The buyer that bought a bus and brought it back - Part 2

mr_fishbulb

Any updates on this? I'm missing my fix

code-a-holic

Still no updates im afraid! Heared no more from the police....is no news good news?!

grayme-m

I'd be tempted to ask him (as another interested ebay party), how he's getting on with his new bus given that you were interested in one like it...

trencherpilot

Just read this and the previous saga! What a muppet the scottish guy is.

My first question to him would be (As a driver of HGV and plant machinery) Have you ever driven anything larger than a mini? because he hit a bridge for crying out loud. 1st rule of operating large vehicles is if in doubt swing it out. Give yourself more manouvering room.

Plus (and I've checked Zebedees photos) there were fully functional mirrors on both front corners. (For looking behind you!!!)

This guy has more neck than a giraffe to buy a vehicle, crash it then want his money back.

As they say in our yard F*** him off!!!

qwopmnxz

any update on this? have read this from the start and interested to hear the outcome

dazco

Take more responsibility, I say.

The brakes may have been dodgy when you sold it. Find out if the were or not then take it from there.

smartie1976

You would have to KNOW it was in an unroadworthy condition to be fully liable.
And we don't even know it was unroadworthy before the accident, and then it would have to be proved that it was.

So moot point, surely.

bluep

If it's illegal to sell a car in an unroadworthy condition then how on earth do people sell them for restoration projects, scrap, parts etc...?

As I understand MOT rules - all an MOT shows is that it was roadworthy at that date and point in time - it is the owner's responsibility (i.e. the buyer!) to check and maintain a roadworthy vehicle throughout the year which is why when the police pull you over for emissions/tires etc... you don't just wave an mot cert at them and go on your merry way. but like I say, that's as I understand it....

I believe this is a civil matter and you would have to either be at "fault" or under "strict liability". To prove negligence and liability for consequent events, he would have to prove that
a) you had a duty of care - this relies on 3 tests - foresight (that you could reasonably foresee the brake problem), proximity (that the buyer was involved in a contract with you), and judicial policy (would it be fair and reasonable to say you had a duty of care)
b) that this duty of care was breached
c) that the breach of duty was the cause of damage
d) that the damages were not too remote

In this case, this is all sounding rather tenuous to say the least! You advertised a fair and reasonable reflection of the bus's condition - is this isn't the case legally then how do people sell second hand cars AT ALL if they are liable for any faults in between the sale and the next MOT?

In order for the damages to not be remote, he would have to prove that the crash was caused by the brake problem, rather than a misjudgement in driving, animal on the road, speeding etc... If he couldn't prove that fully, then any damages awarded would be lessened by the extent that he contributed to the crash.

I'm not in the legal trade though so don't think that this is all completly correct, just my understanding of it!!

tempuscat

It's quite clear that as the seller of the vehicle, you behaved irresponsibly in failing to dismantle any and all bridges the buyer was likely to negotiate after leaving your premises. You should also have filled in any and all pot-holes and other highway defects which the seller was likely to confront, regardless of the distance involved.

A further point. As it may have rained after the buyer acquired your bus, you should have provided him with a satellite weather read-out or, alternatively, an astrological forecast based on his birth sign, as this may well have forewarned him of the malevolent conjunction of planets, buses, and bridges.

The buyer may also have grounds for legal action in view of your failure to provide a packed lunch or dinner, as lack of nourishment could have been a contributory factor in the subsequent accident.

These are legal issues of serious importance and may well require further investigation by an entire police force. By contrast, the question of selling a non-roadworthy vehicle -- if such the bus be -- is of no moment at all: you did not warrant the vehicle's road worthiness in terms explicit or implied, and as the buyer is presumed to have legal title once the purchase contract has been fulfilled, it is he, not you, who is responsible for ensuring that it is in a fit and proper condition for journeying The Queen's Highway.

The court will therefore dismiss any action brought on the road worthiness issue but could quite properly conclude that your failure to dismantle bridges, mend roads, provide food, weather maps and horoscopes collectively amounts to criminal neglect, in which case you would be advised to appeal such decision as far as The House of Lords, it being a fact that no case precedent exists in the matter of Smith's Bus versus Large Bridge and so a definitive handing down is now overdue.

You may also wish to contact the Chairman of your local Police Authority to ask what other major anti-crime initiatives are being undertaken in your area in view of the seeming abundance of time and resource available to your local constabulary. . .

highguyuk

And here it goes again ... when will this thread end!