Legal Advice regarding Car Sale

[cs174]

Hi all,
I wonder if I could ask the collective wisdom of PH for some advice regarding a recent car sale and subsequent claim.

My car was previously advertised for sale on Ebay and there were two potential buyers, lets call them Buyer A and Buyer B. Buyer A viewed the car but didn’t make an offer initially. Buyer B was in the process of arranging to have the car inspected by a local specialist prior to viewing as he lived some distance away.

After the Ebay listing ended, I received an offer via WhatsApp from Buyer A that I agreed to. I then informed Buyer B so he could cancel the inspection. Buyer B then made a counter-offer without seeing the car. So, an hour after accepting Buyer A’s offer via WhatsApp, I informed Buyer A of the counter-offer from Buyer B and asked if he would consider increasing his offer. He initially declined, as he didn’t want to get into a Dutch auction then later asked me how much I would accept to sell the car to him. By this time Buyer B had paid a deposit of £1000. On receipt of the deposit from Buyer B, I considered the car to be sold.

For those interested, the car was a TVR Griffith that was sold to Buyer B for £27,500. Buyer A offered £26,500.

Buyer A has since sent me several letters requesting £2000, which I ignored as in my opinion this is attempted extortion. Buyer A has now raised a claim through Online Civil Money Claims for over £2000 for “loss of bargain”.

Whilst I accept that, morally, I shouldn’t have accepted an offer and then change my mind, I don’t think I acted illegally and I don’t see how Buyer A has incurred any financial loss due to my actions.

I’ve spoken to Citizens Advice and have made an appointment to speak to a solicitor but would appreciate the advice of PH on how best to reply to the claim.

Thanks in advance...

[cs174]

Thanks for all the replies. I now have a much better understanding of the situation.

In terms of the evidence provided by Buyer A to support the Online Civil Money Claim, this includes a copy of the WhatsApp messages, copies of the letters he previously sent, photo of my initial advert, photos of the car sent to him by WhatsApp prior to sale and, importantly, printout of similar cars advertised for sale to support Buyer A's valuation of the car.

It does not appear that Buyer A has actually purchased a car of similar age, mileage, condition etc. for £28,500. He is only referring to adverts of similar cars which shows the asking price. There is also no mention of him being a trader with another purchaser ready to buy. The claim does not include any other evidence to support the 'loss of bargain' other than essentially the WhatsApp messages and the adverts of similar cars.

Would Buyer A have had to actually purchase a similar car for £28,500 to have incurred a loss of £2000?

[cs174]

Thesprucegoose said:

Did A know about B?

Yes, I told him about the other offer

[cs174]

talksthetorque said:

IANAL but I want to ask you a couple of questions.

What was your car advertised at?

Has the claimant give any evidence of contacting other owners of advertised vehicles to ask for a best negotiated price?

The car was initially advertised at 30k but there were no viewings. I then dropped the price and advertised the car at 27k.

The claimant has not provided any evidence of contacting other owners to ask for a best negotiated price.

[cs174]

Thank all for the replies, particularly Integroo and tinnitusjosh.

Given that the car was sold almost three months ago, and assuming the claimant has not yet purchased a similar vehicle, could this demonstrate that he has no intention to 'effect the cure'?

Also, if this does go to court, will I have the opportunity to have the hearing at my local court rather than have to travel a few hundred miles to the claimants local court?

Is it worth making him a 'without prejudice' offer of a few hundred pounds for breach of contract? I don't think he will be successful with his 'loss of bargain' claim but would like to try to resolve this if possible.

[cs174]

Thanks for all the responses. The content of the WhatsApp messages are along the lines of:

Buyer A: If you will take 26k I will buy it as soon as you want.

OP: I'd be willing to meet you halfway at £26,500.

Buyer A: We have a deal. When are you able to do the exchange

OP: Can we do the exchange on Saturday morning

Buyer A: OK

OP: Buyer B has offered £27,500. Would you consider increasing your offer

Buyer A: I thought we had reached an agreement. I've viewed, made you the offer, you counter-offered and I've agreed. I don't want to get involved in a Dutch auction.

OP: In that case, I need to accept the higher offer.

Buyer A: I admit that I really did want your car. How much more than his offer would I have to pay to get it?

OP: Sorry Buyer A, I've now taken a deposit, the car is now sold.

The important points for me is his offer is to buy it as soon as I want which was agreed to be the following Saturday. My understanding, rightly or wrongly, was that we agreed the price that I would sell Buyer A the car at on the following Saturday. Buyer B then bought the car before the Saturday.

Thoughts?

[cs174]

Breadvan72 said:

Back on topic, ISTR that the OP in this thread sent me an email asking for advice. If it was the same bloke, I think that I may have chucked a flea into his ear. Pacta sunt servanda: agreements should be honoured. A deal is a deal.

That wasn't me Breadvan72 but I do appreciate your contribution to these forums.

Anyway, just to update anyone who is interested, this issue has finally come to a conclusion. The claimant had the case moved to his local court and then Covid happened, hence the delay. Both the Claimant and I were asked if the claim could be dealt with by the Court with neither of us present or represented, we both agreed.

As a recap, I advertised my TVR for sale, had an offer of £26,500 from Buyer A which I agreed to, then a second offer of £27,500 from Buyer B. Asked Buyer A if he would increase his offer which he declined, sold the car to Buyer B for £27,500. The Claimants position was that we'd entered into a Contract and I maintained we'd only agreed the price.

The Court has reviewed the case and has found in favour of the Claimant. The Court awarded the Claimant £1000 plus the fees of £105. I've already paid this in full.

I have paid almost £3,000 in legal fees and my solicitor thought the claimant was mad. The Barrister who attended the hearing (on the advice of my solicitor) thought I'd be able to recover my legal costs as the Claimant was being unreasonable. Only when the legal fees exceeded the initial claim did I bring their services to a halt.

Anyway, the Judge used the 'Chitty on Contracts - 33rd Edition' as guidance and cites Perry v Suffields Ltd, amongst others, as similar examples. Basically, the Judge has concluded that there was an intent to enter into a Contract by agreeing a price for the TVR.

Although the claimant has failed to demonstrate a loss, the Judge ruled that to determine the loss would involve an evaluation by an expert engineer, however, as the car I sold was no longer available this was not possible.

The judgement is 11 pages and I am not a lawyer! If anyone wants to see the full document, I'd be happy to post it up here with personal details redacted.

So, when selling a car, be careful out there, folks. I'm down £4k. Some may say I deserve it but I genuinely thought Buyer A was trying it on. This was reiterated by my solicitor. As it turns out, the free legal advice on PH was more accurate than the legal advice I paid for.

PH, well done again

[cs174]

Muzzer79 said:

Do you still believe that you were in the right?

i.e agreeing a price with Buyer A and then selling for more to Buyer B?

In what way do you think that Buyer A was trying it on?

Yes because I don't believe I entered into a contract but the court has already determined that I am in the wrong. Will I make the same mistake again? No.

I think Buyer A was trying it on by:
- asking me to give him £2k which was £1k more than I'd sold the car for.
- claiming we'd entered into a contract when we'd only agreed the price (I respect that the court has determined otherwise)
- claiming he was unable to attend my local court so the hearing is moved to his local court where his daughter is a solicitor

This is all pretty much irrelevant now though, the case is over.

Edited by cs174 on Thursday 10th June 19:29

[cs174]

fooman said:

Thanks for updating OP I hope you get over it OK. On a different day with a different judge I'd be 100% sure it could go a different way. The balance of probability can be weighted by emphasis on different 'facts' and what the judge heard on the radio that morning etc. Very few things go to court that are clear cut so can always go either way. On that basis I'd always try to avoid anything getting that far, rather than fighting a point of principle, so perhaps I'd would have offered claimant £500 for it to go away; too late I know, just speculating.

I agree. If the claimant initially asked for £1k, I'd have tried to negotiate it down to £500. However, he initially asked for £2k and would only come down to £1k which at the time I thought was too much.

[cs174]

e-honda said:

What did the judge say about eBay's terms?

As the car was sold outside of Ebay, their terms weren't mentioned

[cs174]

Red Devil said:

cs174 said:

Muzzer79 said:

Do you still believe that you were in the right?

i.e agreeing a price with Buyer A and then selling for more to Buyer B?

In what way do you think that Buyer A was trying it on?

Yes because I don't believe I entered into a contract but the court has already determined that I am in the wrong. Will I make the same mistake again? No.

I think Buyer A was trying it on by:
- asking me to give him £2k which was £1k more than I'd sold the car for.
- claiming we'd entered into a contract when we'd only agreed the price (I respect that the court has determined otherwise)
- claiming he was unable to attend my local court so the hearing is moved to his local court where his daughter is a solicitor
This is all pretty much irrelevant now though, the case is over.

Edited by cs174 on Thursday 10th June 19:29

This is the bit which doesn't seem right. AFAICS CPR Part 26 Rule 26.2A provides that the claim is allocated to the defendant's home court.
You could have advanced the exact same argument that you couldn't attend in his local court.
In which case I would have expected the court officer allocating the case to decide in the defendant's (your) favour.

If you had legal representation why wasn't the claimant's application for it to be heard in his backyard challenged?
County Court claims are a lottery. You might have got a judge who came to a different decision.

What on earth possessed you to rack up legal costs 50% higher than the amount the claimant was seeking?
A barrister involved in a 2k County Court small claims track case?! Sheesh: your solicitor took you for a ride imo.

The legal fees were around £1.3k at the time it was transferred to the Claimants local court, then my solicitor sent a large bill out of the blue. I totally agree my solicitor has taken me for a ride.

[cs174]

Jayne Redland said:

I'm no expert, but I think you took yourself for a ride, OP. Looks like some lawyers posted on the thread saying you were going to lose. You lost, and looks to me no use complaining about it, or trying to argue things here that you didn't try in court or which you tried but didn't work.

Sorry if I came across as complaining or arguing, that wasn't my intention. I was just updating the thread to let people know the outcome. The case is over and I've moved on.

[cs174]

Marcellus said:

For there to be a contract there has to be the following;
- an offer and acceptance.
- consideration to be exchanged
- be legal (ie a drugs deal is not a legal contract)
- be an intent to enter a legal relationship.

In this instance to be they (buyer and seller) met these tests in the following way;
- buyer said I’ll give you £x which seller said yes to.
- the buyer was going to pay the vendor, the vendor was going to give the car to the buyer.
- it’s perfectly legal to buy/sell a car you own (assuming the vendor owns the car he’s selling)
- I’d the vendor gave the buyer the car but the buyer then didn’t pay would the vendor believe he could take the buyer to court to get his money? Likewise if the buyer paid his money but the vendor didn’t give him the car would he? Both would say yes therefore both have the intent to create a legal relationship.

If you want to prevent form getting into this position it’s quite simple “don’t accept the offer” or if you do honour the contract you’ve made.

There's a lot of "if's" in that statement. The seller didn't give the buyer money for the car, the buyer didn't pay any money at all. What you are saying is exactly what the court said. By agreeing the price for the car, there was an intent to enter into a contract.

So, is intent sufficient in UK law? If I buy a hot girl a drink with an intent to hump her, is that rape?

Edited by cs174 on Saturday 12th June 20:13

Edited by cs174 on Saturday 12th June 20:17

[cs174]

e-honda said:

Can you just clarify if it was an eBay classifieds advert or an eBay auction?

The car was advertised on eBay. The claimant came to view and offered to buy out with eBay.

[cs174]

ralphrj said:

The offer is one part of forming a contract. Consideration (the exchange of cash doesn't need to happen at the same time) is another. Both are required (with other things) to form a contract.

The discussions between the seller and the buyer afterwards where an offer was made, the offer was accepted and consideration was agreed was binding.

The court was satisfied that what took place in the discussions had formed a binding contract. That's it.

In my defence, I accept there was an offer that was accepted but I don't agree that 'consideration' took place or was agreed. The Judge ruled that by agreeing the price there was an intent to enter into a contract. That tells me that we hadn't actually entered into a contract.

I've obviously learned a valuable lesson here and I hope others have too.

E-honda, you get a lot of stick on this thread but, with the benefit of hindsight, I think your suggestion for my defense is worthy of consideration. I don't know if it would have changed the outcome but it may have influenced it.

[cs174]

The Spruce Goose said:

if BV72 is still kicking about and not in a rum fuelled haze, he might proffer some advice.

He already has and I should have listened to his free advice rather than listen to my paid for legal advice.

[cs174]

BlackWidow13 said:

Surely the judge meant that when you both agreed the price you did so with intent to create a contract.

So why does contract law stipulate that several other requirements should be met to form a contract if agreeing a price is sufficient? Genuine question.

[cs174]

Marcellus said:

By agreeing to exchange consideration,

Thanks for the reply, I don't understand what this means, can you please explain?

I'm not challenging the decision if the court, just trying to fully understand it so I don't make the same mistake again.

[cs174]

Marcellus said:

Consideration agreed to pass both ways.... you agreed to give the buyer the car he agreed to give you some money.

It’s called consideration as it doesn’t have to be money that’s being exchanged, for example you give him your car and he agrees to repair your roof, a court doesn’t concern itself with the value.

This is why you hear of companies being sold for £1.

Sorry to labour this point but I didn't agree to give the buyer the car. I agreed the price to be paid at the point of exchange, i.e. when the buyer paid the agree price.

The court and most posters on here see otherwise and I respect that decision.

[cs174]

Cascade360 said:

It's very apparent you don't understand the basics of contract law. That's fine; most people don't, and you are allowed to feel aggrieved at how it has operated. You can't however argue that the judge was wrong when you don't understand the basics of the laws he applied...

I'm not arguing that the Jude was wrong, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the decision so I don't make the same mistake again.