Im being sued after I sold my car

im-lost

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Again, if you really believe any case has "absolutely no chance of losing" then, frankly, your opinion on the matter doesn't count for much at all.

Apart from anything else, refusing mediation when suggested, or refusing to engage meaningfully in it and "seeing them in court", has a natural tendency to !!!! judges off. Most of them are only human and tend to see it as wasting their valuable time if it could have been resolved out of court.

As for the whole thing about selling offences:

The OP mentioned it early on because that was part of what she'd been threatened with.

Many posters, incorrectly told her that either (a) there was no such offence, (b) there was but it only applies to traders and / or (c) there is, but only if you do it knowingly. All that advice was simply and absolutely wrong. There is such an offence, it can apply to any seller, and you don't have to know about the issues to be guilty of it*.

Given that the buyer already accused her of it and, despite the differences between civil and criminal courts, could very easily indeed have worked it effectively into his complaint, it was dangerous fr the OP to give her the impression that there was no such offence or that it couldn't apply to her, so she should ignore it.

All that said, if it had been me I would have gone to court







* For the wannabe pedants out there, being guilty of something and being found guilty of it are entirely different things. You can be guilty but not charged, guilty but found innocent, guilty and found guilty or even innocent but found guilty.

If I finish the bottle of whiskey in the kitchen and then go for a drive I'm guilty of drink driving. But, to be found guilty of it I have to be stopped, charged and convicted.

On the other hand, if I'm falsely accused of murdering my neighbour and a jury finds me guilty, that doesn't suddenly (and retrospectively) mean that I actually did it!

That's just complete and utter hogwash, I've never read such a stupid statement in my entire life

Joe_Horner

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

I didn't think you were guilty until the court decided you were.

There's a difference between guilt in a factual sense and guilt in a legal one. If I club my mother in law to death with a damp tea towel then I'm guilty of murdering her (from the basic definition of guilt - being responsible for, or deserving blame for, an event).

But I can't be held legally guilty until a court convicts me, which they may fail to do even if it was me wot done it. That's why we have verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilty" rather than guilty and innocent - not guilty technically means that a court has failed to prove my guilt, not that I'm genuinely innocent.

On the other hand, if a court convicts me in error then I'm still legally guilty even though I may be factually innocent.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Who prosecutes this offence, and what is the prosecution process?

Usually Trading Standards would prosecute but any entity, including private individuals, can bring a criminal prosecution for this (or anything else) if they want to.

For example, the police might consider it in a case where someone sold a car that was obviously unroadworthy but freshly bodged to look ok and resulted in a serious accident very soon after the sale (perhaps suspension held on with chicken wire and filler or brake flexi pipes bodged with heatshrink - yes, I have seen both of those done!!!

There may be an assumption by them in that case that the seller knew the car was dangerous, but they would not have to prove that for a prosecution to succeed.

Joe_Horner

im-lost wrote: »

That's just complete and utter hogwash, I've never read such a stupid statement in my entire life

Really? Would you care to enlighten us as to why?

eta: I assume you mean the bit you've highlighted in the quote?

Cornucopia

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Usually Trading Standards would prosecute but any entity, including private individuals, can bring a criminal prosecution for this (or anything else) if they want to.

That's what I thought. But bringing a private prosecution is hugely complicated and expensive.

IANAL, but I don't think you can just chuck in any criminal offence you feel like into a civil claim. But please correct me, as there are a few cases I'd like to bring.

Spicy_McHaggis

Joe_Horner wrote: »

There's a difference between guilt in a factual sense and guilt in a legal one. If I club my mother in law to death with a damp tea towel then I'm guilty of murdering her (from the basic definition of guilt - being responsible for, or deserving blame for, an event).

But I can't be held legally guilty until a court convicts me, which they may fail to do even if it was me wot done it. That's why we have verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilty" rather than guilty and innocent - not guilty technically means that a court has failed to prove my guilt, not that I'm genuinely innocent.

On the other hand, if a court convicts me in error then I'm still legally guilty even though I may be factually innocent.

So you're not innocent until proven guilty?

Joe_Horner

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's what I thought. But bringing a private prosecution is hugely complicated and expensive.

IANAL, but I don't think you can just chuck in any criminal offence you feel like into a civil claim. But please correct me, as there are a few cases I'd like to bring.

No you can't just throw criminal allegations around.

What you can do is point out that it's a matter of legal fact that selling a car in an unroadworthy condition is illegal, and doing so would void the contract because it's really rather hard to enforce a contract for an illegal act.

You can then establish, using your expert's report, that the car was probably unroadworthy when bought. You only have to show it to the lesser civil requirement of "balance of probabilities".

By doing so, for the purpose of civil proceedings, you've then established that the contract of sale should be void because it was probably illegal (no conviction required) and that you should get all your money and costs back from the OP, who will be left wit a now broken car.

To defend against that approach the seller would have to provide evidence against the expert's report to show that the car more likely than not didn't have the faults at the time of sale. Just showing that it might not have isn't enough - you'd have to show that it probably didn't have which could be difficult.

Nothing to do with SOGA and nothing to do with buyer beware; a simple matter of illegal contracts being void.



Without the law on unroadworthy sales, that approach by the buyer wouldn't work because even if you established, through your experts, that the faults were probably there at the time of sale, caveat emptor would apply under SOGA with it being a private sale.

That is why the advice to the OP to go into court shouting caveat emptor and ignoring the roadworthiness requirements was dangerous.

People on here seem to have an unfortunate tendency to think that SOGA is the be-all and end-all of law when it comes to selling. In most cases it suffices but the law really isn't that straightforward - there are usually a good half dozen ways to skin a legal cat if you want to, and the buyer in this case seemed intent on some kitten mittens.

Joe_Horner

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

So you're not innocent until proven guilty?

Legally yes, you are.

But there is a difference between being legally guilty and factually guilty. The same word can be used in either context but the two are not entirely interchangeable.

One is a construct of the legal system, requiring due process and suitable proof, and the other is a matter of intrinsic fact about who did what and when.

Or are you suggesting that someone who commits a crime actually didn't do it until convicted?

If so then you've just invented a cure for all crime - if the guilty party genuinely didn't do it until he's convicted in curt then all we have to do is stop prosecuting people and none of the crimes will have happened because no-one committed them! :beer:

londonTiger

sounds like an interesting story, just read the OP. ANyone have a summary of what happened? Cant be arsed to read 10 pages of posts, Spicy Mchaggis making half of them with redundant posts.

Spicy_McHaggis

londonTiger wrote: »

sounds like an interesting story, just read the OP. ANyone have a summary of what happened? Cant be arsed to read 10 pages of posts, Spicy Mchaggis making half of them with redundant posts.

Have a read and you'll realise you're wrong as usual Dave.

Nodding_Donkey

londonTiger wrote: »

sounds like an interesting story, just read the OP. ANyone have a summary of what happened? Cant be arsed to read 10 pages of posts, Spicy Mchaggis making half of them with redundant posts.