Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
Jayne Redland said:
e-honda said:
Jayne Redland said:
You maybe missed the post saying a Judge has already decided the case?
No you missed the post where the op said he didn't mention them in his defenceI'm trying to show the OP got it wrong by not including something in his defence, and if he had the judge very likely would have made a different decision.
His paid for legal defence felt he had a strong enough case even without it, that was clearly wrong.
Sargeant Orange said:
It feels like the right decision was arrived at in the OPs case, but it got me wondering how it would have been viewed if there was no other buyer and the OP simply changed his mind about selling?
Technically he's in breach of contract and possibly open to some form of action.Pit Pony said:
My humble opinion on this is that there's an unwritten and obvious convention, that and item is not sold until, you pay a none-refundable deposit.
Is there?I think far more contracts are for items to be sold/delivered before any monies are paid.
Contract law is contract law regardless whether it's a £0.10 widget or a £100,000 car!
(Title might not pass until it's been paid for)
Pit Pony said:
My humble opinion on this is that there's an unwritten and obvious convention, that and item is not sold until, you pay a none-refundable deposit.
If buyer A knew he was getting a bargain he should have offered a deposit of at least £200, to secure the deal.
The seller (the OP) shoukd always make it clear during negotiations that the agreement is only final when a deposit is received.
I honestly think my defence, had I made the mistake of not making that clear, would be: I didn't trust that he was going to buy it, as he didn't offer a deposit. I thought it would be obvious that it's still for sale until a deposit is taken.
Quite. My view too. I've sold a few cars privately (generally trade in at dealerships) and every single time I had 5 time wasters for every genuine interest. Countless times I had "I'll view it in 2 days" type messages only for a no show to occur.If buyer A knew he was getting a bargain he should have offered a deposit of at least £200, to secure the deal.
The seller (the OP) shoukd always make it clear during negotiations that the agreement is only final when a deposit is received.
I honestly think my defence, had I made the mistake of not making that clear, would be: I didn't trust that he was going to buy it, as he didn't offer a deposit. I thought it would be obvious that it's still for sale until a deposit is taken.
What happens if the seller doesn't agree to sell the car any more (change of heart for example, decides to keep it)? Is the private, individual seller then legally bound to sell the car?
I don't think that would fly...
I have basically no legal experience, just common sense, so I disagree with the outcome.
I think a world where if as a private seller you decide not to sell a car to someone once you've agreed to, for any reason, opens you up to legal ramifications, is pretty sad.
It was a bit greedy but can't say I wouldn't potentially do the same - nothing is sold until a deposit or the balance is received. And the opportunity of more money is always good, £1000 is not a small amount of money by anyones standards.
What happened if the original poster sold the car to seller A but then seller B decided to wade in with legal action in the same way Seller A has done...
Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
CarCrazyDad said:
Quite. My view too. I've sold a few cars privately (generally trade in at dealerships) and every single time I had 5 time wasters for every genuine interest. Countless times I had "I'll view it in 2 days" type messages only for a no show to occur.
What happens if the seller doesn't agree to sell the car any more (change of heart for example, decides to keep it)? Is the private, individual seller then legally bound to sell the car?
I don't think that would fly...
I have basically no legal experience, just common sense, so I disagree with the outcome.
I think a world where if as a private seller you decide not to sell a car to someone once you've agreed to, for any reason, opens you up to legal ramifications, is pretty sad.
It was a bit greedy but can't say I wouldn't potentially do the same - nothing is sold until a deposit or the balance is received. And the opportunity of more money is always good, £1000 is not a small amount of money by anyones standards.
What happened if the original poster sold the car to seller A but then seller B decided to wade in with legal action in the same way Seller A has done...
Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
I mean this in the nicest possible way - you’re not a judge.What happens if the seller doesn't agree to sell the car any more (change of heart for example, decides to keep it)? Is the private, individual seller then legally bound to sell the car?
I don't think that would fly...
I have basically no legal experience, just common sense, so I disagree with the outcome.
I think a world where if as a private seller you decide not to sell a car to someone once you've agreed to, for any reason, opens you up to legal ramifications, is pretty sad.
