Can I get deposit back on used car?

mrjam

daytona0 wrote: »

This may be called "consumer rights" but you have to bear in mind that sellers also have rights and as such the 1st thing to do is to establish whether customer has a legitimate issue or whether they are just being stupid/a crank. I suspect that is why many people come across as "bullies" on here

You have to bear in mind there are ways and means to establish whether a customer is being "stupid/a crank" without being one yourself. Just saying...

shaun_from_Africa

Does the trader that you left the deposit with sell anything other than cars? (accessories for instance).
If they do and the are not willing to refund your deposit, why not see if they have anything else that you could use and see if they will allow the deposit payment to be used for those goods.

daytona0

mrjam wrote: »

You have to bear in mind there are ways and means to establish whether a customer is being "stupid/a crank" without being one yourself. Just saying...

Nobody here has been a crank...

"So why did you leave a deposit" is a valid question... What purpose does this deposit serve should OP expect a reund? I elaborated by discussing possible expenses incurred which could be covered under a deposit which is non reundable... OP came back with a valid post. No big deal.

The seller has the same rights in considering retention o the deposit as the buyer has to query the return o it... So ergo one must establish whether customer is being a crank and sometimes you need to pick holes because otherwise we are just possibly giving erroneous advice which does not consider the rights o the seller too...

yogi_brrr

No Shaun. From what I could tell it was just used cars

yogi_brrr

daytona0 wrote: »

Nobody here has been a crank...
QUOTE]

HAHA you obviously haven't met me !
But seriously, at the end of the day none of us is interested in the seller's rights, only the seller is interested in the seller's rights.
My question is this : Is a seller, who has not incurred any financial loss as a result of a cancellation, legally entitled to penalize a buyer for cancelling ?

wealdroam

yogi_brrr wrote: »

My question is this : Is a seller, who has not incurred any financial loss as a result of a cancellation, legally entitled to penalize a buyer for cancelling ?

You don't still want an answer to that do you?

I thought that would be clear when you read that linked I posted earlier?

But the answer to that question is: no.

All you need to do now is ask for your money back, and it that is not forthcoming, ask him to justify his reasons.

unholyangel

daytona0 wrote: »

It is relevant.. It is the most relevant thing which has been said/asked....

I've got a question which is relevant....

Think about being the seller here... Put an amount on how much you think he might be out o pocket due to your decision to declare interest by placing a deposit, what are you thinking?


Points to consider..

- Did the seller possibly contact people who had expressed some interest to let them know what a deposit had been made? Should that be the case then he potentially lost out on a sale

- Did he possibly turn back new inquiries?

- Has him booking an MOT caused him to be out o pocket in any way which he would otherwise not be had you not put a deposit down? - travel, phone bill, possible deposit, possible initial work at the garage? etc


I know you said that you "Doubt" anyone shown interest, and you might be absolutely right. But doubt is not concrete and as such you should theoretically be at least partially liable here because you have caused him to turn back IMPLIED opportunities.



The only question is whether the seller can prove that the 100 quid is reasonable losses in which case you're screwed. You should consider his possible losses, come up with an amount and ask 4 the surplus. Should you work out an amount around 100 quid then just give up lol

Only losses that are a direct result of the breach (in the event of wrongful cancellation depending on if there has been any significant benefit enjoyed) can be claimed.

If the trader puts the car through MOTs before selling then this isnt a loss due to OP's breach. Its a cost he wouldve paid had the contract not been entered into with OP/had the contract not been breached.

And if the trader contacted interested parties telling them the car was no longer available, he could also contact them to say it is still available. They are not allowed to just sit on their hands and allow the losses to mount up.

daytona0

yogi_brrr wrote: »

HAHA you obviously haven't met me !
But seriously, at the end of the day none of us is interested in the seller's rights, only the seller is interested in the seller's rights.
My question is this : Is a seller, who has not incurred any financial loss as a result of a cancellation, legally entitled to penalize a buyer for cancelling ?

That's crazy...

On the one hand you say that nobody is interested in the seller's rights, and on the other hand you ask a question about the seller's rights (or lack oph) in a very particular instance.

In answer to your question, NO they can't. All I have been advising is to consider whether the seller has actually incurred loss (which is considering the rights o the seller) - you haven't proven that there was no loss incurred so what else do you want me to say? lol

daytona0

unholyangel wrote: »

Only losses that are a direct result of the breach (in the event of wrongful cancellation depending on if there has been any significant benefit enjoyed) can be claimed.

Summarising what I have been saying all along? Cheers lad.

If the trader puts the car through MOTs before selling then this isnt a loss due to OP's breach. Its a cost he wouldve paid had the contract not been entered into with OP/had the contract not been breached.

How do you know? Why wasn't the car put through an MOT earlier? Besides, I'm not that convinced that I am right so I am inclined to agree with what you say here I'm just speculating on possible costs... At the end o the day had you read my post I asked the OP to consider possible expenses and come to their own amount!

And if the trader contacted interested parties telling them the car was no longer available, he could also contact them to say it is still available. They are not allowed to just sit on their hands and allow the losses to mount up.

Absolutely right. But you are assuming and you could make a case 4 seller having an IMPLIED loss at the very least

bris

The legal position is that he is entitled to hold you to the contract or sue for any losses due to the breach. The contract is formed and legaly binding on both parties, in this case verbally and sealed for any doubt with the deposit.

The seller now has to mitigate the loss, to do this in the case of a used car he will have to sell it again. If your lucky enough and someone walks in without him having to do anything and gives him the same price as you were paying then he would have to give you your money back, don't hold your breath on that one.

The reality is he will keep your deposit and try and resell the car for the best price he can get, from the deposit he can take any reasonable costs to do this such as advertising etc.

In reality if he achieves less than the agreed sale price by more than £100 then he could sue you to make up the difference, this is a direct result of your breach.

Bottom line, ask, don't hold your breath and do your searching elsewhere before you jump in and get burnt.