Car Purchase- Where do we and car Sales stand here? pls help!

davidmaiden18183

Flyboy152 wrote: »

In which case, you sue them in the small claims court for three hundred pounds. They will then have to consider, whether going through all of that, is worth the three hundred pounds.

And I suppose this is where 4 witness testimonies would come in handy. And whether they would lie in a court and say they didn't agree that we could change to full payment from part exchange.

davidmaiden18183

I have found these comments from another website, if they are true and relevant I am not sure. I would value peoples opinion in relation to this case

Your statutory rights



First and foremost, whoever sells you a car must ensure they have the right to sell it and can pass on full ownership to you? If it turns out that the car is stolen or belongs to a finance company, you will not automatically then own it, even if you have already handed over the cash.

in regards to my mums current car that we have not handed of this would imply that the garage are wrongdoing if they have 'sold' the car on and buyer has given a deposit and signed something "legally binding" - i.e. because they do not have the right to sell it and pass on full ownership, or do they? In my opinion until logbook is handed over and the v5 transferred and the rest of our monies paid our contract with them to pass the car on is not confirmed or complete enabling them to sell on the vehicle

I've also read

“I’m afraid there is no cooling off period with sales which were carried out face to face in this way. You have signed a legally binding contract and paid a deposit which is recognised in law as an undertaking or intention in good faith. Therefore by attempting to rescind the contract, the seller has no obligation to return the deposit and could even chase you for the remainder of the cost of the car. The only way you could rescind the contract and get back your money was if you feel you were miss sold, or were not in possession of the all of the facts so as to make an informed decision. You could also appeal to his better nature?”

In my opinion we have been miss sold as we have 4 people that can give testimony too the fact that they said we could change the agreed purchase to be an outright purchase and not one involving a part exchange. So am I right in saying we are entitled to challenge on those grounds as we signed with that premise

Flyboy152

davidmaiden18183 wrote: »

I have found these comments from another website, if they are true and relevant I am not sure. I would value peoples opinion in relation to this case

in regards to my mums current car that we have not handed of this would imply that the garage are wrongdoing if they have 'sold' the car on and buyer has given a deposit and signed something "legally binding" - i.e. because they do not have the right to sell it and pass on full ownership, or do they? In my opinion until logbook is handed over and the v5 transferred and the rest of our monies paid our contract with them to pass the car on is not confirmed or complete enabling them to sell on the vehicle

I've also read
In my opinion we have been miss sold as we have 4 people that can give testimony too the fact that they said we could change the agreed purchase to be an outright purchase and not one involving a part exchange. So am I right in saying we are entitled to challenge on those grounds as we signed with that premise

Going by what you have told us so far, you have not been missold the car, as there has been no misrepresentation of the goods you wish to buy.

Please provide links to the quotes you are posting, as there seems to be some discrepancy between reality and what your source is saying. Is it advice given by a legal service or consumer organisation, for example?

shaun_from_Africa

Flyboy,

What I think david is referring to is that although the car itself wasn't misrepresented, the terms of the agreed contract may well have been.
The saleswoman agreed something with them (with witnesses), and the garage is now refusing to abide by the agreed terms.

davidmaiden18183

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Going by what you have told us so far, you have not been missold the car, as there has been no misrepresentation of the goods you wish to buy.

Please provide links to the quotes you are posting, as there seems to be some discrepancy between reality and what your source is saying. Is it advice given by a legal service or consumer organisation, for example?

the bit about statutory rights is taken from http://whatconsumer.co.uk/buying-a-car/

the other quote was just comment somebody had posted on a different case

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Flyboy,

What I think david is referring to is that although the car itself wasn't misrepresented, the terms of the agreed contract may well have been.
The saleswoman agreed something with them (with witnesses), and the garage is now refusing to abide by the agreed terms.

But that is a breech of contract, not misrepresentation. If the seller has said the the goods where white, but they were black, or that they had full title to sell the goods, that would be misrepresenting the item, therefore the OP would have been missold. By reneging on a contractual obligation, is a breech of contract.


As the dealer has sold the OP's mother's part exchange without full title, they have missold the part exchange to the other customer and it will be up to that person to pursue the dealer.

davidmaiden18183

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But that is a breech of contract, not misrepresentation. If the seller has said the the goods where white, but they were black, or that they had full title to sell the goods, that would be misrepresenting the item, therefore the OP would have been missold. By reneging on a contractual obligation, is a breech of contract.

So are you saying the verbal agreement we had infront of 4 witnesses could be considered as terms of the contract we signed, although it doesn't appear on them.

So are we saying that is breech of contract, not missold?

so I would need to push them on breech of contract (verbal conditions) and not that they have missold - as that wouldn't be correct in this scenario?

Forwandert

What can the garage actually do? you have changed your mind and decided to not part exchange which has already discussed with the garage and they agreed this would be a viable option,

If the garage won't accept you buying without the px then they need to hand your deposit back as they are unwilling to complete the contract, it's not your problem whatever deal they had already done on a vehicle they didn't own and they didn't have any right to sell yet.

Flyboy152

davidmaiden18183 wrote: »

So are you saying the verbal agreement we had infront of 4 witnesses could be considered as terms of the contract we signed, although it doesn't appear on them.

So are we saying that is breech of contract, not missold?

so I would need to push them on breech of contract (verbal conditions) and not that they have missold - as that wouldn't be correct in this scenario?

Yes, spot on.

A verbal contract has as much force as a written one. The sales executive chose to vary the terms of the contract, it doesn't matter if they wrote them down or not. The difficulty you have is the availability of an "independent" witness. The courts may not accept four memebrs of your family, or your friends, to be "independent" enough. But that will be for the court to decide, not the dealer.

To be missold, the seller would have to have knowingly told lies about the goods, or to have sold you something, for which you did not ask for, or was inapproiate for your established needs. As far as we have been told, they haven't; they have just reneged on the contract.

davidmaiden18183

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Yes, spot on.

A verbal contract has as much force as a written one. The sales executive chose to vary the terms of the contract, it doesn't matter if they wrote them down or not. The difficulty you have is the availability of an "independent" witness. The courts may not accept four memebrs of your family, or your friends, to be "independent" enough. But that will be for the court to decide, not the dealer.

in which case I think i need to use this to challenge them
if what you say is true I think they are in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and
1. they cant tells us we have to give them the car as part of the sale
2.they cant sell our vehicle
3. they would struggle to hold the deposit if they have broken terms.


is that right?