New car delivered with wrong specification

photome

bazzyb wrote: »

Why do you want to know? Completely irrelevant question.

because i am nosy as are most people and it may help others in similar situation

the OP doesnt have to answer, I only asked as would most people if this was a chat down the pub.

NotRichAtAll

bazzyb wrote: »

Why do you want to know? Completely irrelevant question.

i do not think it is irrelevant.

happyc84

I asked the same question.

We the public demand the right to know - what car is it?

cajef

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I'd say that particular statement was purely a fact.

Dont think it takes a law degree to know that not all companies act 100% within the law 100% of the time as you cant read a paper cover to cover and not see about one company or another being investigated for something or another

As this thread is about a brand new car from a main dealer not one company or another, you are saying that major car manufactures with worldwide customers print brochures with clauses that could be possibly be illegal, somehow I doubt that your statement is purely a fact, keep digging the hole is getting deeper.

bazzyb

photome wrote: »

because i am nosy as are most people

Fair enough.

photome wrote: »

it may help others in similar situation

I disagree. Assuming what the OP has said is accurate, this is all down to the dealer in question, not the make or model or car.

The car in question may be sold at many different dealers, and the dealer in question may sell many different cars.

timbo58

IMHO The spec should be 100% the same as you had agreed and was written on the order.

During the time to wait for my new VW they'd decided to add blue motion to all engines and a Hifi upgrade, I got neither.
I was a little disappointed but knew I'd ordered the model as it was in the factory at the time of order.

If, however, anything had been missing from my (extensive) tick list I'd have expected them to resolve it immediately (or confirm they were going to- in writing) or, if the omissions were significant, asked for my trade in car back and driven away, after getting my deposit back.

I would agree that clauses allowing the company to do as they wish with specifications are unlikely to be regarded fair and are possibly in contravention of the unfair contracts regulations.

Otherwise every time you ordered a XYZ car model S type that came 'standard' with leather seats & a sunroof they could simply whack a 's type' badge on an XYZ basic model with fabric seats and no sunroof and expect you to suck it up.

InsideInsurance

cajef wrote: »

As this thread is about a brand new car from a main dealer not one company or another, you are saying that major car manufactures with worldwide customers print brochures with clauses that could be possibly be illegal, somehow I doubt that your statement is purely a fact, keep digging the hole is getting deeper.

It was a sweeping statement that just because its in company literature doesnt automatically mean its enforceable/ legal. It wasnt explicitly about car manufacturers (minor or major) but I would include them in the sweeping statement as I would furniture companies, white goods manufacturers, banks and everyone else in between.

I think you are sadly mistaken on the one of us thats in the hole digging but if you enjoy being down there, keep going :rotfl:

cajef

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I think you are sadly mistaken on the one of us thats in the hole digging but if you enjoy being down there, keep going :rotfl:

I am not the one claiming that clauses in brochures are illegal and then trying to justify that claim with sweeping statements and a load of twaddle about companies that has nothing to do with this thread.

At least when posting in the forums try to keep to facts and not opinions that you cannot substantiate though of course if you believe everything printed in the papers it is not surprising, I don't have that problem.

I am out of this thread now as it is hijacking the OP's thread, though of course I expect you will try to have the last word with more twaddle.:p

Rappa

unholyangel wrote: »

Accepting delivery and accepting the goods under the sale of good act are two entirely different things

If goods don't conform at time of delivery and acceptance hasn't occurred....the consumer can insist on a refund rather than a repair/replacement/reduction of contract price.

(a) did you not notice the question marks?

(b) Even after the OP has also enjoyed the benefit of using it? :huh:

I would urge the OP to seek independent legal advice if they have any intention of pursuing things further

(The internet is not the place to obtain such advice)

The OP has already admitted to acting "naively" in this whole matter.

unholyangel

Rappa wrote: »

(a) did you not notice the question marks?

(b) Even after the OP has also enjoyed the benefit of using it? :huh:

I would urge the OP to seek independent legal advice if they have any intention of pursuing things further

(The internet is not the place to obtain such advice)

The OP has already admitted to acting "naively" in this whole matter.

Using the car doesn't usually constitute acceptance (especially where the buyer is a consumer and has not previously examined the goods - acceptance only occurs when a reasonable time has passed in those circumstances) as you would use someone else car - you'd just take better care of it than if it was your own - however you wouldn't modify someone elses property so modifying it would be seen as acceptance.

ETA: although as an earlier post pointed out, he should really only use the car where absolutely necessary.

Plus theres also this:

11.7 A term which could allow the supplier to vary what is supplied at will –
rather than because of bona fide external circumstances – is unlikely to be
fair even if customers have a right of cancellation and refund. The
consumer should never have to choose between accepting a product that is
not what was agreed, or suffering the inconvenience of unexpectedly not
getting, for example, goods for which he or she may have an immediate
need, or a long-planned holiday, just because it suits the supplier not to
supply what was promised.

Of course even if acceptance has occurred, OP is still due a remedy, just he can't force a refund.