Any Lawyers in here?
Discussion
Question.........man takes his car to a garage for repairs, and mentions to the gargae owner he would like to sell the car.....garage owner says he can sell it for him, and the man hands over the documents and the vehicle.
Garage owner sells car on to a motor trader who then sell it to another motor trader.
Original owner makes complaint to police that his vehicle has been "stolen"...........turns out he was never paid for the vehicle
Is this a civil debt issue between him and the gargae owner??
Can the motor trader who currently has the vehicle, have it taken from him even though he has paid for it.
If so, under what law/circumstances?
Thanks in advance.
This is a complicated matter and your friend needs to see a solicitor quickly. It could be theft, contract or a tort claim depending on the circumstances. Your friend needs to think the whole scenario through and give the solicitor the full story: what was said, what was written down, what was handed over and when.
Just make sure first of all though that this isn't just a misunderstanding. The money may well be on the way.
Just make sure first of all though that this isn't just a misunderstanding. The money may well be on the way.
On what has been basically reported then it would appear this is nothing more than a bad business transaction, the remedy lying in civil law.
BUT as Zod correctly points out there are that many if's and buts and a true in depth picture cannot be built up without fully knowing what actually was said and done, which may put the matter in the realms of criminal law.
CAB and an interview with a true legal eagle.
DVD.
BUT as Zod correctly points out there are that many if's and buts and a true in depth picture cannot be built up without fully knowing what actually was said and done, which may put the matter in the realms of criminal law.
CAB and an interview with a true legal eagle.
DVD.
I thought this maybe a civil thing, however the police are calling it a deception, however who decides what offence (if any) has been committed and who decides title to the vehicle..............also does the motor trader who bought the vehicle and currently has possession of it have to hand it over to the police or can he wait until a court makes a decision on it?
poorcardealer said:
I thought this maybe a civil thing, however the police are calling it a deception, however who decides what offence (if any) has been committed and who decides title to the vehicle..............also does the motor trader who bought the vehicle and currently has possession of it have to hand it over to the police or can he wait until a court makes a decision on it?
Very much depends on who has been deceived and how it has been accomplished.
Deception is quite clear in law.
Sect 15 Theft Act 1968
(4) '...deception' means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person.
The general essence of a deception itself is behaviiour that induces someone to believe that something is, or might be true. For that reason, offences involving falsification of documents are also included.
Deception itself is not an offence, other wise Paul Daniels and all the Magic Circle would be serving many years in Jail!!!
There must be other intentions or consequences springing from the deception together with the element of dihonesty.
Dishonesty is a largely subjective concept
Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 covers what is dishonest. These provisions do not directly apply to deception offences but the R v Ghosh case directions as to what may be dishonest apply!
Regarding questions of who decides what offences are committed? = CPS and ultimately a court.
The person who has the vehicle may have it seized by the Police as evidence and even though he had paid good money for it, this is no right to retain the property. A court will ultimately decide this issue.
Thankyou for your helpful answers.......my thoughts are.........why should the trader who has paid good money for the car in good faith, and carried out a HPi check to make sure the car isnt showing as stolen, then lose out because the original owner has waited for a week or so and then decieded it doesnt look like im going to get for this, and only then has he reported the vehicle as "stolen"..........seems like a huge can of worms to me!!
The trader who currently has the vehicle is extremley reluctant to hand it over to the police as he feels he is in a stronger position legally holding on to it.
My thought are the original owner of the vehicle has acted in a naive manner, and he expects to get his vehicle back,surely he would have to copensate the trader who now has the vehicle?
I think that will depend entirely on whether the car is considered stolen or not. If the car is deemed to have been stolen, then it still belongs to the original owner; end of story, surely? The car dealer who currently has the car will have to return it to its owner and then chase the person he bought it from who was selling stolen goods. Whether or not it was traded on in good faith can't have any bearing on title to the car if it was nicked in the first place. Better hope the problem remains a civil matter between the original owner and the first garage involved.
It all depends on what outcome the original chap wants. He certainly does have a civil claim for the money, and he could also pursue a private prosecution (which will only get the garage owner punished, not get him his money back) - that's if the police/CPS don't want to bother prosecuting for theft. And, to be fair, there's an argument that the garage owner sold on as agent anyway so there's no certainty of gaining a conviction.
If the garage owner did sell as agent, then the trader will have obtained good title to the car and that's it. However, if the garage owner took the money for the car as if he owned the car (i.e. he *didn't* disclose that it was still owned by a customer of his) then the garage owner didn't have title to sell, so the trader couldn't have gained good title (same as if a car still has finance owing). In that case, the car remains the property of the original chap and the trader has a claim for his money from the garage owner.
If the garage owner did sell as agent, then the trader will have obtained good title to the car and that's it. However, if the garage owner took the money for the car as if he owned the car (i.e. he *didn't* disclose that it was still owned by a customer of his) then the garage owner didn't have title to sell, so the trader couldn't have gained good title (same as if a car still has finance owing). In that case, the car remains the property of the original chap and the trader has a claim for his money from the garage owner.
shnozz said:
reading this thread carefully as I am acting in a very similar case proceeding through the civil courts....
Muncher, you're the law student, give me some more case law and save me having to do all the research! thats what trainees are there for...
A bit busy at the minute, had a Criminal exam yesterday, Land exam this morning, a Constitutional exam tomorrow and Contract on thursday!
We didn't really focus on deception offences within the theft act so I'll have to read up on it after exams.
Is the original owner in a position to just 'grab' the car back from Dealer no.2? Then the two dealers will be left to fight it out between themselves.
I bought a 'stolen' car about 30 years ago from a dealer. The Police took the car away and it took me over 2 years to get satisfaction in court. In hindsight, I should, maybe, have listened to a rather dubious friend who said, "this will take you forever. Just go and take a car of equivalent value off the dealer's forecourt and 'hold it to ransom'".
I sometimes wish I had done so.
I bought a 'stolen' car about 30 years ago from a dealer. The Police took the car away and it took me over 2 years to get satisfaction in court. In hindsight, I should, maybe, have listened to a rather dubious friend who said, "this will take you forever. Just go and take a car of equivalent value off the dealer's forecourt and 'hold it to ransom'".
I sometimes wish I had done so.
This can be a criminal or civil matter at the whim of the police or CPS.
I am reminded that a young employee of mine faced criminal charges brought by North Wales Police some 9 years ago. These were under the Theft act and were ‘ gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception’
He had saved for some time to buy a car, a Toyota, ordered the car, agreed to have radio fitted and paid all but £ 2000 for the car. He was supposed to have collected it Friday but the salesman rang him up and asked him to collect it Saturday morning. He agreed and was asked to pay in cash as ‘Accounts office did not work on Saturday’. He duly drew out the £ 2000 loaned by his sister that Friday, paid for and collected the car. When he asked for a recipt he was told the transaction documents were sufficient. All was well for 2 weeks. Then the accounts office finding a £ 2000 shortfall phoned him about it and within 2 hours a car full of salesmen arrived at his workplace to threaten him.
He was mortified and frightened although he had the support of his colleagues who saw the thugs off. Then the police came round and charged him with theft by deception, confiscated his car as evidence leaving him with no Transport to get to work from home in Liverpool.
Highly unusually, the police agreed to him taking his car away after 3 weeks on condition that he paid the main dealer the £ 2000.
Even more unusually, My colleague could not prove he had withdrawn the £2000 that Friday as the Bank branch computer records had ‘ gone down’ that day.
Although at the committal hearing the judge expressed his opinion that the case was entirely a civil one the CPS and police insisted that it proceed to Crown Court . At Crown Court the salesmen appeared as Crown witnesses and were shown to be shifty and unreliable. Both of them had been fired in the intervening 6 months. The investigating officer performed badly under cross examination and it seemed that the only evidence against my colleague other than the assertions of the salesmen was that it had been alleged that another Liverpudlian of similarly Chinese descent had been charged with the same offence a few years earlier.
The jury impressed me with their patience and after 2 days returned a not guilty verdict although that resulted in a spiteful and petulant outburst from the judge.
Even if I could believe that any Motor Dealer would allow a new car to leave their premises without being paid for in full with cleared funds I still knew that this young mans honesty was as far as his workplace was concerned impeccable.
To me there was clearly a conspiracy here which seemed to involve several people and went as far as at least the individual police officer.
While I know there have always been some really excellent BiBs in North Wales, this experience together with all too many unsatisfactory experiences since then indicate the corporate body from the top down seems to be…….. shall we say……… less than an acceptable standard.
I am reminded that a young employee of mine faced criminal charges brought by North Wales Police some 9 years ago. These were under the Theft act and were ‘ gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception’
He had saved for some time to buy a car, a Toyota, ordered the car, agreed to have radio fitted and paid all but £ 2000 for the car. He was supposed to have collected it Friday but the salesman rang him up and asked him to collect it Saturday morning. He agreed and was asked to pay in cash as ‘Accounts office did not work on Saturday’. He duly drew out the £ 2000 loaned by his sister that Friday, paid for and collected the car. When he asked for a recipt he was told the transaction documents were sufficient. All was well for 2 weeks. Then the accounts office finding a £ 2000 shortfall phoned him about it and within 2 hours a car full of salesmen arrived at his workplace to threaten him.
He was mortified and frightened although he had the support of his colleagues who saw the thugs off. Then the police came round and charged him with theft by deception, confiscated his car as evidence leaving him with no Transport to get to work from home in Liverpool.
Highly unusually, the police agreed to him taking his car away after 3 weeks on condition that he paid the main dealer the £ 2000.
Even more unusually, My colleague could not prove he had withdrawn the £2000 that Friday as the Bank branch computer records had ‘ gone down’ that day.
Although at the committal hearing the judge expressed his opinion that the case was entirely a civil one the CPS and police insisted that it proceed to Crown Court . At Crown Court the salesmen appeared as Crown witnesses and were shown to be shifty and unreliable. Both of them had been fired in the intervening 6 months. The investigating officer performed badly under cross examination and it seemed that the only evidence against my colleague other than the assertions of the salesmen was that it had been alleged that another Liverpudlian of similarly Chinese descent had been charged with the same offence a few years earlier.
The jury impressed me with their patience and after 2 days returned a not guilty verdict although that resulted in a spiteful and petulant outburst from the judge.
Even if I could believe that any Motor Dealer would allow a new car to leave their premises without being paid for in full with cleared funds I still knew that this young mans honesty was as far as his workplace was concerned impeccable.
To me there was clearly a conspiracy here which seemed to involve several people and went as far as at least the individual police officer.
While I know there have always been some really excellent BiBs in North Wales, this experience together with all too many unsatisfactory experiences since then indicate the corporate body from the top down seems to be…….. shall we say……… less than an acceptable standard.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been in business for over 35 years and have 'been around the block a few times'.
Taking a possibly simplistic view, Mr. A had a verbal contract with Dealer 1 that he would hold safe for him his car whilst selling it and passing the proceeds to Mr. A. Thus title and ownership would pass to a third party directly without Dealer 1 ever actually owning the vehicle himself. Unless his company accounts show that he did actually add the vehicle to his list of assetts and account for its value in his company's net worth, then he did never own it at all and any claim that he did own it would be untrue.
As performance of the contract as originally intended was not performed as envisaged by each party completing the transaction, then no trade ever took place. Mr. A is still legally the owner of the vehicle, and Dealer 1 has defrauded Dealer 2 out of a sum of money by deception and 'passing off' the vehicle as something to which he has clear title.
Mr. A should, maybe, go and ask a court to issue an order instructing Dealer 2 to release the vehicle to its rightful owner or, alternatively, just go round and take it. The police would not be interested as it would be a civil matter so far as they are concerned, so long as insurance is in place. Alternatively, the vehicle may be considered stolen (under the Theft Act 1968) and the original insurers could well be asked to intervene.
Taking a possibly simplistic view, Mr. A had a verbal contract with Dealer 1 that he would hold safe for him his car whilst selling it and passing the proceeds to Mr. A. Thus title and ownership would pass to a third party directly without Dealer 1 ever actually owning the vehicle himself. Unless his company accounts show that he did actually add the vehicle to his list of assetts and account for its value in his company's net worth, then he did never own it at all and any claim that he did own it would be untrue.
As performance of the contract as originally intended was not performed as envisaged by each party completing the transaction, then no trade ever took place. Mr. A is still legally the owner of the vehicle, and Dealer 1 has defrauded Dealer 2 out of a sum of money by deception and 'passing off' the vehicle as something to which he has clear title.
Mr. A should, maybe, go and ask a court to issue an order instructing Dealer 2 to release the vehicle to its rightful owner or, alternatively, just go round and take it. The police would not be interested as it would be a civil matter so far as they are concerned, so long as insurance is in place. Alternatively, the vehicle may be considered stolen (under the Theft Act 1968) and the original insurers could well be asked to intervene.
Yes but Mr A has given docs to dealer 1, so how does he prove he is the owner? That would be a second theft i.e. Mr A stealing from Dealer 2.
Surely Dealer 2 is more or less innocent in that he has probably paid dealer 1 for the car? Dealer 1 hasn't passed the money to Mr A, so it is Dealer 1 who is accountable..?
If dealer 2 knew the arrangement and was some how in on it, then ok has a part to play, but if he has paid money in good faith, then he has a case that could work in both his and Mr A's favours if they were to bring action on Dealer 1.
Mind you - why give the dealer the documents..? DUR!!
Surely Dealer 2 is more or less innocent in that he has probably paid dealer 1 for the car? Dealer 1 hasn't passed the money to Mr A, so it is Dealer 1 who is accountable..?
If dealer 2 knew the arrangement and was some how in on it, then ok has a part to play, but if he has paid money in good faith, then he has a case that could work in both his and Mr A's favours if they were to bring action on Dealer 1.
Mind you - why give the dealer the documents..? DUR!!
Dealer 2 has paid for the vehicle........insurers are not involved........the police are......the original owner hasnt been paid but he asked the garage to sell it for him.........they sold it to a motor trader(and were paid by him) who then passed it onto a second motor trader(and he paid him).....the original owner has not been paid by the gagage, he then saw the vehicle been advertised for sale by trader no 2 and then went to the police and said the gargae hadnt paid him for the vehicle.
Currently the owner is out of pocket, however if the police take the vehicle, trader no 2 is then out of pocket.......I would presume the courts would decide who the rightful owner is, however it could take a year to get to court he is told, which would mean the vehicle will sit in a police compund until it is sorted out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff