Selling car via sell or return - good idea or not?

[J3PTF]

So,

My car's currenlty for sale, and I've been offered a sort of sale or return deal, with guaranteed price is it remains unsold after a couple of months.

The offer is slightly less than I wanted to accept, but then it would save a lot of hassle.

So - whats the consensus? Good idea or not? Any risks to look out for?

[Soovy]

Use extreme care. You can end up with no car and no money.

Some useful reading here, for example, from our very own Henry.


http://www.911virgin.com/porsche/sellusyourcar/

[J3PTF]

Thanks - some useful food for thought.

The bit about them going under and taking the car with them had occured to me. A scout around their current stock shows some high value stuff, which gave some reassurace, but then they could have that in on the same basis..

[will_]

See "Verdi".

There is really no completely safe way to do SoR.

If the buyer pays the dealer, and they take the money and run, you'll probably get little if anything back, and won't be able to take the car back from the new owner. Your insurer will also most likely refuse to pay out.

The best you can do is use a reputable dealer, withold the V5 (and the originals of other documents any serious buyer would want to see) and a set of keys.

[J3PTF]

will_ said:

See "Verdi".

The best you can do is use a reputable dealer, withold the V5 (and the originals of other documents any serious buyer would want to see) and a set of keys.

Both of which the terms of the deal say I should drop off with the car...

[Soovy]

J3PTF said:

will_ said:

See "Verdi".

The best you can do is use a reputable dealer, withold the V5 (and the originals of other documents any serious buyer would want to see) and a set of keys.

Both of which the terms of the deal say I should drop off with the car...

Well there's your answer then.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably......

[J3PTF]

Soovy said:

Well there's your answer then.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably......

.....a great deal?

Thanks both - looks like it's back to waiting by the phone!

[icetea]

will_ said:

See "Verdi".

There is really no completely safe way to do SoR.

If the buyer pays the dealer, and they take the money and run, you'll probably get little if anything back, and won't be able to take the car back from the new owner. Your insurer will also most likely refuse to pay out.

The best you can do is use a reputable dealer, withold the V5 (and the originals of other documents any serious buyer would want to see) and a set of keys.

If I was buying from a large or trusted dealers it probably wouldn't overly concern me I left without a V5 or a 2nd key, if they told me it was on the way.

Can't you retain title of the car until payment, via the contract? That way you could have the car back if dealer sold it on and then didn't pay. Building companies do similar.... my dad had to go take a load of stock back from an innocent 3rd party recently as his company hadn't been paid for it by a middle man.

[will_]

icetea said:

will_ said:

See "Verdi".

There is really no completely safe way to do SoR.

If the buyer pays the dealer, and they take the money and run, you'll probably get little if anything back, and won't be able to take the car back from the new owner. Your insurer will also most likely refuse to pay out.

The best you can do is use a reputable dealer, withold the V5 (and the originals of other documents any serious buyer would want to see) and a set of keys.

If I was buying from a large or trusted dealers it probably wouldn't overly concern me I left without a V5 or a 2nd key, if they told me it was on the way.

Can't you retain title of the car until payment, via the contract? That way you could have the car back if dealer sold it on and then didn't pay. Building companies do similar.... my dad had to go take a load of stock back from an innocent 3rd party recently as his company hadn't been paid for it by a middle man.

The contract with whom? With the dealer? Yes, you could include such a clause but it wouldn't be enforcable against the new owner unless they were aware that title was being retained. So in usual SOR deals, in my view, that wouldn't be adequate protection because that doesn't happen - the buyer pays the dealer and probably doesn't even know the car is SoR. If the dealer fails to notify the buyer of the retention of title clause, then you have a claim against the dealer, but that would be worthless as the dealer would be bust.

[balls-out]

icetea said:

If I was buying from a large or trusted dealers it probably wouldn't overly concern me I left without a V5 or a 2nd key, if they told me it was on the way.

Can't you retain title of the car until payment, via the contract? That way you could have the car back if dealer sold it on and then didn't pay. Building companies do similar.... my dad had to go take a load of stock back from an innocent 3rd party recently as his company hadn't been paid for it by a middle man.

Large and/or trusted dealers still occasionally go under ...

Does the buyer of in this scenario contract with the dealer, making the dealer on the hook for a trade sale?

[icetea]

will_ said:

The contract with whom? With the dealer? Yes, you could include such a clause but it wouldn't be enforcable against the new owner unless they were aware that title was being retained. So in usual SOR deals, in my view, that wouldn't be adequate protection because that doesn't happen - the buyer pays the dealer and probably doesn't even know the car is SoR. If the dealer fails to notify the buyer of the retention of title clause, then you have a claim against the dealer, but that would be worthless as the dealer would be bust.

So what is the difference with doing it with a car, and doing it with a bunch of plumbing equipment? The stuff my dad had to take back was bought and paid for by a completely innocent company. They bought it from someone else who took it from my dad on the basis that my dad retained ownership until it had been paid for. It never was paid for, so my dad recovered it.

Until my dad turned up with a bunch of contracts, a few big guys to lift all the heavy stuff and a hire van, they never knew my dad existed. I'm just wondering why the exact same scenario couldn't play out over a similarly valued car, leaving the now scammed person to take it up with the thief/bankrupted company or whoever.

[will_]

icetea said:

will_ said:

The contract with whom? With the dealer? Yes, you could include such a clause but it wouldn't be enforcable against the new owner unless they were aware that title was being retained. So in usual SOR deals, in my view, that wouldn't be adequate protection because that doesn't happen - the buyer pays the dealer and probably doesn't even know the car is SoR. If the dealer fails to notify the buyer of the retention of title clause, then you have a claim against the dealer, but that would be worthless as the dealer would be bust.

So what is the difference with doing it with a car, and doing it with a bunch of plumbing equipment? The stuff my dad had to take back was bought and paid for by a completely innocent company. They bought it from someone else who took it from my dad on the basis that my dad retained ownership until it had been paid for. It never was paid for, so my dad recovered it.

Until my dad turned up with a bunch of contracts, a few big guys to lift all the heavy stuff and a hire van, they never knew my dad existed. I'm just wondering why the exact same scenario couldn't play out over a similarly valued car, leaving the now scammed person to take it up with the thief/bankrupted company or whoever.

What do the contracts say (as between the middle man and the eventual buyer)?

Have you ever seen a retention of title clause when buying a car?

Have you ever bought an SoR car and been told expressly that you don't have clean title until the dealer pays the vendor? Would you buy a car on that basis?

[Dave Hedgehog]

I have sold a couple of cars through main dealers SoR and done better because of it, it would be difficult to trust an independent thou

[J3PTF]

icetea said:

Until my dad turned up with a bunch of contracts, a few big guys to lift all the heavy stuff and a hire van, they never knew my dad existed. I'm just wondering why the exact same scenario couldn't play out over a similarly valued car, leaving the now scammed person to take it up with the thief/bankrupted company or whoever.

I guess the problem with that is how would you know where to find the car to take it back?

[icetea]

will_ said:

What do the contracts say (as between the middle man and the eventual buyer)?

In my dads scenario, the middle man sold the goods to the eventual buyer and was paid in cash for them. The scammer provided the end purchaser with an invoice - nowhere on it was there any mention of my dad. Clearly it was a scam rather than a viable business transaction, as they had been sold on for 25% less than they were apparently going to pay my dad for them, pretty obvious at that point that there never was any intention to pay for them.

will_ said:

Have you ever seen a retention of title clause when buying a car?

No I've not... but I've never looked. I just find cars I like the look of and I order them. No idea whether they were dealer owned or SoR... haven't had a problem yet. Probably more down to luck than anything else. Or the fact I have only really been buying from proper established dealers with no complaints visible online.

will_ said:

Have you ever bought an SoR car and been told expressly that you don't have clean title until the dealer pays the vendor? Would you buy a car on that basis?

If a dealer told me that was the scenario, the only way I'd go through with it was if the 3 parties were brought together and all the transactions completed at once. I wouldn't just blindly drive off in a car with the dealer telling me if he didn't pay I wouldn't actually own the car. But then I wouldn't blindly give a dealer a car to sell on the off chance of getting paid either.

[Ean218]

icetea said:

So what is the difference with doing it with a car, and doing it with a bunch of plumbing equipment? The stuff my dad had to take back was bought and paid for by a completely innocent company. They bought it from someone else who took it from my dad on the basis that my dad retained ownership until it had been paid for. It never was paid for, so my dad recovered it.

Until my dad turned up with a bunch of contracts, a few big guys to lift all the heavy stuff and a hire van, they never knew my dad existed. I'm just wondering why the exact same scenario couldn't play out over a similarly valued car, leaving the now scammed person to take it up with the thief/bankrupted company or whoever.

It only worked for your dad because he is a powerfully built company director with some heavies and the chap with the goods wasn't expecting him!

He had no sound legal basis to seize the goods back.

[icetea]

Ean218 said:

It only worked for your dad because he is a powerfully built company director with some heavies and the chap with the goods wasn't expecting him!

He had no sound legal basis to seize the goods back.

According to his solicitor he was perfectly entitled to take them back, as until paid for he owned them. Value of the goods was around £3k. He's not powerfully built, and the heavies were merely there to lift several hundred kg of equipment, not to intimidate anyone. So I doubt the other guy just handed them over for no reason.

[will_]

icetea said:

will_ said:

What do the contracts say (as between the middle man and the eventual buyer)?

In my dads scenario, the middle man sold the goods to the eventual buyer and was paid in cash for them. The scammer provided the end purchaser with an invoice - nowhere on it was there any mention of my dad. Clearly it was a scam rather than a viable business transaction, as they had been sold on for 25% less than they were apparently going to pay my dad for them, pretty obvious at that point that there never was any intention to pay for them.

Then I cannot see the legal basis for him reclaiming the goods. Your dad got scammed, not the eventual buyer.

icetea said:

will_ said:

Have you ever seen a retention of title clause when buying a car?

No I've not... but I've never looked. I just find cars I like the look of and I order them. No idea whether they were dealer owned or SoR... haven't had a problem yet. Probably more down to luck than anything else. Or the fact I have only really been buying from proper established dealers with no complaints visible online.

Me neither - hence why people get stung on SoR deals and they cannot reclaim the car from the new owner. The redress is against the dealer.

icetea said:

will_ said:

Have you ever bought an SoR car and been told expressly that you don't have clean title until the dealer pays the vendor? Would you buy a car on that basis?

If a dealer told me that was the scenario, the only way I'd go through with it was if the 3 parties were brought together and all the transactions completed at once. I wouldn't just blindly drive off in a car with the dealer telling me if he didn't pay I wouldn't actually own the car. But then I wouldn't blindly give a dealer a car to sell on the off chance of getting paid either.

Indeed, that is the same view I would take but I've never seen it in writing. But what does the vendor do if the dealer fails to tell the new buyer of this arrangement and just takes the money? Again the claim is against the dealer and not against the new owner.

[will_]

icetea said:

Ean218 said:

It only worked for your dad because he is a powerfully built company director with some heavies and the chap with the goods wasn't expecting him!

He had no sound legal basis to seize the goods back.

According to his solicitor he was perfectly entitled to take them back, as until paid for he owned them. Value of the goods was around £3k. He's not powerfully built, and the heavies were merely there to lift several hundred kg of equipment, not to intimidate anyone. So I doubt the other guy just handed them over for no reason.

Take them back from the middle-man, yes. But not, I would think, against the eventual buyer unless there was a similar clause in that sale contract. Of course it's impossible to actually say without knowing more or seeing the documents.

There could be an argument that the goods were "stolen" and therefore title couldn't pass. But in an SoR relationship, the dealer acts as the seller's agent and therefore the car isn't "stolen" if the dealer sells the car and takes the money. There is still no claim against the new owner unless in fact the car was actually stolen as clearly then title cannot pass. However in an agency situation, title can pass to the new owner because the dealer is authorised to sell the car i.e. title passes. If the dealer pockets the money, the claim is then against the dealer by the vendor for breach of the agreement.

[icetea]

For now I'm going on the assumption that my dads solicitor is right and that if you invoice for something then its not paid, you can claim it back. So could you not modify a sale or return agreement to be exactly the same? You sell the dealer the car for a set price, but give him payment terms of 12 months. Then put in the contract that he could return the car at any point if he changed his mind.

So then if the dealer didn't pay, there wouldn't have been a legal passing of title and you could go claim the car back from whichever sucker bought it. Unless my dads solicitor is just completely wrong... that would work surely?