Im being sued after I sold my car

roonaldo

You dont owe this person anything. Just state you werent aware of the fault. Do turn up to the court though, you dont want him winning by default.

jimjames

FOREVER21 wrote: »

JimJames
Your quote from the CAB is the Northen Ireland version which differs from the English one quoted by Wig.

Which one is correct ? I would tend to go with the version quoted by Wig see my earlier post.

Wig quoted the NI link too.

Switch the country and see what it does but I couldnt see any difference

Marktheshark

The Claim is defended upon the principle of well standing case law caveat Emptor.


The car was sold second hand in a private sale following a full inspection by the plaintiff .
The Plaintiff used the given opportunity to examine and satisfy themselves of the condition of the car before making an offer on what conclusions of the inspection the plaintiff arrived at.


The plaintiff negotiated a price based upon his circumspection and conclusions.
He agreed the price and agreed the private sale of a second hand car on the date XXXXXX.
The car is twelve years old and would be expected to have fair ware and tare associated with an average 12 year old car.


The Plaintiff as the buyer was satisfied at the time of inspection that the car was as described and finalised the sale.


Any defects that the plaintiff claims may have arisen are the day to day running costs of motoring.
By purchasing from a private seller, they would have know that they have no warranty in place and once purchased they now become fully responsible for any subsequent repairs or costs.
No warranty was agreed with the plaintiff and the sale was clearly stated to the plaintiff that it was a final private sale.


The Plaintiff now believes they have a legal right to have the defendant pay for maintaining this car and bearing of the cost of any repairs required that they purchased from the defendant .
The question as to at what point would they deem themselves to be responsible for repairs and maintenance costs of a car they now own having purchased in such car in a private sale must arise.


The defendant believes this principle is covered in case law by the well standing principle of caveat emptor and the buyer knowingly purchasing a twelve year old second hand car in a private sale would have taken the responsibilities of maintaining the vehicle and any subsequent repairs at time of the purchase.


The defendant submits the defence of caveat emptor on the legal basis that that plaintiff is now the owner of the vehicle from the date of purchase and that myself the defendant has no legal responsibility to pay for maintenance of the plaintiffs own property. .


Therefore I request the claim of the plaintiff is refused and the expenses of £90 for attending court are awarded to the defendant.

bod1467

Minor typos ...

The car is twelve years old and would be expected to have fair wear and tear associated with an average 12 year old car.

By purchasing from a private seller, they would have known that they have no warranty in place

Marktheshark

bod1467 wrote: »

Minor typos ...

The car is twelve years old and would be expected to have fair wear and tear associated with an average 12 year old car.

By purchasing from a private seller, they would have known that they have no warranty in place

Totally, anyone who knows how to disable the spell checker on this windows 8 laptop with Firefox ?

It has me by the bullocks.

Wig

FOREVER21 wrote: »

However yes to sell a vehicle which is knowingly not roadworthy is indeed a criminal offence, but this has not been established by the claimant at the time of sale, and is disputed by the seller.

'knowingly'..... So it is not an absolute offence?

I'm just playing devils advocate here, I see what the CAB says, the CAB doesn't mention 'knowingly', I see a lot of people here dismissing & ignoring what the CAB says and not showing in any detail why the CAB is wrong or misleading.

I have finally decided to look it up, seeing as no one else here is supplying any evidence to support their statements.

RTA 1988 S75

75 Vehicles not to be sold in unroadworthy condition or altered so as to be unroadworthy.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall supply a motor vehicle or trailer in an unroadworthy condition.

(2)In this section references to supply include—
(a)sell,
(b)offer to sell or supply, and
(c)expose for sale.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—
(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or
(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .
(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b)it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person

(4)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use of it on a road in that condition

(a)would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made as respects the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations under section 41 or
(b)would involve a danger of injury to any person.

(5)A person who supplies or alters a motor vehicle or trailer in contravention of this section, or causes or permits it to be so supplied or altered, is guilty of an offence.

(6)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the supply or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if he proves—
(a)that it was supplied or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or
(b)that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used,

(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6A)Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) above shall not apply in relation to a person who, in the course of a trade or business—

(a)exposes a vehicle or trailer for sale, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that any prospective purchaser would be aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful, or

(b)offers to sell a vehicle or trailer, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the offer was made was aware of that fact.]

(7)Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the validity of a contract or any rights arising under a contract.

The only exception there for a private seller is if they had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on a road. It doesn't mention that he has to have knowledge of the defect.

And this enlightens us of my earlier question, if you sell with a disclaimer to cover yourself, knowing that the buyer will be driving it away, you still have comitted the offence.

This law seems to be written as an absolute offence which does seem to me to be unfair, if you genuinely don't know about the defect, you are still commiting the offence.

I am always happy to be shown that I am wrong.


Re: the other CAB page "The car you bought is faulty" I'm not so sure it is conflicting, a car can be faulty but not unroadworthy or it can be both. Seems to me if you can show the car was sold in an unroadworthy condition (not an easy thing to do) then you can claim damages against a private seller.

LoopyLocks

But he had the car for over 2 weeks so by that line of reasoning you could buy a car and wreck it and then go back to the person you bought it off and tell him that it was unroadworthy and get your money back. Im not saying that the car was perfect and I showed him everything I could that wasnt right which wasnt really that much. He even checked it over twice. Once by himself and then the next day with his dad. It was a good little car. Maybe there was something I didnt know about and he is telling the truth but still theres no need for all this. I did say I would help him sort it out as long as he hasnt just gone and hammered the hell out of it. But he just talks all legal and does all this and tries to get me to pay some people to sort it out and now starts a court case.

patman99

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Claim is defended upon the principle of well standing case law caveat Emptor.


The car was sold second hand in a private sale following a full inspection by the plaintiff .
The Plaintiff used the given opportunity to examine and satisfy themselves of the condition of the car before making an offer on what conclusions of the inspection the plaintiff arrived at.


The plaintiff negotiated a price based upon his circumspection and conclusions.
He agreed the price and agreed the private sale of a second hand car on the date XXXXXX.
The car is twelve years old and would be expected to have fair wear and tear associated with an average 12 year old car.


The Plaintiff as the buyer was satisfied at the time of inspection that the car was as described and finalised the sale.


Any defects that the plaintiff claims may have arisen are the day to day running costs of motoring.
By purchasing from a private seller, they would have known that they have no warranty in place and once purchased they now become fully responsible for any subsequent repairs or costs.
No warranty was agreed with the plaintiff and the sale was clearly stated to the plaintiff that it was a final private sale.


The Plaintiff now believes they have a legal right to have the defendant pay for maintaining this car and bearing of the cost of any repairs required that they purchased from the defendant .
The question as to at what point would they deem themselves to be responsible for repairs and maintenance costs of a car they now own having purchased in such car in a private sale must arise.


The defendant believes this principle is covered in case law by the well standing principle of caveat emptor and the buyer knowingly purchasing a twelve year old second hand car in a private sale would have taken the responsibilities of maintaining the vehicle and any subsequent repairs at time of the purchase.


The defendant submits the defence of caveat emptor on the legal basis that that plaintiff is now the owner of the vehicle from the date of purchase and that myself the defendant has no legal responsibility to pay for maintenance of the plaintiffs own property. .


Therefore I request the claim of the plaintiff is refused and the expenses of £90 for attending court are awarded to the defendant.

Loopylocks, I have corrected the spelling from Marktheshark's original post.

He has created you a very good defense statement and I suggest you use it.

I hope you have been on MCOL and aknowledged the claim and ticked the 'I intend to file a defense' box.
Now, all you need to do (frompersonal experience) is to type-up your defense statement and post copies to the Court and to the plaintiff (he will, in turn, need to furnish both the Court and you with his evidence he wishes to use).
If he fails to supply you with his evidence pack, you can bring this up in Court as it makes his case less tangible.

LoopyLocks

Ok thanks a lot. I had to google what a plaintiff is and what caveat emptor was lol. I dont understand it completely I have to say but I get the jist of it. So thats what I put as my defence?

prowla

(And the buyer admits they bought it as seen, without doing a comprehensive check.)