Sold car privately, buyer wants money back
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
Because she didn’t know. And because the buyer couldn’t be arsed to check.
The buyer didn’t know either and the seller also couldn’t be arsed to check. SpeckledJim said:
Responsibility for the situation lies with the lazy buyer.
Legally yes, morally, I’m not too sure. SpeckledJim said:
Stage one: decide if you want the car
Stage two: buy the car, or don’t buy the car
Never the other way round.
Agree but also when selling a car isn’t the first done thing be done is to advertise the car honestly?Stage two: buy the car, or don’t buy the car
Never the other way round.
I really think both parties have a share of the blame here and a comprise could be met if the seller was willing to admit this.
sandman77 said:
Putting aside the legal part of this, you have sold a written off off car to some poor sod for the price of a clean car. Why didn’t you do the decent thing and offer to refund her the difference in value? I’m sure you could have resolved this before getting to this stage.
What if the story was the other way round and a profit and not a loss? You're selling an mx5, don't know anything about it, not lifted the bonnet and similar looking ones are 2k. I come along and give you 2k just looking at it. V5 done,signed,receipt handed to me and I open the bonnet on your drive, pristine engine that's been supercharged, should I hand you another 3k?or sorry but you should have checked what you was selling? The only difference is the buyer has profited and the seller has lost out in this case but same principle, 1 check would have stopped any loss.Negligence from both parties for sure. One could argue ignorance is not an excuse in both cases. Other things will impact this, how was it advertised, what was the wording? How severe has the accident damage been? As i said earler, if it has been poorly repaired in the past, OPs son, and family, might have been running around in a dangerous vehicle for goodness knows how long. The thought of passing something like that onto someone else would fill me with dread. But...it might have had a bumper and a headlight, or less. So many intangibles to give a clear answer but there is a clear lesson to be learned. Seems a shame that the OP is left to clean up this mess.
Edited by biggbn on Saturday 13th May 10:38
Surely the claim here is the car was misrepresented, by omission. As a private seller you can't stick a M3 badge on a 320d and claim it to be a M3, then say tough luck the buyer should have checked the V5 more carefully.
However that is not this exact scenario I'd imagine the small claims will need to evaluate if the seller deliberately did not disclose the accident marker. On what's been said so far it looks like no it's all genuine and in the end a bit of a misunderstanding. Although I can't help think that a reasonable outcome would be the difference between a "clean car" and the cat car returned and everyone gets on with their life
However that is not this exact scenario I'd imagine the small claims will need to evaluate if the seller deliberately did not disclose the accident marker. On what's been said so far it looks like no it's all genuine and in the end a bit of a misunderstanding. Although I can't help think that a reasonable outcome would be the difference between a "clean car" and the cat car returned and everyone gets on with their life
Austin_Metro said:
There’s also an issue that she might be suing the wrong person. You were acting as agent. The claimant likely should have sued your son. And served proceedings on him in Australia, although county courts sometimes don’t care about these niceties, but they are important.
I would make that point (that you are not the seller, he’s a different person) in the first line of the defense you file.
Might look as if she's trying wriggle out of it, which probably won't go down well. I've only read about these cases, never done one, but my impression is they go more on common sense than anything else. Common sense is Jane was selling the car.I would make that point (that you are not the seller, he’s a different person) in the first line of the defense you file.
sandman77 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because she didn’t know. And because the buyer couldn’t be arsed to check.
The buyer didn’t know either and the seller also couldn’t be arsed to check. SpeckledJim said:
Responsibility for the situation lies with the lazy buyer.
Legally yes, morally, I’m not too sure. SpeckledJim said:
Stage one: decide if you want the car
Stage two: buy the car, or don’t buy the car
Never the other way round.
Agree but also when selling a car isn’t the first done thing be done is to advertise the car honestly?Stage two: buy the car, or don’t buy the car
Never the other way round.
I really think both parties have a share of the blame here and a comprise could be met if the seller was willing to admit this.
ks on here.Buyers responsibility.
If I buy a house without getting a survey, is it the seller’s responsibility to get one and tell me of any faults? Of course not. Same principle here.
[quote=sandman77]
Agree but also when selling a car isn’t the first done thing be done is to advertise the car honestly?
I really think both parties have a share of the blame here and a comprise could be met if the seller was willing to admit this.
The car was advertised honestly. We didn’t know it was a cat s. My son obviously didn’t check when he bought it either. They had a very good deal on the car as he wanted to tell to buy a car in Australia.
Agree but also when selling a car isn’t the first done thing be done is to advertise the car honestly?
I really think both parties have a share of the blame here and a comprise could be met if the seller was willing to admit this.
The car was advertised honestly. We didn’t know it was a cat s. My son obviously didn’t check when he bought it either. They had a very good deal on the car as he wanted to tell to buy a car in Australia.
I guess it depends if the car was stated as hpi clear in the advert.
No it wasn’t. All that was in the advert was that I was selling on behalf of my son and why. I was honest saying that it had no book with it (service history) when he bought it and we had just put it through a new MOT a few weeks before. Advertised as having 1 key which was correct. Any questions she had I asked my son and gave her all the information she asked to the best of our knowledge.
Plainjane91 said:
I guess it depends if the car was stated as hpi clear in the advert.
No it wasn’t. All that was in the advert was that I was selling on behalf of my son and why. I was honest saying that it had no book with it (service history) when he bought it and we had just put it through a new MOT a few weeks before. Advertised as having 1 key which was correct. Any questions she had I asked my son and gave her all the information she asked to the best of our knowledge.
Make sure you reply with this then, plus copy of the advert.No it wasn’t. All that was in the advert was that I was selling on behalf of my son and why. I was honest saying that it had no book with it (service history) when he bought it and we had just put it through a new MOT a few weeks before. Advertised as having 1 key which was correct. Any questions she had I asked my son and gave her all the information she asked to the best of our knowledge.
Plainjane91 said:
I guess it depends if the car was stated as hpi clear in the advert.
No it wasn’t. All that was in the advert was that I was selling on behalf of my son and why. I was honest saying that it had no book with it (service history) when he bought it and we had just put it through a new MOT a few weeks before. Advertised as having 1 key which was correct. Any questions she had I asked my son and gave her all the information she asked to the best of our knowledge.
They haven't had a very good deal though, have they, now it has come to light about the accident damage. How would you have felt if you had bought it with your son and subsequently discovered its history? How would you feel about the vendor? Would you have quietly accepted they never knew? The only difference between you and the new owner here is that you are well out of the car. Devil's advocate here but I can understand why the new owner is a tad miffed. They have been as careless about due diligence as you were yet they are saddled with an accident damaged car. They may well be wondering of you knew/found out and that's why you sold it. No it wasn’t. All that was in the advert was that I was selling on behalf of my son and why. I was honest saying that it had no book with it (service history) when he bought it and we had just put it through a new MOT a few weeks before. Advertised as having 1 key which was correct. Any questions she had I asked my son and gave her all the information she asked to the best of our knowledge.
It sounds as though both parties are innocent other than being guilty of lazy buying practice, but one is now saddled with a car they don't want. Ultimately its their own fault. Should have checked. I'd say you'll be fine but it does highlight the importance of checking these things.
Plainjane91 said:
Definitely lesson learnt here. I have never sold a car or bought a car privately before but would make sure if I did next time to make all the checks possible.
Feel for you, so easy to make mistakes, and/or fall foul of unscrupulous sellers and buyers. Hope you get a result. Raccaccoonie said:
Plainjane91 said:
Definitely lesson learnt here. I have never sold a car or bought a car privately before but would make sure if I did next time to make all the checks possible.
Or just put it is up to buyer to carry out all checks, you are not a trader, car is sold as seen.biggbn said:
As it was when Jane's son bought the car. He has been lucky enough to dodge the bullet of having not done HIS due diligence. I can see both sides, neither buyer nor seller completed the checks they should have yet seller has lucked out. Lesson for all.
A private seller doesn't have to do any "checks" besides legal right to sell.Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff