sold as seen - urgent advise needed

ABH_3

pendulum wrote: »

That's the exact feeling I got reading your post.
Absolute load of tosh.

"Fitness for purpose", "of merchantable quality" - you're quoting from section S.14 of the Sales of Goods Act which only applies to businesses! :rolleyes: Get your facts right.

Yes, I should have included a caveat that SOGA wasn't applicable good catch, have a virtual cookie! Oh yes and to correct you, it's actually 'consumer legislation', not business. You should consider taking your own advice and get your facts right.

So to satisfy pendulum: Try to avoid using terms such as Merchantable Quality unless you first make the judge aware that you know it's not covered by such legislation ie: 'even though I KNOW it's not applicable, but if this was a regular consumer sale the caravan wouldn't have qualified as of Merchantable Quality we later found, owing to the dirty great big hole we found in one corner' etc.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to get the idea. What's more it's clear that the seller intended to rip you off, unless it was such a minor hole or fault that it was something they could have conceivably forgotten about.

HTH

amersall

mirry wrote: »

she claims she didnt know cos her husband passed away last year ,,,
just dont know whats true to be honest .

My father in law has just said he doesnt mind stripping all the wood at the front of the caravan and rebuilding it inside , so maybe all is not lost .

The man is supposed to be coming in the morning with half the money and says he is going to write a letter saying he ows us the other half.
would that letter stand up well in court if needed or not ?

the van is 11 year old.

if your father in law can repair it and you are getting half your money back what is the problem? i would settle for that

pendulum

ABH wrote: »

Oh yes and to correct you, it's actually 'consumer legislation', not business.

How pathetic. You've issued paragraphs of ridiculous advice and are now trying to be pedantic. When I said it applies to businesses, in the context in which I said it, it was obvious I was referring to the OP buying from businesses as opposed to private sellers.

Dear oh dear.

ABH_3

pendulum wrote: »

How pathetic. You've issued paragraphs of ridiculous advice and are now trying to be pedantic.

Misrepresentation, Omission and Context. If you need anymore then well, all I can say is:

Dear oh dear.

:rolleyes:

Of course afterall that, I now note that the OP is to receive assistance of her FIL and receive cash back from the sellers too.

Case closed I think.

Tozer

pinkshoes wrote: »

I'm guessing you did not read the recent caravan thread then...??

Someone sold caravan on ebay, with "sold as seen" receipt. Private sale.

Buyer claimed it had damp weeks later, took them to small claims court, and actually won!

OP, I would ask for your money back from the seller, as if they said it was in good condition, then they obviously lied, as rot doesn't appear over night.

You could always try the threat of small claims court if they won't play ball.

That's what I said. Private seller = no remedy.

If OP could point to a regular course of dealings then maybe a business to consumer sale. However, no evidence of that.

Tozer

ABH wrote: »

So to satisfy pendulum: Try to avoid using terms such as Merchantable Quality unless you first make the judge aware that you know it's not covered by such legislation ie: 'even though I KNOW it's not applicable, but if this was a regular consumer sale the caravan wouldn't have qualified as of Merchantable Quality we later found, owing to the dirty great big hole we found in one corner' etc.

Just to be pedantic, its not been a test of "merchantable quality" for several years. It is now "satisfactory quality" if s.14(2) SoGA applies.

I'm not sure how misrepresentation comes into this.....

pendulum

ABH wrote: »

Misrepresentation, Omission and Context. If you need anymore then well, all I can say is: Dear oh dear

Just stop trying to be clever. Now, did you read my earlier post when I made reference to "misrepresentation by omission"? I actually used those words. It does not apply here as the OP inspected the caravan prior to purchase and then bought it thus accepting its current condition.

I said that the only chance the OP had was to rely on the kindness of the seller and it looks like they have been kind and agreed to a refund, so that's lucky. They didn't have to.

I take it they are giving you a refund and having the caravan back, OP?

savemoney

There was a thread on here in ebay forum about being sold a caravan with damp problems. The owner was successful sued in the small claims courts apparently.


Normally I would say its buyer beware though, if the courts did side with the buyer then thats a worrying development

savemoney

There is another caravan thread in ebay forum now from a new poster


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=23650497#post23650497

Soolin says


From the 'other' caravan thread (now removed) it is entirely possible for you to sue via small claims court and get your money back. Whether that is right or wrong as you actually had the chance to inspect th eitem before accepting I wouldn't want to comment, I am merely stating that it has been done before and is therefore winnable.

coldstar

The Government web site consumerdirect has limited but clear advice on private sales:

"You have fewer rights when you buy privately, whether through a small ad in a newspaper or at an internet auction. In a private sale, the goods must be as described, but a seller who is not acting as a business is not covered by the rules on satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose."