Pete Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 What kind of recompense should you expect if you've bought something as a private sale? Say you bought a second hand car on face value and found it was nailed, would you have any rights to send it back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 If it was not as described yes, I would have thought, second hand or new it shouldn't make any difference. Might not be that way in the eyes of the law though, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outatime Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 As Thorin says, you need to have evidence it was not as described and that the buyer was aware of whatever problems/faults transpired. Unless you have something in writing it is very hard to prove either way. Even something like 'VGC' or 'mint' on an advert is unlikely to be enough unless you have evidence the seller knew anything to the contrary. Trading Standards basically told me to forget it when I had issues with my first Corvette. Luckily for me, the seller was a decent guy and we came to an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I know where this is coming from and as unpopular as it maybe, if you have bought it, it is the buyers responsibility to check the item thoroughly. Once it is paid for well then it is game over with regards private sales.. I know this isn't what people want to see, but such is reality I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 Trading Standards basically told me to forget it when I had issues with my first Corvette. Luckily for me, the seller was a decent guy and we came to an agreement. I suspect that's what it would always boil down to, hoping the seller is reasonable. Otherwise legal route would be expensive and still possibly not yield any positive results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outatime Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I suspect that's what it would always boil down to, hoping the seller is reasonable. Otherwise legal route would be expensive and still possibly not yield any positive results. Indeed. From 'The Sale of Goods Act' (1975) regarding private sales: "You have no rights to expect the goods to be of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose, but there is a requirement that they are 'as described' You would need to prove that a) The car was not as described and b) The seller was aware of the problems. The car I bought was a write off. Trading Standards told me that even with something signed by the seller stating that is was unequivocally not a write off, I would still have to prove that he was aware of the cars history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I know where this is coming from and as unpopular as it maybe, if you have bought it, it is the buyers responsibility to check the item thoroughly. Once it is paid for well then it is game over with regards private sales.. I know this isn't what people want to see, but such is reality I think. I agree, sold as seen, buyers responsibility. Only tradres offer warranties! I've been there with buying cars I didn't check out properly, just have to suck it down and get on with it. Plus on the other hand I've sold a car that was really reliable, 2 days after the head gasket went, I obviously had no idea and I'd sold it to a friend. Luckily they understood I didn't know. Still felt bad though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Pete. Can you give some more explaination as to the situation. The rules depend on whether the person was a business or not, whether they (and you) are experienced with the type of product for sale, what representations were made etc. You have the Sales of Goods Act but if you bought the item you are likely to have a contract and thus you have the ability to claim misrep. For misrep you need: an unambiguous, false, statement of fact (or law), addressed to the party misled, which is material and induces the contract, and causes loss. The remedy would depend on whether the statement/info was viewed as a condition or a warranty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I know where this is coming from and as unpopular as it maybe, if you have bought it, it is the buyers responsibility to check the item thoroughly. Once it is paid for well then it is game over with regards private sales.. Realistically, I think this is the case for private sales. In theory the law is on your side, but proving any wrongdoing would be very difficult. As marbleapple said, if it was sold by a business then the seesaw starts to really swing in your favour. There's some legislation (possibly the Sale of Goods Act) where the burden of proof regarding the suitability of goods is on the seller, not the consumer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 Pete. Can you give some more explaination as to the situation. Sure http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=133097 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Sure http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=133097 I read that earlier today (anything to avoid work). Seems a right mess. (and I don't really want to get involved). There is certainly an argument for misrepresentation, but the argument I would guess would hinge on the knowledge of the item by both buyer and seller, the reliance on the advice of the seller, what evidence that the seller is lying, and the condition of the item. All of this would be argued in court. For the cost of £1000 for an engine, it would be cheaper for both parties to settle rather than go to court. Solicitors would love such an argument and at a couple of hundred an hour would either party want to take the risk of losing? - I always meant to find out whether the SOGA applied to contracting individuals (as opposed to businesses). If it does then the seller is likely up shit creek without a paddle. Edit: If CF did not sell the motor to Razza then it is nothing to do with CF. Razza should be seeking damages off Rovervi for the above and then Rovervi should be after CF to indemnify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 What I don't understand with that dispute thread is why ColdFlame is even discussing it with Razza. If CF didn't sell it to him then he has no responsibility to Razza. Razza's dispute is with Rovervi as far as I can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 What I don't understand with that dispute thread is why ColdFlame is even discussing it with Razza. If CF didn't sell it to him then he has no responsibility to Razza. Razza's dispute is with Rovervi as far as I can see. If CF didnt sell it to Razza then CF has no liability. Razza should be after Rovervi IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Sure http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=133097 I knew it would be over that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Ive not read every detail of the thread, so dont take this to the bank! but i reckon that when buying a second hand engine your taking the risk, same with a second hand car, if the engine is totally buggered, then i reckon the legal route wouldnt provide anything for razza, but Coldflame has offered some compensation as a gesture of good will so.. i dont know. what i do know is the dispute should only be between 2 parties, theres now 4 people in there!!?!? For another other related disputes other threads should be started Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz1 Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 i read that through twice but i am still confused, surely you cannot buy an engine of 3 people:search: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 but Coldflame has offered some compensation as a gesture of good will No, he has offered £500 provided that Keron will give him the same amount - which Keron has, understandably, already said he won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 i read that through twice but i am still confused, surely you cannot buy an engine of 3 people:search: Thats what I missed the first time. I thought he bought it off CF As it stands the final buyer can only claim from his seller and it goes back up the chain. Thus the buyer int he dispute thread is falling out with the wrong bloke. I'm not commenting anymore on this thread... the dispute thread is there for a reason so I shouldn't have commented to begin with really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 I am going to wait until the end of the dispute and then post my thoughts on the dispute itself and the way it is being handled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPRASUZUKI Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 I am going to wait until the end of the dispute and then post my thoughts on the dispute itself and the way it is being handled. Me too. It's not fair to comment until the dispute is resolved (IMHO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 9, 2007 Author Share Posted December 9, 2007 I'm not so sure this one will be resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 I'm not so sure this one will be resolved. I agree Pete. Once again, without wishing to say too much on this issue before it is finalised, I feel that the way it is being handled is bemusing to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tDR Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 I'm not sure why we're discussing a dispute openly - I'm beginning to think the dispute resolution forum is a waste of time with threads like this popping up for everyone to chip in their 2p especially with limited facts or knowledge on the situation and the 'behind the scenes' activity. The members of the dispute elected for it to effectively be a dispute between coldflame and razza, mainly to cut out some parties from the chain. As such it was handled in this manner and 'in the spirit of the club'. I agree entirely from a legal standpoint (and it is a shame) that it will have to be handled between direct buyers and sellers and so to that end razza will have to take action against rovervi and rovervi take action from there. Whether anyone other than legal representatives benefits at the end of the day is anyones guess. Cheers, Brian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 I'm not sure why we're discussing a dispute openly - I'm beginning to think the dispute resolution forum is a waste of time with threads like this popping up for everyone to chip in their 2p especially with limited facts or knowledge on the situation and the 'behind the scenes' activity. The members of the dispute elected for it to effectively be a dispute between coldflame and razza, mainly to cut out some parties from the chain. As such it was handled in this manner and 'in the spirit of the club'. I agree entirely from a legal standpoint (and it is a shame) that it will have to be handled between direct buyers and sellers and so to that end razza will have to take action against rovervi and rovervi take action from there. Whether anyone other than legal representatives benefits at the end of the day is anyones guess. Cheers, Brian. As one of the people who posted in this thread I have to say that I object to the thinly veiled accusation that I / we somehow disrupted the thread in the dispute section. I can see nothing posted in this thread that couldn't be perceived as common knowledge and as such, could have been posted anywhere. Now, if I am wrong here and the rules have changed to say that no member is allowed to post anything relating to a dispute outside that dispute forum, then please let me (and others) know so that we will not break this rule from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 As one of the people who posted in this thread I have to say that I object to the thinly veiled accusation that I / we somehow disrupted the thread in the dispute section. I can see nothing posted in this thread that couldn't be perceived as common knowledge and as such, could have been posted anywhere. Now, if I am wrong here and the rules have changed to say that no member is allowed to post anything relating to a dispute outside that dispute forum, then please let me (and others) know so that we will not break this rule from now on. Watch yourself, I like you lots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.