It was a bit greedy but can't say I wouldn't potentially do the same - nothing is sold until a deposit or the balance is received. And the opportunity of more money is always good, £1000 is not a small amount of money by anyones standards.
What happened if the original poster sold the car to seller A but then seller B decided to wade in with legal action in the same way Seller A has done...
Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
The situations you outline (and the OP faced) are very, very easy to avoid; you’re talking about not being able to have someone view the car in 2 days for fear of someone else buying it in the meantime.
That’s not a situation you need to worry about because you’ve not agreed to sell the car to this person - the OP agreed a sale and the deal was done.
You’re safe as long as you don’t confirm a deal and then sell it to someone else afterwards.
As for wanting to change your mind after you’ve agreed to sell the car, don’t mess buyers around like that - make sure you’re 110% sure before you accept an offer and confirm the car is sold.
Nothing is more annoying than arranging train tickets / insurance etc and then having the seller tell you that they’re pulling out.
e-honda said:
I'm not trying to show the judge got it wrong.
I'm trying to show the OP got it wrong by not including something in his defence, and if he had the judge very likely would have made a different decision.
His paid for legal defence felt he had a strong enough case even without it, that was clearly wrong.
If I've missed it I apologise, but I don't believe eBay was involved in the process here.I'm trying to show the OP got it wrong by not including something in his defence, and if he had the judge very likely would have made a different decision.
His paid for legal defence felt he had a strong enough case even without it, that was clearly wrong.
e-honda said:
I'm not trying to show the judge got it wrong.
I'm trying to show the OP got it wrong by not including something in his defence, and if he had the judge very likely would have made a different decision.
His paid for legal defence felt he had a strong enough case even without it, that was clearly wrong.
You are barking up the wrong tree.I'm trying to show the OP got it wrong by not including something in his defence, and if he had the judge very likely would have made a different decision.
His paid for legal defence felt he had a strong enough case even without it, that was clearly wrong.
The non-binding element of the ebay terms are there to show that it is vehicle for introducing a potential buyer to a seller. The binding contract is formed later between the seller and the buyer.
The claimant was able to show that the discussions they had later with the OP had formed a binding contract.
If the ebay non-binding term applied forever then no-one would ever be able to sell a car via ebay classifieds.
CarCrazyDad said:
What happened if the original poster sold the car to seller A but then seller B decided to wade in with legal action in the same way Seller A has done...
Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
Presumably you mean Buyer A and Buyer B? What possible grounds could Buyer B have for claiming that the car had been sold to them and the Seller was in breach of contract? Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
ralphrj said:
You are barking up the wrong tree.
The non-binding element of the ebay terms are there to show that it is vehicle for introducing a potential buyer to a seller. The binding contract is formed later between the seller and the buyer.
The claimant was able to show that the discussions they had later with the OP had formed a binding contract.
If the ebay non-binding term applied forever then no-one would ever be able to sell a car via ebay classifieds.
Explain to me what that means in practice.The non-binding element of the ebay terms are there to show that it is vehicle for introducing a potential buyer to a seller. The binding contract is formed later between the seller and the buyer.
The claimant was able to show that the discussions they had later with the OP had formed a binding contract.
If the ebay non-binding term applied forever then no-one would ever be able to sell a car via ebay classifieds.
I go to eBay, I see a car I like the look of, I contact the seller to arrange a viewing, I view the car, I go home, I message the seller an offer, he accepts, we now have a legally binding contract inspite of what eBay says about offers not being binding.
What would have had to happen differently for eBay's terms and conditions have had any affect?
e-honda said:
ralphrj said:
You are barking up the wrong tree.
The non-binding element of the ebay terms are there to show that it is vehicle for introducing a potential buyer to a seller. The binding contract is formed later between the seller and the buyer.
The claimant was able to show that the discussions they had later with the OP had formed a binding contract.
If the ebay non-binding term applied forever then no-one would ever be able to sell a car via ebay classifieds.
Explain to me what that means in practice.The non-binding element of the ebay terms are there to show that it is vehicle for introducing a potential buyer to a seller. The binding contract is formed later between the seller and the buyer.
The claimant was able to show that the discussions they had later with the OP had formed a binding contract.
If the ebay non-binding term applied forever then no-one would ever be able to sell a car via ebay classifieds.
I go to eBay, I see a car I like the look of, I contact the seller to arrange a viewing, I view the car, I go home, I message the seller an offer, he accepts, we now have a legally binding contract inspite of what eBay says about offers not being binding.
What would have had to happen differently for eBay's terms and conditions have had any affect?
Ebay's terms mean that I can't say "Tough, a binding contract was formed by you contacting me about the car."
ralphrj said:
I advertise a car on ebay, you see it and contact me about it, view it and say "It isn't as good as it looked in the pics so I won't buy it".
Ebay's terms mean that I can't say "Tough, a binding contract was formed by you contacting me about the car."
There is no offer in your scenario.Ebay's terms mean that I can't say "Tough, a binding contract was formed by you contacting me about the car."
You would never be bound into buying a car simply by viewing it, the terms deal with offers not viewing.
e-honda said:
There is no offer in your scenario.
You would never be bound into buying a car simply by viewing it, the terms deal with offers not viewing.
I know that there is no offer in my scenario - ebay are simply spelling that out in case people think that it was.You would never be bound into buying a car simply by viewing it, the terms deal with offers not viewing.
Perhaps it is easier to show where ebay's terms end in your example:
e-honda said:
I go to eBay, I see a car I like the look of, I contact the seller to arrange a viewing
The above part is the piece covered by ebay's non-binding terms. The following part has nothing to do with ebay.e-honda said:
I view the car, I go home, I message the seller an offer, he accepts
Think about it, if you bought a car from me via ebay classifieds and I later turned up and drove off in it saying "thanks for loan of cash with no repayment terms as we never entered a binding contract for the sale of the car so it is legally still mine" would you be happy?CarCrazyDad said:
Pit Pony said:
My humble opinion on this is that there's an unwritten and obvious convention, that and item is not sold until, you pay a none-refundable deposit.
If buyer A knew he was getting a bargain he should have offered a deposit of at least £200, to secure the deal.
The seller (the OP) shoukd always make it clear during negotiations that the agreement is only final when a deposit is received.
I honestly think my defence, had I made the mistake of not making that clear, would be: I didn't trust that he was going to buy it, as he didn't offer a deposit. I thought it would be obvious that it's still for sale until a deposit is taken.
Quite. My view too. I've sold a few cars privately (generally trade in at dealerships) and every single time I had 5 time wasters for every genuine interest. Countless times I had "I'll view it in 2 days" type messages only for a no show to occur.If buyer A knew he was getting a bargain he should have offered a deposit of at least £200, to secure the deal.
The seller (the OP) shoukd always make it clear during negotiations that the agreement is only final when a deposit is received.
I honestly think my defence, had I made the mistake of not making that clear, would be: I didn't trust that he was going to buy it, as he didn't offer a deposit. I thought it would be obvious that it's still for sale until a deposit is taken.
What happens if the seller doesn't agree to sell the car any more (change of heart for example, decides to keep it)? Is the private, individual seller then legally bound to sell the car?
I don't think that would fly...
The fact that most people, on either side, walk away and grumble about it doesn’t alter the legal aspect of contract formation.
CarCrazyDad said:
I have basically no legal experience, just common sense, so I disagree with the outcome.
Luckily for you most people don’t realise they have the makings of a claim for breach of contract, or consider it too much effort to enforce it.CarCrazyDad said:
I think a world where if as a private seller you decide not to sell a car to someone once you've agreed to, for any reason, opens you up to legal ramifications, is pretty sad.
Equally sad is a world where people can just renege on “done deals” on a whim, agree to offers and then seek to play one party off another after the fact, etc. It is at least morally dubious, but it’s certainly legally fraught.CarCrazyDad said:
It was a bit greedy but can't say I wouldn't potentially do the same - nothing is sold until a deposit or the balance is received. And the opportunity of more money is always good, £1000 is not a small amount of money by anyones standards.
So advertise it for £1000 more in the first place, or don’t accept offers, or accept offers but make it clear that you’re the sort of seller for whom trust means nothing and if someone calls you offering more money even as the guy you’ve already promised it to has made sacrifices to visit you, then you’re going to sell it to them (unless someone else comes along and gazumps that guy too). If you want the market rate for it, auction it.CarCrazyDad said:
What happened if the original poster sold the car to seller A but then seller B decided to wade in with legal action in the same way Seller A has done...
B would have no case on the basis that no consideration had been given and no contract formed. Now if you (or the OP) had agreed to two offers…CarCrazyDad said:
Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
Not really. Seller received an offer, which he accepted without caveats or stipulations. Consideration was given and a contract was formed. Buyer A had every reason to believe the deal had been done. Seller then decided he wanted more money, and ultimately broke the contract when Buyer A wouldn’t raise his offer.The very simple lesson in all of this is that you should stick to your word.
ralphrj said:
e-honda said:
There is no offer in your scenario.
You would never be bound into buying a car simply by viewing it, the terms deal with offers not viewing.
I know that there is no offer in my scenario - ebay are simply spelling that out in case people think that it was.You would never be bound into buying a car simply by viewing it, the terms deal with offers not viewing.
Perhaps it is easier to show where ebay's terms end in your example:
e-honda said:
I go to eBay, I see a car I like the look of, I contact the seller to arrange a viewing
The above part is the piece covered by ebay's non-binding terms. The following part has nothing to do with ebay.e-honda said:
I view the car, I go home, I message the seller an offer, he accepts
Think about it, if you bought a car from me via ebay classifieds and I later turned up and drove off in it saying "thanks for loan of cash with no repayment terms as we never entered a binding contract for the sale of the car so it is legally still mine" would you be happy?That is not the same thing.
These terms and conditions don't prevent buyers from entering a contract, they prevent them to show a willingness to enter a contract by making an offer.
If things progress the buyer and seller are still free to enter a contract.
e-honda said:
You've now jumped ahead to the sale being completed and decided the rules on making an offer now also apply exchanging money for goods.
That is not the same thing.
The offer is one part of forming a contract. Consideration (the exchange of cash doesn't need to happen at the same time) is another. Both are required (with other things) to form a contract. You can't say that part of it is non-binding but the rest is binding.That is not the same thing.
The contact through ebay was non-binding.
The discussions between the seller and the buyer afterwards where an offer was made, the offer was accepted and consideration was agreed was binding.
e-honda said:
These terms and conditions don't prevent buyers from entering a contract, they prevent them to show a willingness to enter a contract by making an offer.
If things progress the buyer and seller are still free to enter a contract.
So you accept that at some point the discussion must be binding? Therefore, you accept that at some point the non-binding part of ebay's terms must cease to apply.If things progress the buyer and seller are still free to enter a contract.
The court was satisfied that what took place in the discussions had formed a binding contract. That's it.
ralphrj said:
CarCrazyDad said:
What happened if the original poster sold the car to seller A but then seller B decided to wade in with legal action in the same way Seller A has done...
Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
Presumably you mean Buyer A and Buyer B? What possible grounds could Buyer B have for claiming that the car had been sold to them and the Seller was in breach of contract? Seems seller was between a rock and a hard place.
Jayne Redland said:
How would it be "common sense" to allow people to make deals and then change their mind, which is what the OP did in this case? The Court's decision was common sense. If you make a deal, keep the deal.
No, it happens all the time in real life - You agree to buy something and the seller decides not to sell it, or you want to buy something and the seller says that it's no longer available for any reason.Seems to me that private buying and selling is becoming more litigious than even some business disputes
The seller of this TVR should have been able to withdraw his TVR for sale from Seller A for any reason, it seems to me like once you say "OK I accept your offer" then you are in a contract and have no means of escape?
Short of writing a 2 or 3 paragraph length of legal jargon with caveats and exclusion terms and what not every time you sell anything, which would put people off altogether, I can't see a solution?
Let's say Seller of the TVR had agreed to Buyer A to sell the car (as has been done)
But subsequently decided he didn't want to get rid of the car, then in the same event Buyer A could still make a case? Or is the case purely that the seller has sold to Buyer B instead for more?
Ultimately while distasteful , people do break and renege on deals often, from Ebay to Facebook Market place to businesses.
I can't see how this is a good outcome for anyone other than lawyers and their pockets.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff