Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
ging84 said:
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.
My 6 year old daughter is less sensitive...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.
SP&L has over the years chased out the real experts with their google-fu skills.
I for one am glad to have BV back and posting.
AGT_Law is good for stuff relating to 2,3,4 and more wheels.
IANAL.
ging84 said:
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.
Your assumption is incorrect. I assure you that if I had wanted to have a go at you, you would by now have been considerably more bruised. I have sought to explain why your position on the law was mistaken. That is all. 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.
ging84 said:
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.
Get over yourself.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.
vaud said:
My 6 year old daughter is less sensitive...
SP&L has over the years chased out the real experts with their google-fu skills.
I for one am glad to have BV back and posting.
AGT_Law is good for stuff relating to 2,3,4 and more wheels.
IANAL.
It is more that I was hoping he might have had something useful to add to the thread, but clearly more interested i proving me into an argument as usual SP&L has over the years chased out the real experts with their google-fu skills.
I for one am glad to have BV back and posting.
AGT_Law is good for stuff relating to 2,3,4 and more wheels.
IANAL.
Yeah, but yeah. Yeah?
WARNING: Link contains a SWEARY WORD.
https://twitter.com/rach0907/status/11816727450856...
WARNING: Link contains a SWEARY WORD.
https://twitter.com/rach0907/status/11816727450856...
I don't understand how "what if this happened" arguments can be thought of as anything more than purely hypothetical, and pretty much a waste of energy really.
In terms of the house scenario - there is a need for insurance to bridge the gap between exchange and completion. The buyer is responsible for insuring the property from the point of exchange. The time between exchange and completion will often be measured in weeks, so there is a clear need for bridging insurance to exist, so it's enshrined contractually.
A house isn't a car though, so comparing the two is not even academic, it's just a complete waste of time.
In terms of the house scenario - there is a need for insurance to bridge the gap between exchange and completion. The buyer is responsible for insuring the property from the point of exchange. The time between exchange and completion will often be measured in weeks, so there is a clear need for bridging insurance to exist, so it's enshrined contractually.
A house isn't a car though, so comparing the two is not even academic, it's just a complete waste of time.
Legal reasoning often involves analogies and counter factuals, and a proposition may be pressure tested by asking how the proposition would work if the facts were XYZ instead of ABC, but there are limits, and positing out of context scenarios which are not valid comparators may add little to a debate. My uncle is not my auntie, and the Moon is not made of cheese.
Back on topic, ISTR that the OP in this thread sent me an email asking for advice. If it was the same bloke, I think that I may have chucked a flea into his ear. Pacta sunt servanda: agreements should be honoured. A deal is a deal.
Loss of bargain is not something distinct from damages for breach of contract. It is one variety of such damages. The law of contract is mostly contained in common law and, like a lot of the common law, it reflects common sense.
If because X failed to sell me the grey mare that he had agreed to sell me I have to pay more to buy another grey mare, or even perhaps a black colt, that being all the market has available, I have a claim against X for loss of bargain.
If the grey mare is a five times Derby winner and not just any old nag, I may be able to compel performance of the contract, because the subject matter is a thing of unique value. Thus mere monetary compensation will not suffice.
If the grey mare is just a nag and grey mares are a penny a dozen, I have lost nothing and could claim no more than nominal damages.
Back on topic, ISTR that the OP in this thread sent me an email asking for advice. If it was the same bloke, I think that I may have chucked a flea into his ear. Pacta sunt servanda: agreements should be honoured. A deal is a deal.
Loss of bargain is not something distinct from damages for breach of contract. It is one variety of such damages. The law of contract is mostly contained in common law and, like a lot of the common law, it reflects common sense.
If because X failed to sell me the grey mare that he had agreed to sell me I have to pay more to buy another grey mare, or even perhaps a black colt, that being all the market has available, I have a claim against X for loss of bargain.
If the grey mare is a five times Derby winner and not just any old nag, I may be able to compel performance of the contract, because the subject matter is a thing of unique value. Thus mere monetary compensation will not suffice.
If the grey mare is just a nag and grey mares are a penny a dozen, I have lost nothing and could claim no more than nominal damages.
Breadvan72 said:
Back on topic, ISTR that the OP in this thread sent me an email asking for advice. If it was the same bloke, I think that I may have chucked a flea into his ear. Pacta sunt servanda: agreements should be honoured. A deal is a deal.
That wasn't me Breadvan72 but I do appreciate your contribution to these forums.Anyway, just to update anyone who is interested, this issue has finally come to a conclusion. The claimant had the case moved to his local court and then Covid happened, hence the delay. Both the Claimant and I were asked if the claim could be dealt with by the Court with neither of us present or represented, we both agreed.
As a recap, I advertised my TVR for sale, had an offer of £26,500 from Buyer A which I agreed to, then a second offer of £27,500 from Buyer B. Asked Buyer A if he would increase his offer which he declined, sold the car to Buyer B for £27,500. The Claimants position was that we'd entered into a Contract and I maintained we'd only agreed the price.
The Court has reviewed the case and has found in favour of the Claimant. The Court awarded the Claimant £1000 plus the fees of £105. I've already paid this in full.
I have paid almost £3,000 in legal fees and my solicitor thought the claimant was mad. The Barrister who attended the hearing (on the advice of my solicitor) thought I'd be able to recover my legal costs as the Claimant was being unreasonable. Only when the legal fees exceeded the initial claim did I bring their services to a halt.
Anyway, the Judge used the 'Chitty on Contracts - 33rd Edition' as guidance and cites Perry v Suffields Ltd, amongst others, as similar examples. Basically, the Judge has concluded that there was an intent to enter into a Contract by agreeing a price for the TVR.
Although the claimant has failed to demonstrate a loss, the Judge ruled that to determine the loss would involve an evaluation by an expert engineer, however, as the car I sold was no longer available this was not possible.
The judgement is 11 pages and I am not a lawyer! If anyone wants to see the full document, I'd be happy to post it up here with personal details redacted.
So, when selling a car, be careful out there, folks. I'm down £4k. Some may say I deserve it but I genuinely thought Buyer A was trying it on. This was reiterated by my solicitor. As it turns out, the free legal advice on PH was more accurate than the legal advice I paid for.
PH, well done again
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff