Used Car Sale - Terms & Conditions

bingo_bango

s_b wrote: »

no not to you that was the point
you quoted perfectly in my opinion:)

Perhaps directed at me then? Although I haven't plagiarised anyone either.

somethingcorporate

clarkey3262 wrote: »

Says what, it was not a deposit? Or a legally binding contract? Because the recipt (as per the OP saying) says it was a deposit. As for it not being legally binding, remember a verbal contract is just as good, but it is in writing therefore backing up the fact it is a deposit

I don't think the fact that a contract exists is being debated here, but the OP wants to break the contract and all the other party is entitled to is damages arising from the breach. This is the losses incurred as a result. The seller would need to demonstrate that they mitigate their losses as a result and the fact they still have the car and can sell it on mean their losses are minimal to nothing. Hence the seller cannot withhold the full deposit.

Financial penalties cannot exist in a contract (which the arbitrary retention of a deposit is).

Equaliser123

clarkey3262 wrote: »

Says what, it was not a deposit? Or a legally binding contract? Because the recipt (as per the OP saying) says it was a deposit. As for it not being legally binding, remember a verbal contract is just as good, but it is in writing therefore backing up the fact it is a deposit

No, it is not correct to make a bold assertion that the deposit cannot be recovered.

Equaliser123

ManuelT wrote: »

If your trying to say that any judge in his or her right mind could find for the OP, then the law is an !!!!

It's clear what the intend is here from both parties which if the value is under £5000 is the the important thing.

Well, it's pretty old law so clearly hasn't caused that much of a problem.

Haven't got a clue what you are on about in your second para.

ManuelT

somethingcorporate wrote: »

...all the other party is entitled to is damages arising from the breach... The fact they still have the car and can sell it on mean their losses are minimal to nothing...

Apart from the 2.5% credit card processing fee, The half hour spent prefilling the paperwork so the customer would have a quick visit when they came to pick up the car. The valet for the car had so the car would look nice when the customer picked it up. The fact that they had a phone call about the car after they had sold it and said sorry it's sold so lost out on that potential sale.

Yep not a single loss there!

When the OP agreed the deposit he also agree that it was a fair sum to cover the expenses of the other party if he pulled out of the transaction, If he didn't why on earth would he have paid it.

ManuelT

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Haven't got a clue what you are on about in your second para.

Sorry, should have said intent. In the small claims track of the county courts then then very much to keep things simple and look at the intent of both parties. Which seems fairly open and shut. The OP wanted to buy a car agreed a £500 deposit then changed his mind and now wants his money back.

somethingcorporate

ManuelT wrote: »

Apart from the 2.5% credit card processing fee, The half hour spent prefilling the paperwork so the customer would have a quick visit when they came to pick up the car. The valet for the car had so the car would look nice when the customer picked it up. The fact that they had a phone call about the car after they had sold it and said sorry it's sold so lost out on that potential sale.

Yep not a single loss there!

When the OP agreed the deposit he also agree that it was a fair sum to cover the expenses of the other party if he pulled out of the transaction, If he didn't why on earth would he have paid it.

You quote me but then don't even read what I say! I said minimal to nothing. They have a loss of sub-£100 which I suggested in a previous post of mine. The above does not equate to the retention of £500. I also posted hypothetically if I had left a £10k deposit on a £20k car they would be entitled to keep the lot? (that's rhetorical, obviously they are not allowed to).

The seller is obliged to mitigate their losses and can retain damages for actual financial losses (not speculative ones) due to the breach of contract so they can make a reasonable deduction for the above that are quantifiable, not the arbitrary retention of the full amount.

ManuelT

Reduce the sale value of the car by £500, they had an agreed sale at £500 higher, Losses are at least £500 due to the OP's actions.

somethingcorporate

ManuelT wrote: »

Reduce the sale value of the car by £500, they had an agreed sale at £500 higher, Losses are at least £500 due to the OP's actions.

You're making a big assumption there, how about we stick to the facts? Reducing the price by £500 is not mitigating losses from the seller.

The seller has suffered minimal provable losses and as a result are not entitled to help themselves to the OPs full deposit.

clarkey3262

Having done some more research, I am now of the opinion I was wrong, the opis entitled to a partial (not the full however) refund of the deposit, however getting that back may prove the more difficult thing.

Just a quick edit: If the trader had put a clause in the contract for the buyer to receive the same about in compensation (ie full deposit back plus same about on top) then if I am reading the legislation correctly then the trader could have kept the full deposit (but again I am not sure on that)

Anyway to conclude, I was wrong.

Chris