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

Marktheshark

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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?

You are answering yourself now ?

Explain how she should assist ?
All she has to do is agree on expert to be used.
Thats it, if the claimant does not make the offer for her to decide upon, then the case gets struck out.
This is not mediaeval justice, its county court.

My gut feeling is the claimant having had her mechanics (text removed by MSE Forum Team) thrown out by the judge will now let it drop.

Marktheshark

arcon5 wrote: »

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.

Have to agree, it is not her job to run around after the silly woman.
Its not her car, at what point does she not become responsible for repairing a car she sold ?
The law say in a private sale it is, when you sell it.

Joe_Horner

Marktheshark wrote: »

[...]at what point does she not become responsible for repairing a car she sold ?
The law say in a private sale it is, when you sell it.

Very simplistic and, more importantly when offering advice to others, wrong!

What you say only applies if the OP didn't mis-sell in certain ways. One is by lying about faults when asked, one is by selling the car in an un-roadworthy condition. In either case, the sale would be void and the buyer entitled to a refund.

We have the OP's version which, personally, I believe. But we don't have the buyer's version and they've made allegations that one or both of the situations above apply. It's up to the court to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities that's true.

That means (in Jeremy Kyle terms seeing as your comprehension seems to be at that level) that the judge only has to think it's 51% likely that one of the above happened in order to find in favour of the buyer.

By allowing themselves to be seen as belligerent, unhelpful, and not willing to work towards a solution in the hope that the buyer will drop it, the Op would be going a very long way indeed to scoring that 51%.

Marktheshark

The balance of probabilities based in Law, case law in this fact and the large amounts of case law referring to Caveat Emptor .
This is not sale of goods, its private sale.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Joe_Horner

Marktheshark wrote: »

You are answering yourself now ?

Explain how she should assist ?

By pro-actively contacting the buyer and suggesting (for example) the RAC for the inspection.

That gets the drop on the buyer if they try offering someone who might not be independent (such as the nephew of her mechanic, who works at an entirely different garage and the Op doesn't know about).

All she has to do is agree on expert to be used.
Thats it, if the claimant does not make the offer for her to decide upon, then the case gets struck out.

All the buyer has to do is make a string of suggestions that the Op doesn't trust / agree with and it's then the OP failing with the JOINT requirement, the defence gets thrown out, and the Op loses.

This is not mediaeval justice, its county court.

Yes, at which people are expected to work as adults to find a solution, not try to act like bit players in whatever two bit TV drama you got your knowledge of courts from.

If that's your gut feeling then it's rather lucky that the OP doesn't have to rely on whatever indigestion you're suffering from!

Joe_Horner

You do realise that private sales are fully covered by the Sale of Goods Act aren't you? There's no distinction between private and trade sales except where that Act makes one. The Act does NOT exempt private sales from mis-description.

The question of roadworthiness stems from the Road Traffic Act, which makes virtually NO distinction between private and trade sales and does NOT require knowledge of the unroadworthiness by the seller for the sale to be unlawful.

Since an unlawful sale is unenforceable, if the buyer shows the car was (more likely than not) unroadworthy when sold then they're entitled to their money back.

Caveat emptor is one of those nice phrases that people throw around, when they really don't know what they're talking about, as if it's a blanket cure for everything. It isn't.

EdGasket

Well it was roadworthy. It had an MoT and the buyer test drove it to their satisfaction. Having difficulty getting reverse does not make a car 'unroadworthy' and buyer was told of this and accepted it.

Quentin

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You do realise that private sales are fully covered by the Sale of Goods Act aren't you? There's no distinction between private and trade sales .......



Caveat emptor is one of those nice phrases that people throw around, when they really don't know what they're talking about, as if it's a blanket cure for everything. It isn't.

No.

Private sales aren't "fully covered" by SOGA at all.

All you have to do is tell the truth in your dealings with the purchaser.

Otherwise it is caveat emptor!

George_Michael

Quentin wrote: »

No.

Private sales aren't "fully covered" by SOGA at all.

All you have to do is tell the truth in your dealings with the purchaser.

Otherwise it is caveat emptor!

What contracts does the SOGA relate to?

Contracts to which Act applies.

(1)This Act applies to contracts of sale of goods made on or after (but not to those made before) 1 January 1894

See, no exemption for private sales. The act in general covers all sales, it's just that some parts (and those parts are clearly marked) only apply to B2C contracts.

The section that states that the goods must be as described applies to all sales so if something is described as being in good condition and it wasn't then the buyer is entitled to a full refund. Caveat emptor doesn't apply to misdescribed goods irrespective of who sells them.

Quentin

George_Michael wrote: »

See, no exemption for private sales.

The section that states that the goods must be as described applies to all sales so if something is described as being in good condition and it wasn't then the buyer is entitled to a full refund. Caveat emptor doesn't apply to misdescribed goods irrespective of who sells them.

1) I didn't post that private sales are exempt! (read my post you quoted!)


2) There is no evidence in the thread that the OP did any "misdescription" - so as far as we can see it is caveat emptor!