£500 car deposit non refunded - section 75?

chattychappy

hartcjhart wrote: »

Lets not forget that if the court decide the OP was at fault it could leave the door open for the dealer to counter claim for the rest of the purchase price

The court finding that the OP isn't due a refund doesn't necessarily mean that the OP was bound to go ahead with the purchase. Unless the car dealer counterclaims with its defence, the court probably wouldn't rule on this (though from the reasons given it might be obvious).

BugsyBrowne

Don't you just love forums, it's the only place where grown adults come together to battle against one and other on who has the best knowledge, when most answers are not actually facts just opinions.

vax2002

"THE COURT"
Would give the OP a judgement for the deposit if the dealer could not prove a list of losses to the value of the deposit.
That is not in question.
The problem will be enforcing the CCJ against a fly by night car dealer with a LTD company and no assets.

chattychappy

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

Don't you just love forums, it's the only place where grown adults come together to battle against one and other on who has the best knowledge, when most answers are not actually facts just opinions.

What, like this "opinion"?

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

You entered a legally binding contract by paying the deposit where as posters above have said the seller is in his rights to not give you your money back.
Even a small claims court you wouldn't stand a chance.

BugsyBrowne

chattychappy wrote: »

What, like this "opinion"?

Yeah just like that one.

MusicalLawyer

OP, did you and the dealer sign the deposit receipt?

I think, from what I remember of contract law, that T&C's on a receipt are not valid, as the contract has already taken place. If you AND the dealer signed the deposit receipt, then this MAY make them valid, as you're just adding a T&C into the contract - by both parties signing, you're both agreeing it. However, even if it goes in your favour that the term is valid - you didn't ask the mechanic about the results of the inspection, so they would probably rule against you on this part - What I've said here isn't definite, I'm just saying that I think this is how I remember it.

Even if you win, there is no saying that you'll even get the £500 back, ruling is one thing, enforcing is another.

First thing to do would be to write to the business and inform them of your actions, and just see what they say. Even if you have no chance in court, it might scare them in to giving you your money back.

chattychappy

MusicalLawyer wrote: »

I think, from what I remember of contract law, that T&C's on a receipt are not valid, as the contract has already taken place.

Yep, late notice is no good, perhaps you are thinking of a case such as this one Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532. But I also remember some receipt cases where it was held to be OK - I think they were ticket cases where "see over" type terms were held to be OK even though you had handed over your money before you could have seen the ticket. I remember my law lecturer speculating that there was a fiction that the potentially late notice was in fact evidence of what had already been verbally agreed (that terms and conditions as yet unseen would apply) or that handing over the cash was an offer which was rejected by a issuance of a ticket with T+Cs on it (Hyde v Wrench 1840) You could then reject what is now a counter offer (the ticket) and demand the money back or walk away and the deal would be accepted on the basis of the T+Cs printed.

In this case I think it does come down to whether that receipt is the only documentation as to the way the deposit was to be handled. If it was drawn up after the event, then I agree too late. But if it was prepared as part of the deposit procedure and was contemporaneous, then I think the OP should be OK (at least on this issue).

hartcjhart

chattychappy wrote: »

The court finding that the OP isn't due a refund doesn't necessarily mean that the OP was bound to go ahead with the purchase. Unless the car dealer counterclaims with its defence, the court probably wouldn't rule on this (though from the reasons given it might be obvious).[/QUOTE]

if the court find that the OP was wrong means that they broke the contract

as said if the dealer then counterclaims then the court HAS to rule

hartcjhart

vax2002 wrote: »

"THE COURT"
Would give the OP a judgement for the deposit if the dealer could not prove a list of losses to the value of the deposit.
That is not in question.
The problem will be enforcing the CCJ against a fly by night car dealer with a LTD company and no assets.

you really need to butt out of this one as you simply have no idea

chattychappy

hartcjhart wrote: »

if the court find that the OP was wrong means that they broke the contract

The issue would be whether the claimant (the OP) has proved that the deposit was refundable.

hartcjhart wrote: »

as said if the dealer then counterclaims then the court HAS to rule

If the dealer claims then the court would have to give a judgment, agreed. But not necessarily for the dealer. It may conclude that there was a binding agreement to buy the car. It may conclude there wasn't. It may conclude that the dealer had long since waived that option. It does depend on what it finds was agreed. Just because the OP fails to prove that the deposit was refundable doesn't mean that the dealer can prove that the OP was bound to buy the car.