can you sell a car back you've won?

psilvester

mjm3346 wrote: »

They may not find out but if selling breaks the T&C's of entry the entry would become invalid, the "winner" could then be disqualified and they could take action to recover the value of the prize (cannot imagine they would do so).

The fact they may not find out still doesn't give a right to sell the prize, that's no different to saying it's ok to steal etc as long as you don't get caught.

What action would they take to recover? Do you think their argument would stand up in a court of law? Unfair term and unenforceable contract springs to mind. You even say yourself you would not imagine any promoter would chase someone up to reclaim a prize.

They have GIVEN me something, I then sold MY property even though they asked me not to. I did not STEAL it from them, two completely different things.

mjm3346

psilvester wrote: »

They have GIVEN me something, I then sold MY property even though they asked me not to. I did not STEAL it from them, two completely different things.

They haven't given it to you free and clear, you have won it on condition you do not sell it, if you then sell you have broken that condition.
If you are not caught and the prize reclaimed you have stolen it from someone who would have won it with a valid entry, just like making multiple entries when only one is allowed.

mjm3346

Blulu wrote: »

Interesting. I actually pretty much agree with mjm about this, other than I would say that stealing is worse. What I do wonder though, if they say you are not allowed to sell on an item, does that mean forever? So, say I win a car and use it, but then in five years I want to replace it, does that mean that I am not allowed to sell it on then either?

Blu X

Never seen the restriction on something like a car (the example was from soup).
It's not the act of stealing just doing something that's wrong on the basis you think you will not get caught.

cagsd

Blulu wrote: »

What I do wonder though, if they say you are not allowed to sell on an item, does that mean forever? So, say I win a car and use it, but then in five years I want to replace it, does that mean that I am not allowed to sell it on then either?

I have wondered this too, surely they would have to give a time scale in their T&Cs - for example no re-sale within say 6 months. Lots of people trade in their cars frequently so what's to say you wouldn't legitimately want to trade it in after a few months or a year?? Would they enforce the no sale rule at that point? I think T&Cs would need to be worded very carefully in this instance otherwise a lawyer would have a field day with it!!

Blulu

For sure. I guess it's easier if it's soup

Blu X

alyspreece

mjm3346 wrote: »

that's no different to saying it's ok to steal etc as long as you don't get caught.

It's actually very different that's why we have criminal and civil branches of law. Theft is considered 'bad' enough to require a punitive repercussion and is therefore a criminal act. Breaking the T&Cs is not considered 'bad' enough to require a punitive repercussion, only a redress of the wrong through compensation or restitution is required.

Savvybunny2009

alyspreece wrote: »

It's actually very different that's why we have criminal and civil branches of law. Theft is considered 'bad' enough to require a punitive repercussion and is therefore a criminal act. Breaking the T&Cs is not considered 'bad' enough to require a punitive repercussion, only a redress of the wrong through compensation or restitution is required.

Morally, not legally.

alyspreece

cagsd wrote: »

I have wondered this too, surely they would have to give a time scale in their T&Cs - for example no re-sale within say 6 months. Lots of people trade in their cars frequently so what's to say you wouldn't legitimately want to trade it in after a few months or a year?? Would they enforce the no sale rule at that point? I think T&Cs would need to be worded very carefully in this instance otherwise a lawyer would have a field day with it!!

There is a lot of caselaw that affirms the fact that terms/clauses have to be clear and precise for them to be incorporated into the contract. If a car was resold after say 5 years, I'm not really sure what action the competition provider would have. It would be too late for the contract to be rescinded and the car couldn't be recovered as it would have passed to a third party. And I'm not sure what damages could be argued for as the competition provider wouldn't have really sustained any loss.

What is interesting is, if the person knew they were going to sell the car before they entered the competition, could that be classed as a misrepresentation or even fraud?

alyspreece

Savvybunny2009 wrote: »

Morally, not legally.

Well, arguably, morals are the basis for having the two different branches, that's why I used 'bad'. Theft is considered 'morally bad enough' and thats why the legal implications are different.

(Definitely not saying that morals are the basis for laws in general, but there is a strong argument that morals are the basis for this particular distinction in the law.)

jaibaby

psilvester wrote: »

What action would they take to recover?

They could do so in a number of ways - claims court could be one, but I don't know how these companies would work it.

They have GIVEN me something, I then sold MY property even though they asked me not to. I did not STEAL it from them, two completely different things.

You have AGREED to THEIR terms & conditions so, therefore, if you were to BREAK them after you won (Something for free remember), then they have EVERY right to do what they feel is best.