sold as seen - urgent advise needed

ABH_3

Tozer wrote: »

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.

Yes thanks, I did realise I actually struggled with the language to use myself lastnight, first I was trying to get across to the OP's that they could take a case against the seller, but was trying to stay away from the language of SOGA so as not to confuse things.

Then Pendulum picks up that I've done that, and forgotten to include a caveat explaining such.He's really going to blow at after he reads the above, blood on the ceiling, carpet etc I should stand back. He thinks I'm trying to outsmart him, whilst I've tried with some difficulty to avoid coming down to his level

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

Misrepresentation and\or Omission is frowned upon ie: it's structurally sound when it's not and you're faced with rotten wood. The electrics are good, when you've got bare wires behind your head in the doorway. Omitting details relevant for safety.

Sales are NOT black and white arrangements, there used to be the 'sold as seen' get out, it was accepted that one party would come with someone knowledgeable and they would seal the deal right away. Any damages later, well they were your responsibility and you should have raised them up at the time of the sale.

Today however, you can't misrepresent, you can't also omit points that maybe applicable. Ie: the Intent of the seller is obvious, but what of the buyer, do they want a cheap deal, a van that can serve as a static and mobile home, or do they want something to keep their livestock in? Depending upon what was said would therefore clarify everyones intent and the basis of the contract, then the buyers intent would be clear and therefore by definition so would the result of the claim.

So advertising a Caravan conjures up images of mobility, though to others it may not. You could give the buyers an opportunity to look around the item, however, not everybody lives in places where there's ample opportunity to walk freely around such a vehicle, it maybe parked in a corner etc, there maybe 'junk' blocking them from seeing every part of the van, but they're convinced its a good deal having spoken to the owners, and anyway, the guy doesn't have time he's got an appointment, he's got other people coming, they feel pressured into making a decision.

You can find the definitions of the words in any dictionary. But in short, if the buyers make their intent for the van known to the seller, the seller can't claim or omit something he knows would prevent the buyers from achieving their intent. So even though a private sale reduces your consumer protections, it doesn't remove them and deny you any!

Hopefully that clarifies the position.

photome

ABH wrote: »

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

How is it clear? If the wallpaper had been there for years and the sellers husband died, she may not have known the rot was there.

pendulum

Thank you for explaining your humourous interpretation of the law in more detail, ABH.

Goods sold privately do not need to be fit for purpose, so all that twaddle about the buyer having an intent to use the caravan which cannot be fulfilled due to the rot is not relevant. Goods sold privately do not have to be fault free either, and rot - which is OP has indicated is repairable - is a fault.

All goods have to be is "as described". If the OP had asked if the caravan had rot, and the OP had said "No", there may be a case. But the OP did not ask, and the seller did not claim, that the caravan was rot-free.

The advert has not been made available but there is no evidence that the caravan has been misdescribed. It doesn't sound like the seller did much describing at all. The OP visited, inspected the caravan for himself, and agreed to buy it in its current condition. There is no evidence the seller even knew of the fault, and it is plausible she did not know, so it could have been an unknown fault, but this is not even relevant.

I don't want to ask you to provide proof of your claim that a seller must reveal faults (known or unknown) to a buyer in a truly private sale as this is like sending you on a quest for rocking horse !!!!. I fear you would turn up with dog !!!! and waste more of my time trying to convince me you have "found it".

chedder789

Oh Pendulum and ABH, take it outside, your giving me a headache! :rolleyes:

mirry

man and lady came and gave us half our money back , which i am grateful for, father in law inspected it and its too big a job to repair , so we will be scrapping it for £50. We Stripped everything from it , and have £400 + worth of stuff to sell. Seller has given us a letter saying they will pay us more soon.

Think we been lucky.

dfh

chedder789 wrote: »

oh pendulum and abh, take it outside, your giving me a headache! :rolleyes:

lol !!!!!!!!!!

ABH_3

chedder789 wrote: »

Oh Pendulum and ABH, take it outside, your giving me a headache! :rolleyes:

Definitely wouldn't want want to do that now would I. I'm certain if you looked around, there would be a tin-foil hat around here for that 'pretty little head' of yours :rolleyes: Ooh, I've found a babybel wrapper or is that too small?

It's over for me anyway, I'm wasting my time explaining to some people that a judge under such circumstances may actually communicate with both parties to ascertain the circumstances behind the sale. All of this 'sold as seen rubbish' doesn't help those looking for help. Whilst has about as much legal standing as 'finders keepers losers weepers'. Such things have had their day and been proven nonsense.

Arguing amongst us is pointless, as it would require a judge to make a decision one way or another, whilst the OP has decided to settle things amongst themselves.

lol what a difference 19 minutes makes to a conversation. Good news there then Mirry.

pitkin2020

mirry wrote: »

man and lady came and gave us half our money back , which i am grateful for, father in law inspected it and its too big a job to repair , so we will be scrapping it for £50. We Stripped everything from it , and have £400 + worth of stuff to sell. Seller has given us a letter saying they will pay us more soon.

Think we been lucky.

no offence how can you ask for all your money back and then scrap the caravan for money whilst selling everything inside to then make a profit???
Surely you should be handing the caravan back as you will be receiving all your money back!!!!!

pendulum

I agree to disagree (completely) with him.

Freddie_Snowbits

ABH wrote: »

Private sales, the seller can't 'misrepresent the item they're selling'.

Yep, that is why I keep my mouth shut and give nothing. Cabeat Emptor