Legal standing on used car sales

I dont work in civil law but i'm sure durability doesn't come into it. It needs to be fit for purpose. This obviously isn't but then I also dont think you need to prove he had reason to believe or knew it wasn't fit for purpose.

After all, if you buy some clothes and the seam splits the seller would have no reason to believe it would happen or even know it would but SOGA would mean they'd have to reimburse you or make good the product.

Lemonade_Pockets wrote: »

From the oracle

Second-hand goods

• Sale of goods act still applies
  Second hand goods and sales goods bought from shops still follow the same rules, if they're faulty then you can still return them. The idea that because you've bought sale or second hand goods means you can't return them is wrong. They must be of satisfactory quality, but the price must be taken into account. If you buy a car for a fiver, you don't have a right to expect it to run normally. If you are made aware of any faults when you buy them, you can't return them later because of that fault though.
• With private sellers it's ‘buyer beware'
  However buy second hand goods from private sellers and you've only a right that the product is correctly described and the owner has the right to sell it. Here it's caveat emptor or let the buyer beware. If the buyer says nothing and no description and you buy it – then that's it – even if it doesn't do what you thought it may – you were not missold.
• Second hand cars specifically
  If buying from a trader your rights are the same as always. However certain factors must be taken into account. A car should be fit to use on the road, be in a condition that effects its age and price and be reasonably reliable. ‘Sold as seen' has no basis in law, your sale of goods act rights still apply.
  Note private sellers of cars works like all second hand private sales (see above) however unless stated you have a right to expect the car will pass an MOT.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchan#second

very true but b etween to private parties it will not apply as stated

tomcat ???

If not doesn't £750 seem very high ?

I can see this getting serious however if the trader is unwilling. He will no doubt say SOGA yes, but maybe for a 1999 car at £1500 not this one given age and price- as it is a 14 year old £750 car and push it to go away. I'd say the person may need to put up a good fight.

You might not be able to reject it because you had it serviced - an act of accepting ownership. Unless the car was not serviced because the mechanic you took it to ended up not servicing it because he realised the head was gone and told you before doing any work to it. Then you can claim that you just took it to a garage to have this red light looked at, for an opinion before taking back to the seller - but even this could be seen as an act of ownership. (in the case below (and other cases such as Farnworth Finance v Attryde) the repair attempts were done by the selling garage, you took yours to an outside third party garage)

When you buy a car as second hand, you buy it with all that you can expect from a car of that age - did the OP say it was 14 years old? How many miles?-

Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre
Renault 19, 80,000 miles, 5 years old, £2995

Not driveable after 2 weeks

Ms Thain purchased a car from a dealer, Anniesland the car was 5 - 6 yrs old Renault 19 and had cocered approx 80K miles.
Ms Thain paid £2995 for the car, she declined an option to buy a 3 month warranty, after 2 weeks she discovered a gearbox bearing was worn and decided to reject the car, a repair being uneconomic, the dealer offered a number of replacement cars, but Ms Thain insisted on a full refund claiming the car was not of satisfactory quality, the dealer refused.
Held The relevent aspects of s14. were 'fitness for purpose' (S 14(2B)(a)) and 'durability' (S 14(2B)(e)). The gearbox bearing was not faulty at the time of sale and so the car was at that time fit for its purpose, the defect could have emerged at any time due to normal wear and tear given the age and mileage of the Renault. Therefore the cars durability was a matter of luck. The price was reasonable, much less than the new model. In the circumstances a reasonable person would accept that there was a risk of expensive repairs. Ms Thain could have covered the risk by purchasing a warranty thus the car was of satisfactory quality.


The Verdict in Thain
“Even a negligible degree of durability may not represent unsatisfactory quality where the secondhand car supplied is as old and as heavily used as the Renault had been. The plain fact is that, given the Renault's age and mileage when supplied, its durability was a matter of luck. Durability, in all the circumstances, was simply not a
quality that a reasonable person would demand of it.”

Anniesland were lucky in that case as the car was driveable when they sold it, so they could categorically say that the bearing was not faulty at point of sale - because when the bearing became faulty the car could no longer be driven.
**************************************************

An element of protection is afforded to you when you buy with a warranty, if the car has a warranty your ability to reject soon after purchase is improved....

Lutton V Saville Tractors limited (belfast)
A three year old Ford Escort was sold by a dealer to a consumer with a three month warranty. The car had or developed many minor faults and many attempts to rmedy themhad been made by the dealer. After seven weeks and having covered 3 - 4K miles, the buyer rejected the car claiming inter alia that it was not of merchantable quality.
Held The rejection was not too late. The buyer had not 'accepted' the goods under s35 SOGA by assenting to repairs beforehand. Further, he had not affirmed the contract for the purposes of rescission for misrepresentation by agreeing to repairs.
NB Although this car was second hand it was unmerchantable. Emphasis was placed on the issue of a warranty which was evidence that the parties expected a period of trouble free motoring from the car

However in this case the judge (Carswell J.) also indicated that if the vehicle was an older model, with higher mileage, sold at a lower price and did not create expectations of high performance, defects of the kind detected would not have rendered it unmerchantable. On the test of merchantable quality Carswell J. indicated the Denning M.R. test in Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus...........
In Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus, Denning M.R. indicated that a vehicle is merchantable if it is in usable condition even if not perfect.
***************************************************


In the OP case he would have to show that the car had a blown head gasket at purchase (the red light only came on later). Or it could be argued the seller would have to show that it wasn't blown at point of sale. However looking at Denning M.R. it could be argued that the vehicle was still in a usable condition even though the HG may or may not have been blown at point of sale.

OP needs to say when the car was purchased, when the garage told him the HG was blown, and when he phoned the seller.

TINLA, IANAL