garage ripped me off

goonarmy

forgotmyname wrote: »

Took crap car to the garage who said it was kaput, Sold another crap car and tried to sue the garage.
But lack of planning and legal advice they walked all over the OP.

A mechanic sold the car to the OP. Not the garage. OP lost the case.

Bit clearer, but having a crap car then buying a crap car isnt really an issue is it? If its something it promised not to be then maybe but buyer beware.

Ultrasonic

Dimey wrote: »

Are you asking whether you can now sue the private mechanic?

If so then yes.

I maintain that the OP needs professional legal advice, but out of interest, on what basis can the OP take the mechanic to court?

The original case was based on returning the vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act as not fit for purpose. This is applicable to a car sold by a garage but not a private sale from a mechanic. Are you thinking in terms of the mechanic misleading the OP into thinking they were buying from a business?

To be fair to the OP, they believed they were buying from a business and not a private sale, and if this was not made clear at the time of the sale this was clearly dodgy however you look at it.

Ultrasonic

goonarmy wrote: »

Bit clearer, but having a crap car then buying a crap car isnt really an issue is it? If its something it promised not to be then maybe but buyer beware.

The engine may have blown up after a week for all we know, the OP simply stated that the car was not fit for purpose...

Dimey

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I maintain that the OP needs professional legal advice, but out of interest, on what basis can the OP take the mechanic to court?

The original case was based on returning the vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act as not fit for purpose. This is applicable to a car sold by a garage but not a private sale from a mechanic. Are you thinking in terms of the mechanic misleading the OP into thinking they were buying from a business?

To be fair to the OP, they believed they were buying from a business and not a private sale, and if this was not made clear at the time of the sale this was clearly dodgy however you look at it.

Yes I agree OP does need professional advice.

I said yes to the "can he swap defendants" question on the basis that he simply had the wrong person.


I don't rightly know what he sued the garage for. I also don't know whether he actually has a case against the private mechanic - even though I think he can sue him.

I'm assuming he would sue the private mechanic for theft of the new parts on OP's old car and yes for the private mechanic misrepresenting himself as an employee selling on behalf of the garage and maybe fraudulently offering protection under the sale of goods act. Also possibly selling a car that didn't belong to him.

I realise the private mechanic is just going to say "buyer beware" and maybe even show his name on the owners log book. If this is a regular scam then the private mechanic is probably going to produce all sorts of paperwork to prove it was a legitimate private sale that he made the OP aware of.

Its a mess whichever way you look at it. And probably something more for Trading Standards than Court.

goonarmy

Ultrasonic wrote: »

The engine may have blown up after a week for all we know, the OP simply stated that the car was not fit for purpose...

I dont think the op is fit to decide wether or not it was fit for purpose.;)

arcon5

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I maintain that the OP needs professional legal advice, but out of interest, on what basis can the OP take the mechanic to court?

The original case was based on returning the vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act as not fit for purpose. This is applicable to a car sold by a garage but not a private sale from a mechanic. Are you thinking in terms of the mechanic misleading the OP into thinking they were buying from a business?

To be fair to the OP, they believed they were buying from a business and not a private sale, and if this was not made clear at the time of the sale this was clearly dodgy however you look at it.

Doesn't sound to me as though its a private sale. Just that the taste are acting independly to the mechanics. The mechanics are certainly not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it to make a few quid

Ultrasonic

arcon5 wrote: »

Doesn't sound to me as though its a private sale.

Agreed, but it may be what is argued in court... (Not sure what you meant where you said 'taste' though?)

All I was trying to point out to the OP was really that they need to know on what legal basis they might be taking the mechanic to court (an hence why they need some form of professional legal advice).

As has been mentioned, talking to the local Trading Standards could be useful too.

Ultrasonic

goonarmy wrote: »

I dont think the op is fit to decide wether or not it was fit for purpose.;)

I don't think that is fair. Although the first post wasn't the best written this tells us nothing about what the OP knows about cars.

goonarmy

Id say thats entirely fair. The scrapped car got fitted with new parts and the reason for purchase of the new car was that it had mot. Ive passed mots on missing cyclinders. The op knows nothing of cars. The garage threatening is probbably unacceptable upto the point of being ilegal possibly-enough detail is not given. The video evidence begs more questions than it answers. I hold out little hope for this case.