Private car sale - Letter of court action
Discussion
jjr1 said:
Bought and sold a s
t load of cars privately and never once had comeback. The closest I had was a trader who bought off me a Porsche 911 and then admitting he hadn't properly understood my description of PCM and thought the car had Sat Nav. He sold the car at a huge loss but just laughed it off in a phone call to me sometime later.
Surely he didn't make a "huge loss" based purely on the fact it didn't have Sat Nav? t load of cars privately and never once had comeback. The closest I had was a trader who bought off me a Porsche 911 and then admitting he hadn't properly understood my description of PCM and thought the car had Sat Nav. He sold the car at a huge loss but just laughed it off in a phone call to me sometime later.Assuming it was a 996 by your description
Jasandjules said:
Do not say "see you in court" but "In the event that you resort to litigation it is beyond doubt that your claim has no prospects of success however for the avoidance of doubt we will have no alternative but to defend the same and seek any and all costs incurred in so doing" or somesuch.
IF they do lodge a claim, let us know on here......
Unfortunately in the small claims court, the defendant rarely gets any costs due to the structure of the court. Neither does the plaitiff usually, although the judge does have more discretion on this if (s)he feels the defendant could/should have settled long before it got to court.IF they do lodge a claim, let us know on here......
cj2013 said:
jjr1 said:
Bought and sold a st load of cars privately and never once had comeback. The closest I had was a trader who bought off me a Porsche 911 and then admitting he hadn't properly understood my description of PCM and thought the car had Sat Nav. He sold the car at a huge loss but just laughed it off in a phone call to me sometime later.
Surely he didn't make a "huge loss" based purely on the fact it didn't have Sat Nav? t load of cars privately and never once had comeback. The closest I had was a trader who bought off me a Porsche 911 and then admitting he hadn't properly understood my description of PCM and thought the car had Sat Nav. He sold the car at a huge loss but just laughed it off in a phone call to me sometime later.Assuming it was a 996 by your description
If a private sale the no grounds in my opinion and any court would rule in favour of the seller.
Caveat emptor, and a second hand car and the buyer must satisfy them before sale.
Unless a dealer, or distance sale, if they had seen the car before purchase and description was true then in my un-qualified legal opinion, there should be no issue.
Citizens advice or a solicitor should advise though.
If it were me, in my opinion (unqualified and in no way legally qualified), I would suggest that any action would be met with a claim for any legal costs via my solicitor.
Caveat emptor, and a second hand car and the buyer must satisfy them before sale.
Unless a dealer, or distance sale, if they had seen the car before purchase and description was true then in my un-qualified legal opinion, there should be no issue.
Citizens advice or a solicitor should advise though.
If it were me, in my opinion (unqualified and in no way legally qualified), I would suggest that any action would be met with a claim for any legal costs via my solicitor.
sco_steve said:
If a private sale the no grounds in my opinion and any court would rule in favour of the seller.
Caveat emptor, and a second hand car and the buyer must satisfy them before sale.
Unless a dealer, or distance sale, if they had seen the car before purchase and description was true then in my un-qualified legal opinion, there should be no issue.
Citizens advice or a solicitor should advise though.
If it were me, in my opinion (unqualified and in no way legally qualified), I would suggest that any action would be met with a claim for any legal costs via my solicitor.
I think we covered all that last October.Caveat emptor, and a second hand car and the buyer must satisfy them before sale.
Unless a dealer, or distance sale, if they had seen the car before purchase and description was true then in my un-qualified legal opinion, there should be no issue.
Citizens advice or a solicitor should advise though.
If it were me, in my opinion (unqualified and in no way legally qualified), I would suggest that any action would be met with a claim for any legal costs via my solicitor.
NotBenny said:
Whatever happened here? Been long enough that it’s either resolved or been rescalated somewhat.
It's a shame the OP never came back to update us.If I were to guess, I would say he took our advice (hopefully) and ignored any further communication. This probably resulted in the chancer in this story just going away.
Hi everyone
Just resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
Just resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
moooooobss said:
Hi everyone
Just resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
Excellent news - Thanks for following upJust resurrecting this thread as we had our day in court last week and I thought I would update everyone with the results.
Short of it is that we sat down with a judge. Judge explained to both parties that the fact that the vehicle may be unfit for purpose is irrelevant in a private sale. The only laws that have to be followed are that the person has the right to sell the vehicle. It be road worthy and that it was not miss described.
Some discussions between the judge and claiment took place. We, as the defendant, were not asked to provide any evidence as the judge had made a decision based on the claiments evidence.
The decision was that the vehicle was not miss described and there fore the case was dismissed.
So after a long two years this has finally been put to bed.
So there you have it folks. I hope no one else has to go through our experience but I just thought I would provide this update for anyone else out there who is looking for answers as I was when I started this thread.
Great result for you.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff