Sold Car Privately - Buyer Unhappy - Wants to return - Help

Marktheshark

The other reason the OP needs to let this silly woman sort out the inspection is if she decides to drop the case, then she will be paying for it.
People do not work for free in life, the engineer will want paying for the report, if she drops the case, then the OP does not want to be the one who made the order.

But saying she should help the woman suing her to sue her if she can not get things organised she needs for the case is well :rotfl:.

She started it, she has been told what to do by the court if she wants the case to progress, she can jolly well get it sorted and write to the OP with the offer.
If she can not, she has the option of packing the case in.

I would say the instructions of the court have just made things far better for the OP as they are saying, independent report, or no case.

Quentin

Marktheshark wrote: »

The other reason the OP needs to let this silly woman sort out the inspection is if she decides to drop the case, then she will be paying for it.....

You clearly don't understand the direction which is that the mechanic has to be jointly instructed, and the cost shared equally!

Marktheshark

Its a direction, it gets done or the case is struck out.
If the claimant proposes a satisfactory solution to the defendant then she will have to agree, if they don't, the direction remains non-satisfied and there will be no case.
She has the OP's address.
Her move.

Quentin

Marktheshark wrote: »

The other reason the OP needs to let this silly woman sort out the inspection is if she decides to drop the case, then she will be paying for it.
People do not work for free in life, the engineer will want paying for the report, if she drops the case, then the OP does not want to be the one who made the order.....

Both parties need to comply with the directions.


They have been directed to instruct jointly and share the cost.


The winner will then be able to claim the cost off the loser.


If the claimant drops the case after the mechanic has been paid, then the OP can pursue the claimant for his share of the costs incurred.

Joe_Horner

Marktheshark wrote: »

Its a direction, it gets done or the case is struck out.
If the claimant proposes a satisfactory solution to the defendant then she will have to agree, if they don't, the direction remains non-satisfied and there will be no case.
She has the OP's address.
Her move.

No, it's a joint direction. It gets done or the judge rules against whoever he decides prevented it being done[\i].

By making an active effort to comply the OP protects against the judge deciding they were being a stroppy git who was hoping to force the claimant into folding and ruling against them, which seems to be what you're suggesting they do.

What part of that very simple situation don't you understand?

gazfocus

Surely, whether the OP should assist with the claimant or not is a moot point considering the any award against the OP should be appealed anyway due to caveat emptor?

I am really puzzled as to why the judge feels this case is suitable for mediation because the only outcome should be that the OP owes nothing.

EdGasket

gazfocus wrote: »

Surely, whether the OP should assist with the claimant or not is a moot point considering the any award against the OP should be appealed anyway due to caveat emptor?

I am really puzzled as to why the judge feels this case is suitable for mediation because the only outcome should be that the OP owes nothing.

You are right but the law, or its misuse, can be a funny thing and the results are not always as predictable as one might think.

robbies_gal

maybe the judge doesnt belive in caveat emptor

arcon5

YWhy should op refusing to help the claimant affect the outcome? Surely the judge is there to apply the law rather than have his own opinions impact how it's applied.

and ops not arguing about whether the car has problems or mot. She's saying yes the car did develop problems but I'm not liable, rendering any report pointless. Let the other party take whatever biased report they like.

Joe_Horner

arcon5 wrote: »

YWhy should op refusing to help the claimant affect the outcome?

Because they're not "helping the claimant", they're helping the court gather the information it needs to decide a fair outcome.

It's a civil case, which is decided n the balance of probabilities. Which means that all the buyer has to do is convince the judge that it's "more likely than not" that the OP mis-sold.

Ultimately, all the judge has to go on is any exert report and the statements of the two parties. Now, if one party is seen to act belligerently or obstructively to a requirement set by the court then their testimony is likely to carry less weight than the person who's been doing everything they can to assist the court.

If that obstruction is to do with not assisting in getting the expert testimony - potentially the only impartial information available - then what conclusion would you draw on the balance of probabilities?