£500 scooter bought on ebay - broke down after 8 days

Wig wrote: »

It makes no difference if he is a trader or not (in this example) I believe you could get a court to believe he is a trader, if he sells more than 3 a year. However, this is a 2nd hand used old vehicle sold without warranty. The vehicle drove well for 200 miles and then developed a fuel blockage (allegedly). A very real risk of older vehicles is that they develop faults. When you buy a used vehicle without warranty you take on those risks even from a trader.

Best thing to do is to ask seller nicely if he can think of any reason this happened - maybe he did some work on the fuel system which could help you to narrow down the problem, and if he could possibly have a look at it for you to fix for free or at a reduced cost.

Failing that if you have any mechanical logic/knowledge, buy a haynes manual and try to fix it.

Failing that pay for it to be fixed.

Rotor wrote: »

The reason i talk about "being a trader" is that i believe this results in an implied warranty in that it has to be fit for purpose and the courts have previously decided any fault manifesting in the first 3 months was likely to have been present when the vehicle was sold and therefore he sold a faulty product.

In general, however, motor vehicles which are defective will not be merchantable if the performance of the car is prejudiced, the defect cannot be easily remedied or repair will be expensive or take some time to perform: Bernstein v. Pamson Motors ( Golders Green) Ltd.4 applying the leading case of Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus.45
Where the vehicle is second hand the traditional view of protection available to the consumer has been far from generous. In Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus, Denning M.R. indicated that a vehicle is merchantable if it is in usable condition even if not perfect. The standard has risen in relation to "exclusive" or prestige models, following Shine v. General Guarantee Corporation46 and in a recent Northern Ireland case the Denning M.R. test was denied a literal application. Carswell J., in Lutton v. Saville Tractors Ltd.47 held in favour of the purchaser of a three year old Ford Escort XR3 who found the vehicle unsatisfactory and although the defects were minor, performance was clearly affected. Given the age, the price paid, the model involved, and the low mileage, the buyer could expect a better vehicle than that provided, particularly when given an express warranty in relation to the vehicle. Carswell J. 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 that the Denning M.R. test in Bartlett v. Sidney Marcus

"is not universally valid in sales of second hand cars, nor would Lord Denning have intended it to be. At the end of the day a decision whether a car is of merchantable quality is a matter of fact and degree, and it is essential to take account of the factors specified in the statutory definition.''48
The merchantable quality test can still produce some surprising results, as the case of Harlington Ltd. v. Hull Fine Art Ltd.49 shows. A painting, wrongly thought to be by a particular German expressionist was sold for £6,000. When it was discovered to be a forgery the purchaser sought rescission as it was of a much lower value. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, held the painting still to be merchantable, mainly because the work could still be appreciated in an aesthetic sense even though its value was between £50 and £ 100.