Sold a car and now the head gasket has gone

Ivrytwr3

Legally justcat is in the right, but if i were in her place i wouldn't feel right shutting the door on the buyer and would have to come to some sort of mutual agreement.

WHAT???? You agree OP is legally in the right, but still expect her to pay up? <walks away shaking head>

You obviously have not understood my post. Leaglly she is correct, but morally she is not.

I would come to a mutual agreement with the buyer by pure choice, because there is no legal requirement.

But of course long gone are the days when you can actually trust another human being to do the right thing.

Money_Grabber13579

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

You obviously have not understood my post. Leaglly she is correct, but morally she is not.

I would come to a mutual agreement with the buyer by pure choice, because there is no legal requirement.

But of course long gone are the days when you can actually trust another human being to do the right thing.

I can certainly see where you're coming from as I know how I'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. But as you say, these days, unless it's written in law, everybody wants to wriggle out of responsibility. Of which I'd probably want to do the same. But I realise you can't have it both ways...

Ivrytwr3

Exactly. What if the OP was the buyer and asking for advice on what to do as she has just bought a car that has fooked head gasket?

It's just annoying when the OP doesn't want to remedy the situation amicably, but justs wants to be sure she doesn't have to do a god damn thing!

Raksha

Anyone remember a certain thread (this time last year?) about a caravan sold on Ebay?

mollycat

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Exactly. What if the OP was the buyer and asking for advice on what to do as she has just bought a car that has fooked head gasket?

It's just annoying when the OP doesn't want to remedy the situation amicably, but justs wants to be sure she doesn't have to do a god damn thing!

Thats because she SHOULDN'T have to do a god damn thing.

I dont know where you're coming from but it's WAY out left field!!

Ivrytwr3

Nice, very nice. Perhaps the buyer should stand in the street while you all point and laugh at her too?

mollycat

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Nice, very nice. Perhaps the buyer should stand in the street while you all point and laugh at her too?

No, the buyer doesn't need laughed at, but i think you need to learn how to conduct yourself on a forum.

What the buyer needs; is someone to tell them that if you are going to buy a second hand car, take someone with you that knows about cars, give the car a thorough inspection and test drive, and ask lots of questions.

What the buyer does NOT need; is some ill-informed person giving her the idea that she has a case here. She needs to learn from her mistake, so she will not lose money again; THAT is the kindest advice she can be given.

Ivrytwr3

mollycat wrote: »

No, the buyer doesn't need laughed at, but i think you need to learn how to conduct yourself on a forum.
.

Ha! Ha!! Conduct ...... sorry too busy laughing......myself....loool.... on a forum???!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

MORPH3US

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

You obviously have not understood my post. Leaglly she is correct, but morally she is not.

Where do morals come into it... as far as the OP is concerned (if she is being honest which we must assume she is) then the car was fine when she sold it...

The fact that the new owner is now being told that there is a problem with the car is unfortunate but not the OP's fault.

Where do you draw the line "morally" can the buyer return the car a week down the line, a month down the line, 6 months, a year?

NO. The buyer had the right to fully inspect the car and walk away if they weren't happy. End of story... there is no moral argument.

mollycat

Ivrytwr3 wrote: »

Ha! Ha!! Conduct ...... sorry too busy laughing......myself....loool.... on a forum???!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Yep thats right. An ignoramus and a wind up merchant to boot!!

Glad you're conceding the arguement though.;)