buyer wants money back

timbstoke

The OP may well have been selling as a business, but since it's an ice cream van, it's pretty obvious that it was also purchased in the course of a business. Hence, a lot of consumer protection no longer applies.

Personally, I'd write to the buyer once, telling him that the van had been tested to MOT standard and any required work completed prior to sale. In addition, the buyer had the opportunity to inspect the van himself prior to purchase and still chose to purchase, so you consider the matter closed and will not enter into further communication on the matter.

ValHaller

arcon5 wrote: »

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.

Whether or not it is a private sale is probably a moot point on this - if OP is a sole trader, maybe it is a private sale. The point is that OP is not a motor trader - so rather than simply jump to the conclusion that because he is a business the buyer has the same comebacks as he might have with a motor trader, that specific point needs to be addressed

arcon5 wrote: »

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

I don't think that OP would be well advised to start engaging with the condition of the vehicle other than 'sold as seen' until and unless it is established that his status as an icecream business means that he cannot sell his vehicle 'sold as seen'.

shaun_from_Africa

ValHaller wrote: »

Whether or not it is a private sale is probably a moot point on this - if OP is a sole trader, maybe it is a private sale. The point is that OP is not a motor trader - so rather than simply jump to the conclusion that because he is a business the buyer has the same comebacks as he might have with a motor trader, that specific point needs to be addressed

It has already been addressed in court (Stevenson v Rogers [1999]), and the case is very similar to that of the OP.
The judge in the original case decided that selling assets no longer required do not qualify as being sold "in the course of a business" provided that those goods were not routinely sold by the business.

However, this was overturned on appeal and a decision was made that

The change to a requirement that the sale be made 'in the course of a business' was to broaden the availability of the implied term. It was made to ensure that 'every buyer from a business seller should have a right ... to receive goods of merchantable quality' (Law Com No 24, para 46). The obligation was to be imposed on 'every trade seller no matter whether he is or is not habitually dealing in goods of the type sold'

On the basis of the approach taken in Stevenson v Rogers, as long as a sale is even incidental to the seller's business, and not a 'purely private sale', it should be in the course of a business for the purposes of s14(2), and that is in keeping with the legislative history of the subsection.

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1999/issue3/macdonald3.html

arcon5

Sole trader status doesn't make it a private sale.

How you can say whether its a private sale or not is a moot point? This is crucial! If it was a private sale the buyer would have no comeback, non-private seller means the contrary.

arcon5

The OP may well have been selling as a business, but since it's an ice cream van, it's pretty obvious that it was also purchased in the course of a business. Hence, a lot of consumer protection no longer applies.

Relevant protection being sales of goods act - except op didn't choose to opt out of aspects of this. Nor does it seem he made the sale sold as seen

ValHaller

arcon5 wrote: »

Sole trader status doesn't make it a private sale.

How you can say whether its a private sale or not is a moot point? This is crucial! If it was a private sale the buyer would have no comeback, non-private seller means the contrary.

arcon5 wrote: »

Relevant protection being sales of goods act - except op didn't choose to opt out of aspects of this. Nor does it seem he made the sale sold as seen

Alright, alright. Shaun from Africa has provided the information which settles the question. And given that it was ruled on appeal as a reversal of the original judgement, it seems a finely balanced point. So all the more reason to be cautious about jumping to the conclusion that because the seller was an ice cream business it was a sale in the course of a business with consumer protection.

pinkshoes

The bottom line is that if the guy who carried out the MOT has been suspended and missed something so crucial that meant the van would NOT have passed the MOT (and being realistic, floors don't just rust through in a couple of months - the fault would have been there at the MOT), then the buyer has a case against the OP (including expenses), and the OP needs to claim this back against the garage.

OP, I'd ask the buyer for a copy of the garage report showing that the rotten floor would have existed at the point of MOT, then IF the garage admit liability, give the buyer a refund, and claim your losses from the garage (i.e. claim the cost of the buyer having to take it home, the cost of the van being returned, and the cost of the MOT and independent report).

If the garage is NOT to blame, don't agree to anything!

bigjo

garage is to blame

wealdroam

bigjo wrote: »

the garage is to blame... but giving his money back is not an option as i used the money to pay off business debts so i don't have this to refund him

What?

So you agree that he should get his money back?

You now have another business debt that needs paying.

Perhaps you could borrow it from somewhere else... your bank?

vaio

ValHaller wrote: »

Alright, alright. Shaun from Africa has provided the information which settles the question. And given that it was ruled on appeal as a reversal of the original judgement, it seems a finely balanced point. So all the more reason to be cautious about jumping to the conclusion that because the seller was an ice cream business it was a sale in the course of a business with consumer protection.

But, as (presumably) the buyer of the ice cream van was also an ice cream business then does "consumer" protection kick in?