Misrepresentation of car details.. Advice please
Discussion
I found out yesterday that my "Tuscan Red Rose" actually has a standard engine (it's in for a rebuild at the moment, so was spotted pretty quickly). The previous owner specifically stated it was a 390BHP Red Rose engine (as opposed to the 350/360BHP standard one) in both his advert on PistonHeads, his advert on AutoTrader, and stated it was a "TVR Tuscan Red Rose" on the receipt I got from him when I purchased the car.
As this would devalue the car by £2000+, and it would cost around £3500 to have TVR rebuild the engine to Red Rose specs (and isn't the car I wanted), I was looking for a bit of advice on what to do.
My basic legal knowledge makes me think that this is misrepresentation. Hence I can claim against him. But what if he claims he didn't know... he told me that the car was originally a standard spec engine, and upgraded to Red Rose spec when it was rebuilt for the first time in 2002. It was an owner prior to him that had it at that point. So who's liable if he claims that's what he was told? And what if he and the previous owner have conflicting stories? And how best to go about getting some money back out of this? My plan was to ring him up and see if we can sort things out amicably - track down where the "lie" started and try and solve it together.
Advice, please! Thanks in advance.
As this would devalue the car by £2000+, and it would cost around £3500 to have TVR rebuild the engine to Red Rose specs (and isn't the car I wanted), I was looking for a bit of advice on what to do.
My basic legal knowledge makes me think that this is misrepresentation. Hence I can claim against him. But what if he claims he didn't know... he told me that the car was originally a standard spec engine, and upgraded to Red Rose spec when it was rebuilt for the first time in 2002. It was an owner prior to him that had it at that point. So who's liable if he claims that's what he was told? And what if he and the previous owner have conflicting stories? And how best to go about getting some money back out of this? My plan was to ring him up and see if we can sort things out amicably - track down where the "lie" started and try and solve it together.
Advice, please! Thanks in advance.
From what you have said there appears to be a case of misrepresentation. For it to be misrepresentation you must have relied on the statement as an inducement to buy, which appears to be the case here.
Misrepresentation has three different forms:
Fraudulent - Where the misrepresentor did not honestly believe in the truth of his statement (not the same as knowing it to be false).
Negligent - Where there was no reasonable grounds for him to believe in his statement, i.e. he had not seen the invoices for the conversion.
Innocent - He reasonably believed it to be true - he had seen the invoices for the conversion.
Remedy for these differ as follows:
Fraudulent - Rescission and you could sue for damages
Negligent - Rescission and may be able to sue for damages
Innocent - Rescission or affirmation.
Rescission means to return the situation to what it was before the contract was entered into, in other words he gives you your money back and you give him the car back.
Affirmation means you agree the contract is valid.
There is also an offence of misdescription but I think it only applies to land and property.
>> Edited by kevinday on Wednesday 7th July 21:15
Misrepresentation has three different forms:
Fraudulent - Where the misrepresentor did not honestly believe in the truth of his statement (not the same as knowing it to be false).
Negligent - Where there was no reasonable grounds for him to believe in his statement, i.e. he had not seen the invoices for the conversion.
Innocent - He reasonably believed it to be true - he had seen the invoices for the conversion.
Remedy for these differ as follows:
Fraudulent - Rescission and you could sue for damages
Negligent - Rescission and may be able to sue for damages
Innocent - Rescission or affirmation.
Rescission means to return the situation to what it was before the contract was entered into, in other words he gives you your money back and you give him the car back.
Affirmation means you agree the contract is valid.
There is also an offence of misdescription but I think it only applies to land and property.
>> Edited by kevinday on Wednesday 7th July 21:15
a lot of hot air goes on about 'red rose' tuscans much like the vaunted 4.3 big valve griffs.
i never saw an actual spec sheet from the factory for this model and the resultant Tuscan S which came some time later was clearly differentiated with a 4.0L block as opposed to the 3.6 of the standard car.
My belief was that a red rose tuscan had 18" wheels and a 4.0L engine in a slightly higher state of tune. To be fair its probably worth no different for resale and an utter waste of £3,500 to upgrade.
At £24,000 for a 2000 car its pretty cheap anyway and will sell on condition rather than a supposed engine upgrade.
Does that mean that the red rose springs and dampers you sold were also incorrectly described??
Bennno
>> Edited by bennno on Wednesday 7th July 22:37
bennno said:
a lot of hot air goes on about 'red rose' tuscans much like the vaunted 4.3 big valve griffs.
i never saw an actual spec sheet from the factory for this model and the resultant Tuscan S which came some time later was clearly differentiated with a 4.0L block as opposed to the 3.6 of the standard car.
My belief was that a red rose tuscan had 18" wheels and a 4.0L engine in a slightly higher state of tune. To be fair its probably worth no different for resale and an utter waste of £3,500 to upgrade.
At £24,000 for a 2000 car its pretty cheap anyway and will sell on condition rather than a supposed engine upgrade.
Does that mean that the red rose springs and dampers you sold were also incorrectly described??
Benno, I see where you're coming from regaring "it's only a few BHP", "you got a good deal", etc. but that's not the point. I bought that car specifically because it was a Red Rose - I wanted to upgrade after the Cerb, not trade, and I then wanted to continue upgrading it myself to full Tuscan S spec. The reason I got it for a fairly decent price was that I knew it needed other work doing - new tyres all round, some electrical gremlins, etc. I wouldn't have even considered a car with all those niggles if it hadn't been RR spec.
If there's no difference between the standard and RR engine, then I shouldn't have got a call from TVR Power saying "this engine you claimed is a Red Rose isn't - it's got the smaller injectors, standard cams, etc. of a normal 4l car".
It has the Nitrons I've put onto it myself. It did have "Red Rose" springs and dampers (I checked the adjuster on them before selling), and it does have the Red Rose brakes, too, but these are now fitted to all newer Tuscans anyway, as far as I know.
Imagine you'd bought a Porsche 911 (996) with all the stick on tat, etc that makes it look, sound, etc. like an 996 Turbo but without the engine upgrades. You'd be more than a bit upset, I'll imagine.
V8 Archie said:
...his advert on PistonHeads... My plan was to ring him up and see if we can sort things out amicably...
Erm... is it just me, or is this post a particularly bad way of trying to get an amicable settlement? Especially as the PH ad suggests he may be a PHer.
I'm just trying to get advice on what my legal stance is - I want to be prepared for all circumstances, not knowing how anyone's going to react in all of this. My preferred approach in the sake of timeliness, hassle, etc. would be to get him to pay for 50% of the cost of a RR upgrade. Then I'll happily spend time trying to track down where this claim originated from - him, the previous owner, etc. to see if we can't ensure the real culprit pays. To this effect, I've been on the phone to TVR, etc. today trying to find out what was actually said when the engine originally went in for its rebuild.
I'd hope you'd agree that's a fair approach, especially given how put out I'm feeling right now about having been sold a car that isn't what I paid for. (Especially given the fact I'm not even quibbling the fact it needed an engine rebuild within a month of me buying it)
kevinday said:
Negligent - Where there was no reasonable grounds for him to believe in his statement, i.e. he had not seen the invoices for the conversion.
Greatly appreciate the help Kevin, it clears things up for me quite a bit.
I think cancelling the sale and going back to the previous situation is unlikely as the car's now in bits needing an engine rebuild. But I guess that how we deal with that is a separate matter, and hopefully it won't come to anything so drastic.
I do have one query, though, regarding the bit about negligence above. I asked him to give me all of the paperwork he had for the car when I bought it, and nowhere in it did it detail the rebuild, having been from a previous owner. If he did have the paperwork, and didn't pass it on, I guess that would fairly clearly constitute it being "fraudulent", but if he claims he never had the paperwork, would that equally clearly show it to be "negligent"? Or is that a much less black and white area?
Cheers!
Fraudulent would be if he did not know whether it was or not and advertised it as a Red Rose, unlikely in this case.
Negligent is more likely, if he did not have the papers at all, then he took it 'on trust' from the previous owner.
If he had the papers which show it is a Red Rose but did not pass them to you then there is no misrepresentation. This is unlikely given that TVR state the engine is a normal 4.0 litre.
Recission would be difficult in this case, the courts would probably prefer to sort it out using comparable values of the two versions, also difficult in the case of TVR as each is bespoke.
If it was a private sale to you then also caveat emptor may be considered (buyer beware). Maybe you could have checked the papers more closely before buying?
In a trade sale the trader is more liable for the goods being what it says.
Negligent is more likely, if he did not have the papers at all, then he took it 'on trust' from the previous owner.
If he had the papers which show it is a Red Rose but did not pass them to you then there is no misrepresentation. This is unlikely given that TVR state the engine is a normal 4.0 litre.
Recission would be difficult in this case, the courts would probably prefer to sort it out using comparable values of the two versions, also difficult in the case of TVR as each is bespoke.
If it was a private sale to you then also caveat emptor may be considered (buyer beware). Maybe you could have checked the papers more closely before buying?
In a trade sale the trader is more liable for the goods being what it says.
Thanks for the help, all. I've had the better half speak to the solicitors at her work who've confirmed a similar position. (Just wanted to get some advice off here before I got her involved/upset). And I've had TVR get back to me today saying that the words "Red Rose" have never been mentioned by them in connection with my car before, let alone having them put it in writing.
Regarding it being "caveat emptor", I wouldn't have thought that was the case if I have in writing in three different places from the seller (including the receipt for my deposit) that it's a Red Rose. I went to the trouble of getting this in writing (on top of the adverts).
I'll phone the guy up tonight and try to see if we can't sort things out without any hassle. Hopefully everyone involved will be reasonable in this, although I know I wouldn't be too happy at getting a phone call in a similar position!
Regarding it being "caveat emptor", I wouldn't have thought that was the case if I have in writing in three different places from the seller (including the receipt for my deposit) that it's a Red Rose. I went to the trouble of getting this in writing (on top of the adverts).
I'll phone the guy up tonight and try to see if we can't sort things out without any hassle. Hopefully everyone involved will be reasonable in this, although I know I wouldn't be too happy at getting a phone call in a similar position!
You certainly appear to have gone to sufficient lengths to ascertain the car was a red rose before buying, so caveat emptor should not be a problem. I would think that a contribution of around the £2K (the approximate difference in value as suggested by you) should be suitable. If the seller is totally unresponsive then a mention of misrepresentation and rescission may do the trick.
IMHO (and I'm no legal eagle) he has misrepresented, thus liable. Whether or not it was a previous owner is irrelevant, he must then take the previous owner to court. Whatever he (the vendor) is liable for any misrepresentaions.....
Got legal insurance? give it to them and claim your money back....
Got legal insurance? give it to them and claim your money back....
Quick update... Spoke to the guy today, and he's being as helpful as he can given that he's on holiday at the moment. He think he's got paperwork from the previous owner stating it's 390BHP, and says that the dealer where he had it serviced confirmed that. I'm currently speaking to the dealer trying to find out exactly what's been said/is supposed to have been done.
Hmmm, I wonder if I could've gone through the legal cover stuff on my insurance with this? Either way, I can't now as I let the insurance expire yesterday with it being off the road for weeks.
Hmmm, I wonder if I could've gone through the legal cover stuff on my insurance with this? Either way, I can't now as I let the insurance expire yesterday with it being off the road for weeks.
kevinday said:
I suggest you renew the insurance. If something happens to it the garage insurance may not fully cover you.
Hadn't thought of that... probably a very good idea, thanks! I've got to be careful though because I'm on the verge of redundancy with a £1500 insurance bill, £2000+ engine rebuild, a car that's worth £2000 less than I thought, and a £1000 tyre + service bill. Oh, and no redundancy package. I won't be forgetting this month for a long time!
Maybe you should go for rescission then 
Not a good month at all for you, sorry to hear it.
I am a freelance contractor here in Hungary and one company has just terminated a long term contract with me, only reason I can think of is because I argued with the d
d project manager about how things needed to be done (and I am the expert, that is why they brought me in).
Not a good month at all for you, sorry to hear it.
I am a freelance contractor here in Hungary and one company has just terminated a long term contract with me, only reason I can think of is because I argued with the d
d project manager about how things needed to be done (and I am the expert, that is why they brought me in).kevinday said:
Maybe you should go for rescission then
Not a good month at all for you, sorry to hear it.
I am a freelance contractor here in Hungary and one company has just terminated a long term contract with me, only reason I can think of is because I argued with the d
Kevin; sorry things aren't too hot for you jobwise, either.
Having spent the last week or two going round in circles with TVR, the dealer involved, and the previous owner, here's the current situation:
1. It's definitely not supposed to be a Red Rose according to the factory & dealer
2. The adverts from when the guy before me bought it do not state that it's had any Red Rose work done on it, but it does say "Tuscan 390 bhp" in the title and "All upgrades including engine to 390 bhp(Tuscan S power)" in the advert body. Getting hold of the previous owner could prove tricky as he's in the forces.
The advert from when I bought it reads: "Red Rose upgrades include: 390BHP, drive shaft & suspension/brakes" (no mention of suspension/brakes in the original ad). And the guy who had it before me had no further supporting paperwork regarding any engine work (besides a factory stamp from when it went back for its fishy-finger-follower rebuild).
So, based upon this, any idea where I stand... Do I have to pursue the guy I bought it off, whilst he pursues the one before him/pays for it himself? Or do I have to pursure the owner before him directly? I'd have thought (based upon a little common sense and nothing more) that my contract would be with the guy I bought it off, so it's up to him to go back to the guy before, isn't it?
Thanks in advance (once more),
-James
>> Edited by J_S_G on Monday 19th July 21:41
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff