Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
meatballs said:
N.b. dont know how valid this is from googling but the final two are definitely up in the air imo 
That is correct, and I won't pretend to be au fait with the case law underlying the last two criteria. You may have a point. There are always argument. However I wouldn't be confident advising OP that the claimant has no chance.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.
meatballs said:
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)
I think you're desperately looking for a way out of this one, the seller saying "OK" to Saturday is pretty much deal done at that point and even as an advocate of this being ridiculous I struggle to find an excuse to avoid this. The OP would have a strong argument if come Friday night, dozens of unanswered messages later, he finally got a response of "yes I'm still coming to collect" but within the space of a couple of hours? The response to buyer B should have been "s Therefore terms are still open (the seller left the conversation on a question)Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 12:45
t, sorry, kicking myself but I've just agreed to sell it for less" not "go on then".Pegscratch said:
I think you're desperately looking for a way out of this one, the seller saying "OK" to Saturday is pretty much deal done at that point and even as an advocate of this being ridiculous I struggle to find an excuse to avoid this. The OP would have a strong argument if come Friday night, dozens of unanswered messages later, he finally got a response of "yes I'm still coming to collect" but within the space of a couple of hours? The response to buyer B should have been "st, sorry, kicking myself but I've just agreed to sell it for less" not "go on then".
The seller doesn't say OK to saturday [hint its the buyer]. And Im not desperate I've already suggested the silence period would/could be acceptance of the terms. t, sorry, kicking myself but I've just agreed to sell it for less" not "go on then".Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 13:19
Integroo said:
That is correct, and I won't pretend to be au fait with the case law underlying the last two criteria. You may have a point. There are always argument. However I wouldn't be confident advising OP that the claimant has no chance.
You can go on the wave of opinions on here to the probability of a judge feeling one way or another on the day meatballs said:
The seller doesn't say OK to saturday [hint its the buyer]. And Im not desperate I've already suggested the silence period would/could be acceptance of the terms.
cs174 said:
Thanks for all the responses. The content of the WhatsApp messages are along the lines of:
Buyer: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want.
Vendor: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.
Buyer: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange
Vendor: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning
Buyer: OK
They agree the price, the vendor proposes Saturday for exchange of consideration and which buyer accepts.Buyer: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want.
Vendor: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.
Buyer: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange
Vendor: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning
Buyer: OK
Marcellus said:
meatballs said:
The seller doesn't say OK to saturday [hint its the buyer]. And Im not desperate I've already suggested the silence period would/could be acceptance of the terms.
cs174 said:
Thanks for all the responses. The content of the WhatsApp messages are along the lines of:
Buyer: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want.
Vendor: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.
Buyer: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange
Vendor: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning
Buyer: OK
They agree the price, the vendor proposes Saturday for exchange of consideration and which buyer accepts.Buyer: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want.
Vendor: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.
Buyer: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange
Vendor: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning
Buyer: OK
The clear deadlock in opinion and complexity of the legal arguments is the whole reason eBay sets out the condition that offers are non binding.
They have broken then deadlock themselves quite deliberately so that buyers and sellers who use eBay know where they stand.
I'm clearly not going settle any arguments about the legal nature of eBay's term and conditions.
But what I'm fairly certain of is that eBay didn't make up their terms and conditions as some sort of rouse to give people false confidence, and that they have access to strong legal advice. So these terms must have some significance.
If I have gone anyway toward conveniencing the OP to bring this to the attention of his legal advisor or the judge then I'm reasonably confident I've give some help.
They have broken then deadlock themselves quite deliberately so that buyers and sellers who use eBay know where they stand.
I'm clearly not going settle any arguments about the legal nature of eBay's term and conditions.
But what I'm fairly certain of is that eBay didn't make up their terms and conditions as some sort of rouse to give people false confidence, and that they have access to strong legal advice. So these terms must have some significance.
If I have gone anyway toward conveniencing the OP to bring this to the attention of his legal advisor or the judge then I'm reasonably confident I've give some help.
My personal view (which is i guess not valid because i'm not the 'law').
But, unless i received a deposit, i wouldn't consider it sold, no matter how much the seller would say they want it, i always make the point when selling something like a vehicle, that until a deposit is left it's open to negotiation still.
When you make an offer on a house & it's accepted, despite a deal 'in principle' being done, until those contracts are exchanged (despite already having a verbal contract) it's not finalised yet.
As i've previously stated i've had time wasters saying they'll buy something & then never show up, or they go silent, despite saying i'd have a deposit within 24 hours.
My friend agreed to sell his car last night to a chap who'd just viewed it, shook hands, the guy left to get the money, said he'd be back in 20 minutes with the cash. 2 hours later & the guy hadn't shown up, my friend messaged, he said he was stuck in traffic & would be there in 30 minutes.
The guy never came back again.
I think something like this is totally subjective to the persons involved in the deal.
But, unless i received a deposit, i wouldn't consider it sold, no matter how much the seller would say they want it, i always make the point when selling something like a vehicle, that until a deposit is left it's open to negotiation still.
When you make an offer on a house & it's accepted, despite a deal 'in principle' being done, until those contracts are exchanged (despite already having a verbal contract) it's not finalised yet.
As i've previously stated i've had time wasters saying they'll buy something & then never show up, or they go silent, despite saying i'd have a deposit within 24 hours.
My friend agreed to sell his car last night to a chap who'd just viewed it, shook hands, the guy left to get the money, said he'd be back in 20 minutes with the cash. 2 hours later & the guy hadn't shown up, my friend messaged, he said he was stuck in traffic & would be there in 30 minutes.
The guy never came back again.
I think something like this is totally subjective to the persons involved in the deal.
ging84 said:
The clear deadlock in opinion and complexity of the legal arguments is the whole reason eBay sets out the condition that offers are non binding.
They have broken then deadlock themselves quite deliberately so that buyers and sellers who use eBay know where they stand.
I'm clearly not going settle any arguments about the legal nature of eBay's term and conditions.
But what I'm fairly certain of is that eBay didn't make up their terms and conditions as some sort of rouse to give people false confidence, and that they have access to strong legal advice. So these terms must have some significance.
If I have gone anyway toward conveniencing the OP to bring this to the attention of his legal advisor or the judge then I'm reasonably confident I've give some help.
You keep banging on about this but the offer isn't the important bit, the acceptance is. Nobody's trying to hold the buyer to his offer and Ebay's terms look like they're trying to protect the buyer, not the seller.They have broken then deadlock themselves quite deliberately so that buyers and sellers who use eBay know where they stand.
I'm clearly not going settle any arguments about the legal nature of eBay's term and conditions.
But what I'm fairly certain of is that eBay didn't make up their terms and conditions as some sort of rouse to give people false confidence, and that they have access to strong legal advice. So these terms must have some significance.
If I have gone anyway toward conveniencing the OP to bring this to the attention of his legal advisor or the judge then I'm reasonably confident I've give some help.
OP should apologise and give the guy the grand he screwed him over for, which is what he should have done before court was mentioned. The proper thing to do would have been to complete the deal agreed in the first place and doing this puts OP in the same position he would have been had he done so.
Marcellus said:
£26,500 going from buyer to vendor
TVR Griffith Owned by Vendor as inspected by Buyer going from Vendor to Buyer
Exchange being made on Saturday.
How is payment to be made? Fairly critical for high value private sales. 26000 for cash?TVR Griffith Owned by Vendor as inspected by Buyer going from Vendor to Buyer
Exchange being made on Saturday.
Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 16:06
meatballs said:
Marcellus said:
£26,500 going from buyer to vendor
TVR Griffith Owned by Vendor as inspected by Buyer going from Vendor to Buyer
Exchange being made on Saturday.
How is payment to be made? Fairly critical for high value private sales. 26000 for cash?TVR Griffith Owned by Vendor as inspected by Buyer going from Vendor to Buyer
Exchange being made on Saturday.
Marcellus said:
Doesn't need to be stated or agree in any contract, the fact Vendor receives it is the critical part for the buyer to meet their obligations.
Technically perhaps, in the high courts. In reality:You offer me western union/cheque/bitcoin you can FRO.
Seller asks me to bring cash, again FRO.
The payment mechanism is important for private sales I wouldn't leave to buy a car before it was agreed.
Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 16:12
meatballs said:
Marcellus said:
Doesn't need to be stated or agree in any contract, the fact Vendor receives it is the critical part for the buyer to meet their obligations.
Technically perhaps, in the high courts. In reality:You offer me western union/cheque/bitcoin you can FRO.
Seller asks me to bring cash, again FRO.
The payment mechanism is important for private sales I wouldn't leave to buy a car before it was agreed.
Marcellus said:
Agree it may be the mechanics for buyer to meet their obligations of the contract, but lack of it doesn't mean there is no contract.
It doesn't mean there is definitely no contract. But if you agree that payment mechanism is fairly important for a private sale, and you are only going to accept X payment mechanism, then you could very well argue that you didn't think you had entered into a legally binding contract because such a vital term hadn't been discussed or agreed upon yet. meatballs said:
Marcellus said:
Doesn't need to be stated or agree in any contract, the fact Vendor receives it is the critical part for the buyer to meet their obligations.
Technically perhaps, in the high courts. In reality:You offer me western union/cheque/bitcoin you can FRO.
Seller asks me to bring cash, again FRO.
The payment mechanism is important for private sales I wouldn't leave to buy a car before it was agreed.
I would assume a buyer wishing to use an esoteric payment method would make that clear very early on in the transaction, possibly whilst making the original offer. In the absence of "is it ok if I pay by Bitcoin?" then one ought to assume that the payment method will be traditional. Also, as said, just because the fulfillment of the contract has not been fully established or realised does not make the crux of the contract invalid.
With respect it sounds as if you're trying to stack up a load of post-hoc "this wasn't discussed, therefore no contract" stuff to try and invalidate the fact that a contract was formed.
Edited by Durzel on Thursday 22 August 17:07
Durzel said:
If the payment method was not yet discussed would it invalidate the contract if you thought (or if it was convenient to think) they were going to try and use Western Union, etc?
I would assume a buyer wishing to use an esoteric payment method would make that clear very early on in the transaction, possibly whilst making the original offer. In the absence of "is it ok if I pay by Bitcoin?" then one ought to assume that the payment method will be traditional. Also, as said, just because the fulfillment of the contract has not been fully established or realised does not make the crux of the contract invalid.
With respect it sounds as if you're trying to stack up a load of post-hoc "this wasn't discussed, therefore no contract" stuff to try and invalidate the fact that a contract was formed.
I wouldn't consider it a contract until payment terms had been discussed full stop. Its so critical to buying a private car in my eyes. There are plenty of traditional payment mechanisms I wouldn't want (cash or cheque either as buyer or seller). I would assume a buyer wishing to use an esoteric payment method would make that clear very early on in the transaction, possibly whilst making the original offer. In the absence of "is it ok if I pay by Bitcoin?" then one ought to assume that the payment method will be traditional. Also, as said, just because the fulfillment of the contract has not been fully established or realised does not make the crux of the contract invalid.
With respect it sounds as if you're trying to stack up a load of post-hoc "this wasn't discussed, therefore no contract" stuff to try and invalidate the fact that a contract was formed.
Edited by Durzel on Thursday 22 August 17:07
I'm arguing "Intent to create legal relations" and "certainty of terms".
For me its cut and dry, but I accept a judge may see it differently. If you accept the OP at face value - the OPs confusion, the OPs accepting another offer soon after, all point to the fact he didn't have an intent to create a legal relation at that step. Both sides have to have the intent.
I'm also fairly certain the terms are not certain after a few vague whatsapp messages.
Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 17:56
Edited by meatballs on Thursday 22 August 17:58
meatballs said:
It doesn't mean there is definitely no contract. But if you agree that payment mechanism is fairly important for a private sale, and you are only going to accept X payment mechanism, then you could very well argue that you didn't think you had entered into a legally binding contract because such a vital term hadn't been discussed or agreed upon yet.
If the OP had said "The price is 26k and I want a bank transfer" then this would be a fundamental term of the contract. In the absence of such a term, then what may be reasonable applies. It is in any event not a basis to not sell because the term was not incorporated in the contract. IF it was a Vital Term then the OP would have specified it and the fact that he is silent on this point evidences there is no such fundamental term which therefore means there is no breach. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff