Legal Advice regarding Car Sale

[Wacky Racer]

Very interesting thread, Cheers for the update.

[mikemike39]

Very interesting and indeed a cautionary tale

About thirty years ago I took someone (a company which changed its name regularly) to court who owed me a thousand pounds. Attended court, Found in my favour - I asked my solicitor "When do I get the money?" to which he replied that "Of course, enforcement is not a matter for the court". Pursued enforcement, never got a penny ofc as the guy was fundamentally dodgy - cost £3,000 in legal fees but worth it for the valuable lesson I think

I'd be interested to read the judgement

Mike

[Durzel]

Too many people think that you can do whatever you want on private sales with no comeback whatsoever. “Caveat emptor” is trotted out every time, like it’s some immunity pass or something.

Cases like this show that if you enter into a contract with someone, even if it’s verbal, even if it’s over text, and even if you don’t think it constitutes a contract but passes the sniff test for one, there is the makings of a claim. That most people will just get on with their lives doesn’t invalidate that.

All it takes is someone sufficiently irritated at being deprived of something, and this is the result.

Sorry that you’ve had to pay out OP, the small claims system is helps to enable people to litigate without the risk of incurring the other side’s legal costs, but it does also mean fighting with representation can end up being a Pyrrhic victory. When I was a defendant the very first meeting I had with a solicitor she told me that she thought I had a strong case, but it would cost more to engage their services than the claim value.

[roadsmash]

Mexman

[fooman]

Thanks for updating OP I hope you get over it OK. On a different day with a different judge I'd be 100% sure it could go a different way. The balance of probability can be weighted by emphasis on different 'facts' and what the judge heard on the radio that morning etc. Very few things go to court that are clear cut so can always go either way. On that basis I'd always try to avoid anything getting that far, rather than fighting a point of principle, so perhaps I'd would have offered claimant £500 for it to go away; too late I know, just speculating.

[WhiskyDisco]

Could this ruling be used to recover "loss of bargain" when having entered into an agrement to buy a house, the seller decides to sell to another party at a higher price?

[ralphrj]

WhiskyDisco said:

Could this ruling be used to recover "loss of bargain" when having entered into an agrement to buy a house, the seller decides to sell to another party at a higher price?

If you mean gazumping then no. An offer on a house would not be binding until contracts were exchanged.

[vaud]

WhiskyDisco said:

Could this ruling be used to recover "loss of bargain" when having entered into an agrement to buy a house, the seller decides to sell to another party at a higher price?

No

1) Land sales are covered by different law (and different in England and Scotland)
2) County court / small claims doesn't create precedence

IANAL.

[talksthetorque]

ralphrj said:

WhiskyDisco said:

Could this ruling be used to recover "loss of bargain" when having entered into an agrement to buy a house, the seller decides to sell to another party at a higher price?

If you mean gazumping then no. An offer on a house would not be binding until contracts were exchanged.

Hence the term Sold Subject to Contract.

[Muzzer79]

cs174 said:

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

Do you still believe that you were in the right?

i.e agreeing a price with Buyer A and then selling for more to Buyer B?

In what way do you think that Buyer A was trying it on?

[anonymous-user]

fooman said:

On a different day with a different judge I'd be 100% sure it could go a different way. The balance of probability can be weighted by emphasis on different 'facts' and what the judge heard on the radio that morning etc.

The case won't be binding on others BUT the references cases are the same, so can't see how ''I'd be 100% sure it could go a different way.'' could be valid.

[Sheepshanks]

ralphrj said:

WhiskyDisco said:

Could this ruling be used to recover "loss of bargain" when having entered into an agrement to buy a house, the seller decides to sell to another party at a higher price?

If you mean gazumping then no. An offer on a house would not be binding until contracts were exchanged.

The case the judge cited, Perry v Suffields Ltd, is about selling a house.

[Sheepshanks]

The Spruce Goose said:

fooman said:

On a different day with a different judge I'd be 100% sure it could go a different way. The balance of probability can be weighted by emphasis on different 'facts' and what the judge heard on the radio that morning etc.

The case won't be binding on others BUT the references cases are the same, so can't see how ''I'd be 100% sure it could go a different way.'' could be valid.

Small Claims cases do produce some random results though - we've seen it on here a few times with car faults where all the advice was "buyer beware" then the buyer wins the case. One of them that sticks in mind was in the most dubious circumstances of a fault that probably didn't exist, was never repaired and the buyer sold the car on. They still won.

[ralphrj]

Sheepshanks said:

ralphrj said:

WhiskyDisco said:

Could this ruling be used to recover "loss of bargain" when having entered into an agrement to buy a house, the seller decides to sell to another party at a higher price?

If you mean gazumping then no. An offer on a house would not be binding until contracts were exchanged.

The case the judge cited, Perry v Suffields Ltd, is about selling a house.

True but that doesn't mean that you could apply it to a house sale today.

Perry v Suffields Ltd was in 1916 and a contract was deemed to have been formed through a sequence of letters between the 2 parties. It is relevant to this case because it is the precedent that a contract can exist even if certain details have not been agreed.

The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1989 which is in force today states that a contract for the sale of land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all of the terms the parties have expressly agreed in one document.

[cs174]

Muzzer79 said:

Do you still believe that you were in the right?

i.e agreeing a price with Buyer A and then selling for more to Buyer B?

In what way do you think that Buyer A was trying it on?

Yes because I don't believe I entered into a contract but the court has already determined that I am in the wrong. Will I make the same mistake again? No.

I think Buyer A was trying it on by:
- asking me to give him £2k which was £1k more than I'd sold the car for.
- claiming we'd entered into a contract when we'd only agreed the price (I respect that the court has determined otherwise)
- claiming he was unable to attend my local court so the hearing is moved to his local court where his daughter is a solicitor

This is all pretty much irrelevant now though, the case is over.

Edited by cs174 on Thursday 10th June 19:29

[cs174]

fooman said:

Thanks for updating OP I hope you get over it OK. On a different day with a different judge I'd be 100% sure it could go a different way. The balance of probability can be weighted by emphasis on different 'facts' and what the judge heard on the radio that morning etc. Very few things go to court that are clear cut so can always go either way. On that basis I'd always try to avoid anything getting that far, rather than fighting a point of principle, so perhaps I'd would have offered claimant £500 for it to go away; too late I know, just speculating.

I agree. If the claimant initially asked for £1k, I'd have tried to negotiate it down to £500. However, he initially asked for £2k and would only come down to £1k which at the time I thought was too much.

[e-honda]

What did the judge say about eBay's terms?

[cs174]

e-honda said:

What did the judge say about eBay's terms?

As the car was sold outside of Ebay, their terms weren't mentioned

[e-honda]

cs174 said:

As the car was sold outside of Ebay, their terms weren't mentioned

What does that mean?
It was listed on eBay classifieds, is that where the claimant found the car?

[The Rotrex Kid]

e-honda said:

What does that mean?
It was listed on eBay classifieds, is that where the claimant found the car?

IIRC classifieds are just adverts, the sales aren’t processed by eBay so they aren’t covered like auctions. Or something like that.