Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
Marcellus said:
The buyer had already viewed the car before the offers and acceptance.
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.
I 100% agreeIf 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.
What I disagree with is that both parties intended to be legally bound to the sale before Saturday.
Why would they? Putting all the eBay stuff aside.
If seller asked the buyer at that moment, before I accept would you like to be legally bound into buying the car in what ever condition it is in on Saturday, or would you rather keep it as a non binding agreement until Saturday what do you think the buyer would have said?
Marcellus said:
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
We must remember that the Small Claims Track is intended to settle disputes, not argue points of law. If you can paint a compelling picture that the reality of the situation was as you portray it then you increase your chances of winning at Court.
But it is still a crap shoot as it relies on the Judge coming down on one side or the other.
Hence why I and others have a mind that something like this may be best dealt with by settling, however much that sticks in the craw, just because time and emotion are possibly not worth expending on this.
Only you can decide how important the £500 or £1000 are to you and how much time you’re prepared to expend.
ALL OF THAT SAID...:
I believe you said earlier that the first you heard about this was when the buyer filed a claim? Did the buyer communicate with you first? Did he send you a letter setting out his grievance and inviting you to settle? Or did he just file a claim?
IF he just went straight for a claim then you need to decide what to do about that, as the Courts take a generally dim view of people not attempting to resolve things without going to court. There are what are known as Pre-Action Protocols that are supposed to be followed.
So did he communicate at all before issuing proceedings?
Durzel said:
Just because you haven't bothered to take action doesn't mean that it's not actionable.
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.
That is my take as well (IANAL) - the key will be what evidence Buyer A presents as the £2000.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.
Personally I'd go for a without prejudice offer and then mitigation.
ging84 said:
If seller asked the buyer at that moment, before I accept would you like to be legally bound into buying the car in what ever condition it is in on Saturday, or would you rather keep it as a non binding agreement until Saturday what do you think the buyer would have said?
The assumption they were both working to, which is not unreasonable, is that the car would be in the same condition it was in when the Buyer personally inspected it earlier that week.They agreed the exchange day/date, at that point they were both agreeing that the buyer was going to turn up/pay and drive away in the car.
ging84 said:
If seller asked the buyer at that moment, before I accept would you like to be legally bound into buying the car in what ever condition it is in on Saturday, or would you rather keep it as a non binding agreement until Saturday what do you think the buyer would have said?
Buyer A had already inspected the car and was happy with it's condition. If something fundamental changed regarding the cars condition between the contract being formed and the collection of the vehicle then there would be scope for either re-negotiation or rejection from the buyer. If the vehicle remained in the same condition as inspected then the contract is still valid.skwdenyer said:
Reiterating that IANAL, as an *argument* this seems to me to have merit.
We must remember that the Small Claims Track is intended to settle disputes, not argue points of law. If you can paint a compelling picture that the reality of the situation was as you portray it then you increase your chances of winning at Court.
But it is still a crap shoot as it relies on the Judge coming down on one side or the other.
Hence why I and others have a mind that something like this may be best dealt with by settling, however much that sticks in the craw, just because time and emotion are possibly not worth expending on this.
Only you can decide how important the £500 or £1000 are to you and how much time you’re prepared to expend.
ALL OF THAT SAID...:
I believe you said earlier that the first you heard about this was when the buyer filed a claim? Did the buyer communicate with you first? Did he send you a letter setting out his grievance and inviting you to settle? Or did he just file a claim?
IF he just went straight for a claim then you need to decide what to do about that, as the Courts take a generally dim view of people not attempting to resolve things without going to court. There are what are known as Pre-Action Protocols that are supposed to be followed.
So did he communicate at all before issuing proceedings?
It looks as if Buyer A did try;We must remember that the Small Claims Track is intended to settle disputes, not argue points of law. If you can paint a compelling picture that the reality of the situation was as you portray it then you increase your chances of winning at Court.
But it is still a crap shoot as it relies on the Judge coming down on one side or the other.
Hence why I and others have a mind that something like this may be best dealt with by settling, however much that sticks in the craw, just because time and emotion are possibly not worth expending on this.
Only you can decide how important the £500 or £1000 are to you and how much time you’re prepared to expend.
ALL OF THAT SAID...:
I believe you said earlier that the first you heard about this was when the buyer filed a claim? Did the buyer communicate with you first? Did he send you a letter setting out his grievance and inviting you to settle? Or did he just file a claim?
IF he just went straight for a claim then you need to decide what to do about that, as the Courts take a generally dim view of people not attempting to resolve things without going to court. There are what are known as Pre-Action Protocols that are supposed to be followed.
So did he communicate at all before issuing proceedings?
cs174 said:
Hi all,
Buyer A has since sent me several letters requesting £2000, which I ignored as in my opinion this is attempted extortion. Buyer A has now raised a claim through Online Civil Money Claims for over £2000 for “loss of bargain”.
Buyer A has since sent me several letters requesting £2000, which I ignored as in my opinion this is attempted extortion. Buyer A has now raised a claim through Online Civil Money Claims for over £2000 for “loss of bargain”.
Andy20vt said:
Buyer A had already inspected the car and was happy with it's condition. If something fundamental changed regarding the cars condition between the contract being formed and the collection of the vehicle then there would be scope for either re-negotiation or rejection from the buyer. If the vehicle remained in the same condition as inspected then the contract is still valid.
The WhatsApp chat doesn't show that much commitment from the OP. The final text before mentioning the price increase is:"OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning"
That's a question, which sounds like they are still negotiating the contract to me. There may well be a further question in defining the contract after that "can you send a deposit? Can you make it 9am?" Etc etc
Personally I wouldn't associate anything as binding on a private seller unless I had paid out expenditure/deposit or a guarantee that it was mine prior to a long journey.
I suspect small claims judge would have some sympathy with this.
Vaud said:
Durzel said:
Just because you haven't bothered to take action doesn't mean that it's not actionable.
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.
That is my take as well (IANAL) - the key will be what evidence Buyer A presents as the £2000.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.
Personally I'd go for a without prejudice offer and then mitigation.
Andy20vt said:
Vaud said:
Durzel said:
Just because you haven't bothered to take action doesn't mean that it's not actionable.
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.
That is my take as well (IANAL) - the key will be what evidence Buyer A presents as the £2000.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.
Personally I'd go for a without prejudice offer and then mitigation.
meatballs said:
Yeah that's just the reality of going to inspect a private car sale?
Indeed, plus it was incurred prior to the breach of contract (as opposed to being a loss suffered because of the breach of contract) - it is money he would have spent anyway. I suppose he could have an argument that he now needs to incur this expense again, as he now needs to buy another car - however, I think he would struggle. (With the caveat that I am not a litigator, so not totally familiar with the rules on causation).
meatballs said:
The WhatsApp chat doesn't show that much commitment from the OP. The final text before mentioning the price increase is:
"OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning"
That's a question, which sounds like they are still negotiating the contract to me. There may well be a further question in defining the contract after that "can you send a deposit? Can you make it 9am?" Etc etc
That is surely just particulars of fulfillment, not the substance of the contract, just as you couldn't void a contract just because someone can't pick up the car on a given date/time unless that formed part of the pre-contractual discussion."OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning"
That's a question, which sounds like they are still negotiating the contract to me. There may well be a further question in defining the contract after that "can you send a deposit? Can you make it 9am?" Etc etc
The substance of the contract was to buy X for Y, of which there was an offer and acceptance.
I doubt a judge would be impressed by a semantics argument over where the contract was formed, Occam's Razor and all that.
Durzel said:
That is surely just particulars of fulfillment, not the substance of the contract, just as you couldn't void a contract just because someone can't pick up the car on a given date/time unless that formed part of the pre-contractual discussion.
The substance of the contract was to buy X for Y, of which there was an offer and acceptance.
I doubt a judge would be impressed by a semantics argument over where the contract was formed, Occam's Razor and all that.
I dont think its a matter of semantics, the time frame and context of the text messages has a part to play.The substance of the contract was to buy X for Y, of which there was an offer and acceptance.
I doubt a judge would be impressed by a semantics argument over where the contract was formed, Occam's Razor and all that.
Conversations via text play out a lot differently to chat/email. Generally you only send part of the context you want to deliver, not everything in a huge chunk.
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]
Note OP says "I would be willing", not "I would/IWill". 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]
Buyer says they have "a deal", but in the reality of text messaging this isn't a chance for the OP to add terms etc over agreeing a price.
OPs final communication is a question, before saying they have been offered a higher price.
Look at it this way. If the buyer replied and said he cant do Saturday but can pay in 4 months time. Would that be a particular of fulfillment? Would you expect the OP to be bound to that?
The fact that the OP is probably silent for a period after the OK probably leans towards him having accepted the terms though.
Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 12:24
Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 12:25
meatballs said:
Note OP says "I would be willing", not "I would/IWill".
Buyer says they have "a deal", but in the reality of text messaging this isn't a chance for the OP to add terms etc over agreeing a price.
OPs final communication is a question, before saying they have been offered a higher price.
Look at it this way. If the buyer said I will take it for 26500, but I'll collect it/pay in 4 months time. Would that be a particular of fulfillment? Would you expect the OP to be bound to that?
But he didn't the seller said he'd accept £26,500 (offer), the buyer said yes (acceptance), when (offer on terms) , the buyer said this saturday (offer) the seller said yes (acceptance).Buyer says they have "a deal", but in the reality of text messaging this isn't a chance for the OP to add terms etc over agreeing a price.
OPs final communication is a question, before saying they have been offered a higher price.
Look at it this way. If the buyer said I will take it for 26500, but I'll collect it/pay in 4 months time. Would that be a particular of fulfillment? Would you expect the OP to be bound to that?
So seller offered both cost and date for exchange of consideration both accepted by the buyer.
meatballs said:
Note OP says "I would be willing", not "I would/IWill".
Buyer says they have "a deal", but in the reality of text messaging this isn't a chance for the OP to add terms etc over agreeing a price.
OPs final communication is a question, before saying they have been offered a higher price.
Look at it this way. If the buyer said I will take it for 26500, but I'll collect it/pay in 4 months time. Would that be a particular of fulfillment? Would you expect the OP to be bound to that?
You might if the seller turned round and said "okay, agreed". Buyer says they have "a deal", but in the reality of text messaging this isn't a chance for the OP to add terms etc over agreeing a price.
OPs final communication is a question, before saying they have been offered a higher price.
Look at it this way. If the buyer said I will take it for 26500, but I'll collect it/pay in 4 months time. Would that be a particular of fulfillment? Would you expect the OP to be bound to that?
Integroo said:
You might if the seller turned round and said "okay, agreed".
Yes, of course, but equally I would expect the seller to say no way and just because they have come to an agreement on price they shouldn't be bound because they haven't actually hashed out a full contractual obligation on either party. The period of silence by the OP after the OK is the only bit that suggests a contract imo. But equally I can send my dad a whatsapp and wait 3 weeks for a reply so read into that what you will 
Equally if I had a buyer offer me a price, and a date for collection (which I accept), I would still be expecting them to re-inspect and lower their price/renegotiate on the day. Can I then sue the buyer for any damages (e.g. the lower price?). I doubt it. I think whilst the words suggest a contract, neither side feels/believes its legally binding from the context at the time.
So letter of law, the text appears to form a contract. But in reality not many people would imagine that is legally binding from a casual whatsapp communication. I reckon small claims judge will probably split the difference of the £1000 (if that).
Marcellus said:
But he didn't the seller said he'd accept £26,500 (offer), the buyer said yes (acceptance), when (offer on terms) , the buyer said this saturday (offer) the seller said yes (acceptance).
Its the OP that suggests saturday not the buyer. And the seller doesn't say yes - there is no response? At least not in the part of the log I'm looking at Therefore terms are still open (the seller left the conversation on a question)Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 12:45
N.b. dont know how valid this is from googling but the final two are definitely up in the air imo 
somesolicitors said:
A contract in English law is a bargain. For a contract to be formed, the following five key criteria must be met. There must be:
A valid offer;
A valid acceptance of that offer;
Consideration provided by both parties; (both parties must bring something to the bargain);
An intention to create legal relations on the part of both parties; and
Certainty of terms.
A valid offer;
A valid acceptance of that offer;
Consideration provided by both parties; (both parties must bring something to the bargain);
An intention to create legal relations on the part of both parties; and
Certainty of terms.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff