buyer wants money back

arcon5

What is the age and mileague? Could it be put down as wear and tear, thus not a fault and not your problem.

bigjo

its a 13 year old transit v reg with 180k miles

look4abargain

Wait and see how things proceed. Make sure you have copies of as many things as you can and be honest at the court hearing (if it goes that far). You had it MOT'd in good faith and allowed him ample time to inspect the vehicle before purchase. If he has any case I would say it is with the MOT garage and not with you, a reasonable judge should see that.

arcon5

I'd go forward with that then. A letter to him along the lines of

'I understand you are unhappy that rust has developed on the vehicle, which you agree was present at time of purchase. Your inspection of the vehicle, including this forms part of the vehicles description for which you based your decision to purchase the vehicle on.
The rust mentioned is nothing more than what a reasonable person would expect of a 13 year old van. Therefore the issues brought to my attention are not faults, it is merely the result of wear and tear over the life time of the vehicle.
The Sales of Goods Act does take in to considering the nature of the goods and the corresponding description, as a result I reject your claim that the issues raised constitute a breach of contract, including implied terms relating to quality and fitness.
Therefore I cannot agree to a refund in this instance and consider this matter closed.
It is of course your right to pursue a claim, but please note I will defend such a claim on these grounds and if I'm required to attend a hearing I will be making a counter-claim for reasonable travel costs and loss of wages.'


When buying a 13 yr old vehicle surely one of the first things youd do is check for rust?!!

It's a shame really that you didn't draw up an agreement which stated the condition has been inspected and vehicle is sold as seen as these terms can be held up in B2B contracts. Which I'm assuming he bought it for commercial gain. It's only B2C contracts you cannot contract out of aspects of SoGA

arcon5

look4abargain wrote: »

Wait and see how things proceed. Make sure you have copies of as many things as you can and be honest at the court hearing (if it goes that far). You had it MOT'd in good faith and allowed him ample time to inspect the vehicle before purchase. If he has any case I would say it is with the MOT garage and not with you, a reasonable judge should see that.

The buyer has no comeback against the MOT tester, no contract exists between the two. Op would be better off avoiding this avenue as if the MOT has been discredited it can only do harm to op

OlliesDad

bigjo wrote: »

if they have missed something when it was motd i just cant see how this is my fault

Maybe not, but it wouldn't be the buyers fault either.

I have sympathy for the buyer, however as above, he should have fully inspected it.

That said, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 states:

Supply_of_Goods_and_Services_Act_1982 wrote:

Where, under such a contract, the transferor transfers the property in goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.(2A)For the purposes of this section and section 5 below, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

ValHaller

bigjo wrote: »

today i found out the mot tester has been suspended so i rang cab to see where i stand and they say he has a case against me... since its commercial and ice cream being my trade i am classed as a trader selling an asset of my business (ice cream van) this is an absolute joke... i am no mechanic and described the van honestly and to the best of my ability... it had over 9 months mot and as far as i was concerned it was ready to go to work and had been working up until 2 weeks before the sale.. say an old lady owned it (as theres a lot of oldies in the trade) do they expect her to inspect underneath after its been in for an mot?

I would not rely on CAB for this advice - I suggest you ask on this specific point on the motoring forum http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70. You did not sell the vehicle in the course of a business as a motor trader.

bigjo

the van bodywork has no rust and the buyer is happy with that but after buying it he has took it to a garage and the floor is rotten and it should not have passed the mot and is not roadworthy

arcon5

You don't need to be a motor trader to be classed as selling in a business capacity. The simple fact is the vehicle was a commercial vehicle and was an asset of ops business for which I assume a capital allowance was being put through the books. It's certainly not a private sale.

arcon5

By the way do you accept the buyers claim to be true or dispute it? If the latter, have him take it to a council test station or a place like MOT Max where there is not really an incentive to fail it for work