Faulty car from Dealer

macman

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Sausage roll is the original poster ("OP") of ths topic and they have stated in the quote above that the car was less than 30 days old, which is new enough that the manufacturer would be interested in the fact the dealer is selling it in an unroadworthy condition, despite the fact it is apparently also second hand.

The fact they also said it cost them £1300 does not mean they did not say it was almost new in a different post. Both things being true seems unlikely though.

Something doesn't add up. Or perhaps one of you has an explanation for the quoted text above?

But what the OP meant to say was quite clearly that the sale was made less than 30 days ago...so he could still reject it for a refund under CRA.
OP, if you think you can get better advice by Googling it, then why post in the first place?. It's a public forum, so opinions will differ.

stuart30

macman wrote: »

But what the OP meant to say was quite clearly that the sale was made less than 30 days ago...so he could still reject it for a refund under CRA.
OP, if you think you can get better advice by Googling it, then why post in the first place?. It's a public forum, so opinions will differ.

Simply becuase the replies are not helpfull and sadly incorrect in what has been stated.

Ive asked for advice...thanked those who have offerd it...then gone away and found the correct procedure myself.

Once again thanks for sharing the wisdom....:T