Second Hand Cars & Sale of Goods Act

usefulmale

Joe_Horner wrote: »

In a way, it is.

If everyone was completely clued up (and cynical) about every potential purchase they might make then there'd be no need for it because the dodgy sellers would never find a mark to con out of their hard-earned. So it's only really there to protect the less-than-clued-up (and overly trusting) in any given area. Which some people seem to equate to "stupidity".

Thankfully, the law makers don't take that attitude or there'd be no law at all against any form of mis-selling, sharp practice, or fraud.

I understand what you are saying but in this case, the OP WAS stupid in buying a car that they themselves were unhappy with and no amount of legislation will protect against that.

bigadaj

usefulmale wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but in this case, the OP WAS stupid in buying a car that they themselves were unhappy with and no amount of legislation will protect against that.

Yes but people shouldn't be absolutely penalised by naivety. As a consumer then a reasonable level of protection should be offered when purchasing from dealers or merchants and this is what we're talking about.

The OP could have saved a lot of hassle by walking away, but that doesn't mean they should suffer by the failures of the garage. Repairs, somewhat unwisely, were included as part of the negotiations and so formed part of the contract. The business normally has the opportunity to resolve and repair initially, but if they continue to fail to deal with the issues then there is little alternative than to replace or put the consumer back I the place they would have been prior to the contract being executed.

motorguy

usefulmale wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but in this case, the OP WAS stupid in buying a car that they themselves were unhappy with and no amount of legislation will protect against that.

He had an assurance that the car would be running correctly when he went to pick it up and he appears to have taken the trader at their word.

Not unreasonable and certainly not stupid.

mchale

motorguy wrote: »

taken the trader at their word.

And that's were the mistake was made

arcon5

Did you communicate with the dealer before going ahead with repairs?
What car was it?
Did you try to mitigate your losses? IE was a rebuilt really cheaper than a like for like working unit.

arcon5

As for buying it, I think it's reasonable to base a decision on what the seller has told you. We don't always have to be an expert in every field.

dieseloil

Hi everyone,


Many thanks for all your replies. The car had 115,000 miles on the clock with full main dealer service history. Two weeks after purchase, the car was taken to the specialist gearbox repair company. The garage knew the company and authorized the repairs and said they would stump up £450 towards the repairs plus £500 from the warranty company totalling £950 but the total repairs cost £2000, with incidental costs of £500.


What is the best way forward?

motorguy

mchale wrote: »

And that's were the mistake was made

Yes, quite possibly. But thats a mistake, doesnt make someone stupid.

motorguy

dieseloil wrote: »

Hi everyone,


Many thanks for all your replies. The car had 115,000 miles on the clock with full main dealer service history. Two weeks after purchase, the car was taken to the specialist gearbox repair company. The garage knew the company and authorized the repairs and said they would stump up £450 towards the repairs plus £500 from the warranty company totalling £950 but the total repairs cost £2000, with incidental costs of £500.


What is the best way forward?

Not your problem. The dealer should be paying ALL of this. Faulty at the time of sale, hasnt been resolved.

dieseloil

Just an update: I quoted the SoGA to the garage and they still refuse to pay. Looks like I'll have to recover the money through the small claims court.