting the claim fully or partially, or rejecting it in full.
You'll need to then respond to the claim with your defence, etc.
Ignoring the claim will likely result in a default judgement against you and you'll end up with a CCJ.
Edit: Removed the armchair lawyering that isn't helpful
You'll need to then respond to the claim with your defence, etc.
Ignoring the claim will likely result in a default judgement against you and you'll end up with a CCJ.
Edit: Removed the armchair lawyering that isn't helpful
Edited by Durzel on Thursday 22 August 01:12
The OP is almost certainly in breach of contract but whether the prospective buyer can evidence a loss is another matter.
Sadly, no one can give a definitive answer on that because there is no such thing as a dead cert when it comes to court cases. It depends where the sympathies of the court lie on the day.
Hence anyone with an ounce of sense will avoid going to court at virtually any cost. (And even if you win there's always a price to pay and not necessarily just financial).
Of course all of this comes a bit late for the OP who will doubtless end up wishing he'd stuck to the deal in the first place and avoided all this hassle.
Disclosure: IANAL However I have spent a large part of my professional life, some 30 years, presenting evidence at court and my opinion is based on real life experience.
Sadly, no one can give a definitive answer on that because there is no such thing as a dead cert when it comes to court cases. It depends where the sympathies of the court lie on the day.
Hence anyone with an ounce of sense will avoid going to court at virtually any cost. (And even if you win there's always a price to pay and not necessarily just financial).
Of course all of this comes a bit late for the OP who will doubtless end up wishing he'd stuck to the deal in the first place and avoided all this hassle.
Disclosure: IANAL However I have spent a large part of my professional life, some 30 years, presenting evidence at court and my opinion is based on real life experience.
Edited by DJP on Thursday 22 August 04:03
If we look at the transcript like this
Scenario A
For the claimant's claim to have any merit we need to be in scenario B
Other than the fact the ebay listing had come to an end by the time the offer was made this seems to be 100% a bog standard ebay classified sale.
How do we get from the meaning of an offer to become essentially a polar opposite simply because the advert expired after 30 days?
Scenario A
cs174 said:
Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want. [This offer is not binding, but expresses my serious interest in the car]
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.
Scenario BOP: 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.
cs174 said:
Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want. [This offer is made as part of a binding agreement, by indicating that you accept this offer or any subsequent counter offers you are entering into a legally binding contract of sale in accordance with the 1979 Sale of Goods Act ]
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.
It seems fairly clear to me that under the ebay terms we should have had scenario AOP: 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.
For the claimant's claim to have any merit we need to be in scenario B
Other than the fact the ebay listing had come to an end by the time the offer was made this seems to be 100% a bog standard ebay classified sale.
How do we get from the meaning of an offer to become essentially a polar opposite simply because the advert expired after 30 days?
ging84 said:
If we look at the transcript like this
Scenario A
For the claimant's claim to have any merit we need to be in scenario B
Other than the fact the ebay listing had come to an end by the time the offer was made this seems to be 100% a bog standard ebay classified sale.
How do we get from the meaning of an offer to become essentially a polar opposite simply because the advert expired after 30 days?
I’m not entirely sure how eBay terms are relevant. I don’t think they trump basic contract law. Scenario A
cs174 said:
Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want. [This offer is not binding, but expresses my serious interest in the car]
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.
Scenario BOP: 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.
cs174 said:
Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want. [This offer is made as part of a binding agreement, by indicating that you accept this offer or any subsequent counter offers you are entering into a legally binding contract of sale in accordance with the 1979 Sale of Goods Act ]
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.
It seems fairly clear to me that under the ebay terms we should have had scenario AOP: 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.
For the claimant's claim to have any merit we need to be in scenario B
Other than the fact the ebay listing had come to an end by the time the offer was made this seems to be 100% a bog standard ebay classified sale.
How do we get from the meaning of an offer to become essentially a polar opposite simply because the advert expired after 30 days?
The Op agreed a deal then reneged on it. Op is in breach of contract.
blueg33 said:
I’m not entirely sure how eBay terms are relevant. I don’t think they trump basic contract law.
The Op agreed a deal then reneged on it. Op is in breach of contract.
Buyer A entered into a contract with eBay, where he agreed that if he made an offer on any motor vehicle he saw listed on eBay classifieds that that offer would be a non binding expression of interest.The Op agreed a deal then reneged on it. Op is in breach of contract.
