car fraud

emmell

Op. Have you read the terms and conditions on their website. I think they have covered just about every eventuality.
ML.

Tozer

emmell wrote: »

Op. Have you read the terms and conditions on their website. I think they have covered just about every eventuality.
ML.

Can you quote the relevant part? Have you even looked at their website? There are NO terms and condiiton.

neilmcl

Lip_Stick wrote: »

But, they are planning to sell the car to someone else if the OP doesn't offer the higher price. So what's the point in the deposit then? It's not securing the car at all if what you say is true.

It's standard practice amongst car supermarkets and dealers such as this. The reason for the deposit is to help dissuade time wasters (tyre kickers as they're usually referred to) from genuine potential buyers.

Tozer

neilmcl wrote: »

It's standard practice amongst car supermarkets and dealers such as this. The reason for the deposit is to help dissuade time wasters (tyre kickers as they're usually referred to) from genuine potential buyers.

But the deposit WAS paid so therefore the OP is not a "tyre kicker".

This is an open and shut case in my view.

emmell

Tozer wrote: »

Can you quote the relevant part? Have you even looked at their website? There are NO terms and condiiton.

Have you looked at their website? Definately too many terms and conditions to quote on here. Try reading the website properly (that's what small print is for), and yes I have been on the website and seen the particular car the op was talking about, have you?
ML.

Tozer

emmell wrote: »

Have you looked at their website? Definately too many terms and conditions to quote on here. Try reading the website properly (that's what small print is for), and yes I have been on the website and seen the particular car the op was talking about, have you?
ML.

I think, with respect, you are missing the point. You said that the T's and C's dealt with the issue. I asked you to quote the term. You haven't.

You can't actually buy online. Why not have another little look?

Tozer

emmell wrote: »

Have you looked at their website? Definately too many terms and conditions to quote on here. Try reading the website properly (that's what small print is for), and yes I have been on the website and seen the particular car the op was talking about, have you?
ML.

Oh, and I've just taken your advice and had another look at the website. There are no terms and conditions in respect of sale. Unless you can point to them, I'd suggest you are looking slightly silly. No?

emmell

I can't argue with someone who earns £265 + vat per hour, you are far superior to me.
Being a lowly housewife who earns £0 per hour I don't consider myself worthy, but I know, reading many threads a mistake is a mistake and lots of people have seen items advertised at a price far lower than the item is worth, paid in full or paid a deposit only to have their money refunded. If you read the grabbit board it happens a lot.
I still stand by my earlier thread that all this could be irrelevant, nobody has viewed the car yet and it could be a total shed.
ML.

Tozer

emmell wrote: »

I can't argue with someone who earns £265 + vat per hour, you are far superior to me.
Being a lowly housewife who earns £0 per hour I don't consider myself worthy, but I know, reading many threads a mistake is a mistake and lots of people have seen items advertised at a price far lower than the item is worth, paid in full or paid a deposit only to have their money refunded. If you read the grabbit board it happens a lot.
I still stand by my earlier thread that all this could be irrelevant, nobody has viewed the car yet and it could be a total shed.
ML.

lol. I don't "earn" £265 per hour. That is precisely what a corporate defendant would have to pay for decent representation. It would be money down the drain.

The other threads you talk about is when something is advertised at an incorrect price. In this event, it would not be an offer capable of acceptance but an invitation to treat. There is a big distinction in this case.

emmell

Tozer wrote: »

lol. I don't "earn" £265 per hour. That is precisely what a corporate defendant would have to pay for decent representation. It would be money down the drain.

The other threads you talk about is when something is advertised at an incorrect price. In this event, it would not be an offer capable of acceptance but an invitation to treat. There is a big distinction in this case.

I thought that was the whole point, the car was advertised on the web at £2419, the dealer said it was a mistake and should have been £3419 so cancelled the sale.
I thought this happened a lot with internet sites. The mistake is that someone typed a 2 instead of a 3. The car books £2700 trade so £2419 is obviously a mistake unless the car is ex rental or ex driving school which would bring the trade price down.
ML.