Legal Advice regarding Car Sale

[meatballs]

Jasandjules said:

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.

I dont think they have even gotten to that point of the discussion of the contract terms based on the few whatsapp messages. They may have discussed this at the viewing but not privy to that and its not recorded so its a lot of "he said/she said" at that point.

[Integroo]

There is an awful lot of arguing about the interpretation of legal terms on this thread by people that haven't read the case law. Law is not black and white, there will always be arguments both ways, but judges are bound by precedent and so without reading the case law, you cannot hope to know the correct interpretation.

I also haven't read the case law, which is why other than opining on the broad legal principles and what the legislation says I have stayed away from opining on the exact interpretation of the legal terms being discussed.

[meatballs]

Integroo said:

There is an awful lot of arguing about the interpretation of legal terms on this thread by people that haven't read the case law. Law is not black and white, there will always be arguments both ways, but judges are bound by precedent and so without reading the case law, you cannot hope to know the correct interpretation.

I also haven't read the case law, which is why other than opining on the broad legal principles and what the legislation says I have stayed away from opining on the exact interpretation of the legal terms being discussed.

Well I read the case law about sports direct. I'm definitely not a lawyer so I'm happy to weigh in with my unpaid for and unqualified opinions on an opinion forum

[blueg33]

The Porsche case linked earlier is interesting.

[skwdenyer]

Marcellus said:

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;

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”.

Missed that. Not good for the buyer to be seen to ignore opportunities to settle before action in that case. Rather pushes me back to my earlier suggestion about a WP offer just to try to make it go away.

[Jasandjules]

meatballs said:

I dont think they have even gotten to that point of the discussion of the contract terms based on the few whatsapp messages. They may have discussed this at the viewing but not privy to that and its not recorded so its a lot of "he said/she said" at that point.

You misunderstand, fundamental terms must be established before the contract is agreed to be incorporated (there are some exceptions but they do not apply here). Hence the absence of the same ends that line of argument.

[meatballs]

Jasandjules said:

You misunderstand, fundamental terms must be established before the contract is agreed to be incorporated (there are some exceptions but they do not apply here). Hence the absence of the same ends that line of argument.

Yep I agree, so the contract hasn't been incorporated yet as the fundamental terms haven't been established.

[sonnenschein3000]

This thread is a very interesting read. Until I read this thread, I had no idea that there was such a thing as 'loss of bargain' or 'specific performance' of a contract. As a layman, it does seem quite strange to me, but if thats the way the law is then thats how it is.

What if there was a situation such as:

Seller advertises car, seller receives offers (but does not accept any offers), and then the seller changes his mind and decides not to sell. Would there be a 'loss of bargain' and/or issue of 'specific performance' here, because a potential buyer lost out on the opportunity of purchasing the vehicle?

[vaud]

sonnenschein3000 said:

This thread is a very interesting read. Until I read this thread, I had no idea that there was such a thing as 'loss of bargain' or 'specific performance' of a contract. As a layman, it does seem quite strange to me, but if thats the way the law is then thats how it is.

What if there was a situation such as:

Seller advertises car, seller receives offers (but does not accept any offers), and then the seller changes his mind and decides not to sell. Would there be a 'loss of bargain' and/or issue of 'specific performance' here, because a potential buyer lost out on the opportunity of purchasing the vehicle?

No contract formed, so no.

(I am not a lawyer)

[anonymous-user]

ging84 said:

I would ask buyer A this simple question.
Had the car been damaged beyond repair through no fault of your own, would he have still gone through with the purchase at the agreed price?

Irrelevant.

[ging84]

Breadvan72 said:

Irrelevant.

Why?
It's the exact situation you have buying a house. You have to take out insurance from when you exchange contracts because if the house burns down, you are still in a contract to buy it.

[anonymous-user]

What A would have done in a hypothetical situation that did not arise has no bearing on whether or not there was a contract.

[ging84]

Breadvan72 said:

What A would have done in a hypothetical situation that did not arise has no bearing on whether or not there was a contract.

No but the answer to the question answered honestly would tell you if he honestly believed he had formed a contract.

[anonymous-user]

That is irrelevant. Contract formation is tested objectively. That is a basic principle of the common law of contract.

[ging84]

So do you have any wisdom to add, or you just here to have another pop at me?

[anonymous-user]

I am not having a pop. I am explaining the law of contract. I cannot see why you should take that personally.

[ging84]

You completely ignored the rest of the thread, and just picked out one of my posts from several pages back declared it irrelevant with a single word absolutely no explanation until i pushed you for one.
So yeah seems much more of a personal pop than explaining the law of contract.

[meatballs]

Comparing this to an exchange of written and signed contracts for a house, which subsequently burns down prior to completion is... Irrelevant

[anonymous-user]

ging84 said:

You completely ignored the rest of the thread, and just picked out one of my posts from several pages back declared it irrelevant with a single word absolutely no explanation until i pushed you for one.
So yeah seems much more of a personal pop than explaining the law of contract.

You are mistaken.

I am under no obligation to answer every post in the thread. I am endeavouring to explain the law. That might be of interest to some. Or it might not. No one needs to get het up about this.

[ging84]

Breadvan72 said:

You are mistaken.

I am under no obligation to answer every post in the thread. I am endeavouring to explain the law. That might be of interest to some. Or it might not. No one needs to get het up about this.

I've got no problem with you explaining the law, my issue is with how you chose to do it

No one needs to get het up about this, yet you seem to have gone out of your way to try and make it happen.
You opening post was inflammatory and as you are someone who make a living from choosing words carefully I can only assume that was deliberate.