Do you disagree with that?
Do you have any reason to believe that the seller should not have been able to assume buyer A was not deliberately in breach of that contract?
ging84 said:
blueg33 said:
I’m not entirely sure how eBay terms are relevant. I don’t think they trump basic contract law.
The Op agreed a deal then reneged on it. Op is in breach of contract.
Buyer A entered into a contract with eBay, where he agreed that if he made an offer on any motor vehicle he saw listed on eBay classifieds that that offer would be a non binding expression of interest.The Op agreed a deal then reneged on it. Op is in breach of contract.
Do you disagree with that?
Do you have any reason to believe that the seller should not have been able to assume buyer A was not deliberately in breach of that contract?
The requirements for the creation of a contract were all in place, ergo a contract was created. Ebay are not a party to the contract, only the seller and buyer (contract rights of 3rd parties would probably subsist).
Its then quite simple. The seller had to perform the contract by selling to the buyer, who would perform the contract by making the agreed payment.
The seller breached the contract and the buyer has potentially suffered a loss as a result of the breach.
With regards to the ebay terms stating that a bid is non binding, i think that that applies to offers/bids made via the ebay platform. As soon as the negotiation moves away from the platform the I fail to see how the ebay terms trump established UK contract law.
cs174 said:
Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want. [This offer an offer by the buyer]
OP: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.[This offer an offer by the vendor]
Buyer A: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange[This is an offer by the buyer, not an acceptance as further terms being discussed]
OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning[This is an offer by the vendor, not an acceptance as further terms being discussed]
Buyer A: OK [This acceptance of the Vendors offer by the Buyer
OP: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.[This offer an offer by the vendor]
Buyer A: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange[This is an offer by the buyer, not an acceptance as further terms being discussed]
OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning[This is an offer by the vendor, not an acceptance as further terms being discussed]
Buyer A: OK [This acceptance of the Vendors offer by the Buyer
blueg33 said:
The buyer made his agreement with the seller, not with ebay. He viewed the car and negotiated a deal that the seller accepted. This formed a contract between the buyer and seller.
The requirements for the creation of a contract were all in place, ergo a contract was created. Ebay are not a party to the contract, only the seller and buyer (contract rights of 3rd parties would probably subsist).
Its then quite simple. The seller had to perform the contract by selling to the buyer, who would perform the contract by making the agreed payment.
The seller breached the contract and the buyer has potentially suffered a loss as a result of the breach.
With regards to the ebay terms stating that a bid is non binding, i think that that applies to offers/bids made via the ebay platform. As soon as the negotiation moves away from the platform the I fail to see how the ebay terms trump established UK contract law.
A contract is not formed simply by an offer and acceptanceThe requirements for the creation of a contract were all in place, ergo a contract was created. Ebay are not a party to the contract, only the seller and buyer (contract rights of 3rd parties would probably subsist).
Its then quite simple. The seller had to perform the contract by selling to the buyer, who would perform the contract by making the agreed payment.
The seller breached the contract and the buyer has potentially suffered a loss as a result of the breach.
With regards to the ebay terms stating that a bid is non binding, i think that that applies to offers/bids made via the ebay platform. As soon as the negotiation moves away from the platform the I fail to see how the ebay terms trump established UK contract law.
There must also be an intention to create legal relations: this is an intention of both parties to form a legally binding relationship.
It is your assumption that this was the case.
It would have been a breach of an existing contract that both parties were aware of for that offer to have been such an intention.
How can you still maintain the view that it is reasonable to assume that both parties believed there was such an intention.
I've skim read this thread, so apologies if i've missed bits.
I appreciate what everyone has said about it all going legal.
But, apply some common sense the the situation (which the courts do actually do from time to time).
Given the circumstances, the courts may just turn around & say what a waste of time this is & side with the OP?
Whilst i understand peoples frustrations, there's been plenty of times i've bought items from Ebay/Gumtree/Facebook marketplace, only for the seller to tell me it's been sold elsewhere or someones offered higher etc.
I just chalk it down as 'one of those' & move on.
Similarly, I've been the seller, someones offered to buy, i've de-listed an item & then they've never shown up, or sent a deposit.
Is there a chance that Buyer A is a scammer & is hoping to scare you into giving him some money for nothing?
I appreciate what everyone has said about it all going legal.
But, apply some common sense the the situation (which the courts do actually do from time to time).
Given the circumstances, the courts may just turn around & say what a waste of time this is & side with the OP?
Whilst i understand peoples frustrations, there's been plenty of times i've bought items from Ebay/Gumtree/Facebook marketplace, only for the seller to tell me it's been sold elsewhere or someones offered higher etc.
I just chalk it down as 'one of those' & move on.
Similarly, I've been the seller, someones offered to buy, i've de-listed an item & then they've never shown up, or sent a deposit.
Is there a chance that Buyer A is a scammer & is hoping to scare you into giving him some money for nothing?
ging84 said:
A contract is not formed simply by an offer and acceptance
There must also be an intention to create legal relations: this is an intention of both parties to form a legally binding relationship.
It is your assumption that this was the case.
It would have been a breach of an existing contract that both parties were aware of for that offer to have been such an intention.
How can you still maintain the view that it is reasonable to assume that both parties believed there was such an intention.
The buyer had already viewed the car before the offers and acceptance.There must also be an intention to create legal relations: this is an intention of both parties to form a legally binding relationship.
It is your assumption that this was the case.
It would have been a breach of an existing contract that both parties were aware of for that offer to have been such an intention.
How can you still maintain the view that it is reasonable to assume that both parties believed there was such an intention.
If there weren't an intention by both parties to actually go through with the sale/purchase why would they agree when?
If it weren't for a offer by Buyer B the Vendor would have sold the car to Buyer A.
I think it's a quite a safe assumption that they both were intending to proceed with the sale/purchase on Saturday until BUyer B came along.
Nothing is certain in court but I suspect a judge would probably agree.
theguvernor15 said:
Is there a chance that Buyer A is a scammer & is hoping to scare you into giving him some money for nothing?
Yes of course, at first read it does sound like Buyer A is just doing this due to due to sour grapes. That said though, put yourself in Buyer A's position and it's really not money for nothing if Buyer A has invested time and expense viewing the car and arranging funds etc. I would suggest the OP makes an offer to Buyer A as a gesture of good will since it is the OP who bought this on himself by shafting Buyer A for his own financial gain.Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 22 August 10:37
theguvernor15 said:
I've skim read this thread, so apologies if i've missed bits.
I appreciate what everyone has said about it all going legal.
But, apply some common sense the the situation (which the courts do actually do from time to time).
Given the circumstances, the courts may just turn around & say what a waste of time this is & side with the OP?
Whilst i understand peoples frustrations, there's been plenty of times i've bought items from Ebay/Gumtree/Facebook marketplace, only for the seller to tell me it's been sold elsewhere or someones offered higher etc.
I just chalk it down as 'one of those' & move on.
Similarly, I've been the seller, someones offered to buy, i've de-listed an item & then they've never shown up, or sent a deposit.
Is there a chance that Buyer A is a scammer & is hoping to scare you into giving him some money for nothing?
Just because you haven't bothered to take action doesn't mean that it's not actionable.I appreciate what everyone has said about it all going legal.
But, apply some common sense the the situation (which the courts do actually do from time to time).
Given the circumstances, the courts may just turn around & say what a waste of time this is & side with the OP?
Whilst i understand peoples frustrations, there's been plenty of times i've bought items from Ebay/Gumtree/Facebook marketplace, only for the seller to tell me it's been sold elsewhere or someones offered higher etc.
I just chalk it down as 'one of those' & move on.
Similarly, I've been the seller, someones offered to buy, i've de-listed an item & then they've never shown up, or sent a deposit.
Is there a chance that Buyer A is a scammer & is hoping to scare you into giving him some money for nothing?
You're right that it happens a lot, because there are a lot of unscrupulous people out there. Most people don't bother because the sums involved are smaller and the effort in bringing any legal action is not insignificant.
I agree with the above poster that put it clearly - if Buyer B had not come along the likelihood is that Buyer A would've ended up buying the car, since there was a contract in place (offer and acceptance). Since Buyer A was deprived of the car they have suffered a material breach of contract.
Loss of bargain is harder to prove but should not be waved away like some people are doing. If claimant and OP ended up in front of a judge with claimant having done nothing wrong, I don't fancy the OP's chances of coming out unscathed. I would seriously consider mediation and a without prejudice offer if it gets that far.
IANAL though.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff