Interesting Legal Sale question

[Nightmare]

Hi All,

A friend of mine has recently sold a car on ebay. The situation is as follows: MG Rover, front end damage, car has had everything replaced by Rover specialist (guys father owns and runs) and is immaculate.

The car is posted on ebay, all details available, but he does not announce the fact it's repaired (unsurprisingly). A few sellers emailed him during and asking if it had any accident damage, and he told them the exact truth. Additionally the car was open to be viewed at any time by anyone who wanted to

The person who subsequently won the auction, who wasnt someone who asked any questions, has found out that it has HPI history of being damaged...and is demanding a full refund.

I think my view on this is :

You're buying a car from and internet auction, at 1500 quid below list price. It is your responsibility to HPI check the car. The seller offered a car visit and at no point has hidden or even fudged details (IMO).

What is his stance on this? I kinda thought it was 'buyer beware'

Any rapid reponses really appreciated as he is panicking!

thanks
Night

[Marki]

Got no idea on the exact legal situation , but as i understand it is his job to check out what hes buying , as you say Buyer beware

How long had he had the car before demanding a refund

[t-c]

If the condition and history of the vehicle was as advertised, he has nothing to fear, and the fact that the vehicle was open to any inspection, and he was honest with all the questions that were asked of him, any court in the land would just laugh at the buyer and find against him!

[streaky]

Caveat emptor! - Streaky

[Nightmare]

cool - this is going the way I thought/hoped it would.

I think he's just really concerned that because he didnt advertise it as a "this is a crash damaged car I have had repaired" that he has in someway misled the buyer. As I've pointed out, you can find cars on autotrader for sale, seem really cheap, good description..oh hang on, no mileage mentioned - and there you go. But then the seller doesnt want to put people off even looking, and words like '175,000 miles' or 'accident damage' are a bit scary!

to answer question, sller has only had the car for 7 days. Obviously decided to his checking 'after' buying it...

[Dibble]

Caveat empt... oh, bugger! Streaky's beaten me to it. Yet again.

Similar situation if you unwittingly buy a stolen vehicle (or other property, for that matter), which is subsequently identified as such.

It goes back to the rightful owner (or insurer if they've paid out), you're down £X thousand pounds and one motor vehicle, with no recourse (unless you find the person who sold it to you and get a refund...).

[buckshee]

Whilst the consensus from the replies given thus far suggest it's a case of caveat emptor,personally, I'm not sure that this would be so although I am not a lawyer. Since ebay is, in fact, an auction, there may be rules about the necessity to disclose certain faults or previous accident damage etc. for a car, especially since the buyer cannot view the item when bidding unless he makes a special journey to do so. One might argue that a car sold on an ebay auction is a "sale by description" where in fact, the onus lies with the seller to describe the vehicle and its history, as fully as possible. I know from my own experience of horses sold at auction, you are allowed a reasonable period (a few days) after purchase to take the horse home and discover for oneself if the horse you've bought accurately meets its description in the catalogue EVEN IF YOU"VE EXAMINED IT BEFORE YOU BID. If the horse doesn't meet it's description, the buyer informs the auctioneer and the seller must collect the horse or pay for its transport back to the seller and the sale is annulled. I wouldn't be surprised if an ebay auction of a car is the same.

Let's be honest here, your mate selling the car should have pointed out that the car has been repaired, unless he was hoping to pull the wool over someone's eyes and trying to hide behind the caveat emptor excuse. Sounds like sharp practice to me.

[andygo]

I don't think it's sharp practice at all.

He didn't make any false claims, and if the car is in A1 condition now, then whats the problem?

I once had a courtesy car (a 3 series BMW) from Halliwell Jones my local BMW dealer.

As soon as I got in it I noticed the fire extinguisher underneath the front passenger seat at the front. As soon as I drove it around some lanes I could tell it had a limited slip differential in it.

It turned out to be one of a batch of cars they had bought from Brands Hatch Racing School. Bet they didn't tell that to prospective punters. Previous owner BMW UK as a 'fleet' (pun intended) car.

It would hardly be a selling point in the same way as 'Its been stuffed, but it's all right now.'

Lets face it, I'm sure wev'e all sold cars and 'forgotten' to point out defects or repairs.

[xylophone]

I am a uk lawyer. To offer a car for sale and not mention it is repaired is to make a false, inaccurate or misleading offer. An online auction such as Ebay is not an 'auction' in that Ebay never possess the car to sell it. This guy is liable for rescission of the sale, if the repair was so great the contract should be rescinded, or in damages if it was not.

[UpTheIron]

xylophone said:

I am a uk lawyer. To offer a car for sale and not mention it is repaired is to make a false, inaccurate or misleading offer. An online auction such as Ebay is not an 'auction' in that Ebay never possess the car to sell it. This guy is liable for rescission of the sale, if the repair was so great the contract should be rescinded, or in damages if it was not.

Not a lawyer, but I disagree. Have you ever successfully won a similar case?

In what way was the offer false, inaccurate or misleading? If the advert/auction stated "never been crashed" / "not repaired" or some such then agreed.

But no such claim was made, and furthermore the history of the car was easily accessible to any potential buyer via HPI or asking the vendor.

Caveat Emptor.

[TimC]

UpTheIron said:

Not a lawyer, but I disagree. Have you ever successfully won a similar case? Caveat Emptor.

My experience suggests that the lawyer may be correct? (First post so excuse me if I breech any forum etiquette).

I once purchased a rebuilt insurance write-off. It was advertised in Auto Trader with no mention of this fact - like ebay, the seller didn't want to scare potential purchasers away. But, when I viewed the car the seller, who was a self-employed trader advised me that he was a trader, and that it was a legal requirement for him to inform me that the vehicle had previously been written off - he did this voluntarily. The car had a new bodyshell and had been professionally rebuilt - receipts proved this, and having had it checked I purchased it. The seller went to great lengths to annotate the receipt with a statement regarding the car's history and that I had been informed of this - which we both signed.

So this trader whose business was putting written off cars back onto the road stated that he had a legal requirement to provide this information.

Sadly, 10 months later the car was stolen, and hurtled past us in the middle of town, 5 minutes after we parked it! Recovered that night, but wrecked - insurers then sent letter advising they couldn't pay immediately as the car had already been subject of a total loss claim (I hated that letter) - I wrote back and requested them to contact the trader, he clearly confirmed the facts as two weeks after it was stolen I received a cheque for £5 more than the car cost! Two months later someone rang me, having bought it, to ask its history - "well it has been written of twice ...."

[TimC]

Contradicting myself now!!!

See www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0003-1011.TXT

So according to Trading Standards, the original posters friend has done nothing wrong - quick back pedal by me, and prayer of thanks that my seller was so honourable - maybe things were different 11 years ago?

Trading Standards said:

Insurance Claims and Accident and Repair Records There is no law requiring traders to inform purchasers that cars have been subject to insurance claims or have been 'written off' by insurance companies. Traders have no legal obligation to tell purchasers about past repair work. If you ask the trader about these matters, he must answer truthfully or tell you if he doesn't know, and it is wise to write down the answers to these questions and make checks of your own before purchase. Prospective purchasers should study registration and service documents before deciding to buy. Prevention is better than cure, but if you have written answers from the seller and you find out later that they are wrong, you may have a legal case for misrepresentation and/or a breach of contract.

[TimC]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thank you!

Your are absolutely correct about Trading Standards applying to traders - good point, however this page seems to support this theory? How accurate it is, I don't know?

www.car-crime.com/accident_history.htm

car-crime said:

If the above applies to motor traders, you will appreciate how it will apply all the more to the private vendor (or a person purporting to be a private seller). If you did not ask whether the vehicle was a previous total loss, or there was no misrepresentation about the history i.e. you were informed the vehicle was not the subject of major damage in its history, recovering from the vendor will be neigh on impossible.

[outlaw.]

Dibble said:

Caveat empt... oh, bugger! Streaky's beaten me to it. Yet again. Similar situation if you unwittingly buy a stolen vehicle (or other property, for that matter), which is subsequently identified as such. It goes back to the rightful owner (or insurer if they've paid out), you're down £X thousand pounds and one motor vehicle, with no recourse (unless you find the person who sold it to you and get a refund...).

unless it ges sold a few time first

so if you by one and suspect later it dogey

sell it to your mum
get here to sell it to a freind and them to sell it to you brother and him to sell it back to you.


job done

it now stays with you. and dont go back to the original owner.

>> Edited by outlaw. on Wednesday 23 June 22:59

[m-five]

Would the new Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) law (of Oct 2000) not apply in this case - i.e. the purchaser has x days to change their mind and get a refund on the basis that they could not reasonably check out the item until they had possession?

Quote from DTI website...

Distance Selling Regulations give protection to consumers who shop by phone, mail order, via the Internet or digital TV: The protection includes:

The right to receive clear information about goods and services before deciding to buy;
Confirmation of this information in writing;
A cooling off period of seven working days in which the consumer can withdraw from the contract;
Protection from credit card fraud.

[m-five]

outlaw. said:

Dibble said: Caveat empt... oh, bugger! Streaky's beaten me to it. Yet again. Similar situation if you unwittingly buy a stolen vehicle (or other property, for that matter), which is subsequently identified as such. It goes back to the rightful owner (or insurer if they've paid out), you're down £X thousand pounds and one motor vehicle, with no recourse (unless you find the person who sold it to you and get a refund...). unless it ges sold a few time first so if you by one and suspect later it dogey sell it to your mum get here to sell it to a freind and them to sell it to you brother and him to sell it back to you. job done it now stays with you. and dont go back to the original owner. >> Edited by outlaw. on Wednesday 23 June 22:59

Outlaw,

I may be wrong, but I believe that was the old law which was abused so much by shady traders selling stolen motors (and other goods) onto friends and then buying them back (which was originally to allow market traders to sell stolen goods that they had bought in good faith).

The new law does not necessarily set a limit for how many intermediates a stolen item needs to go through to become legal - this was implemented to stop these shady traders.

[zumbruk]

The Distance Selling Regulations only apply when a dealer is selling - not a private individual.

[rsvmilly]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And you seemed like such a nice fella!

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You get paid that much??? You lucky bugger.

My 2c - The seller seemed to honestly answer any questions which were asked of him (although perhaps he should have amended the auction description to incorporate these answers).

But people just can't resist bargains and they never stop to ask themselves why things are THAT much cheaper. Like the recent eBay auction of £120 or so for an X-Box empty box.

[mcflurry]

distance selling regs apply on ebay for "Buy it now" auctions...

[rsvmilly]

mcflurry said:

distance selling regs apply on ebay for "Buy it now" auctions...

Is that always? Even for private sellers?


Edited because I've since read Zubruck's post.


>> Edited by rsvmilly on Thursday 24th June 14:06