Private car sale - buyer unhappy.

Warwick_Hunt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Thereby causing a loss to the OP of the purchase price.

So, we have false representation, knowingly made, with the intent of causing loss to the OP.

No, we don’t.

Even if the car was returned where is the loss?

arcon5

So the buyer purchased a car said to be in good working order. Immediately after gearbox issues surface forcing them to sell it at a massive loss. Unsurprisingly the seller denies all knowledge and quickly blocks buyers number.

Sounds like a typical situation where somebody has started having intermittent faults and getting rid quickly before it becomes a money pit.

Quite unfortunate for the buyer, even if they do have very few rights. But seller certainly doesn't seem to be whiter than white

Joe_Horner

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No, we don’t.

Even if the car was returned where is the loss?

It doesn't work like that. The OP doesn't have that car any more and doesn't want or need it. The cash loss of the sale price is entirely separate from anything else.

You can't just take something belonging to someone else and replace it with some random other thing of equivalent value. Otherwise I could come into your home (invited, of course, to avoid any charges there), remove your TV and leave you a dishwasher of equivalent value. By your logic you haven't lost your tv.

[Deleted User]

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

You, you’d be prosecuted for failing to name the driver and get six points instead of three. No presumption would be made as to who was driving.

Oh you know what I mean. No need to get so pedantic about it.

Warwick_Hunt

Deleted_User wrote: »

Oh you know what I mean. No need to get so pedantic about it.

But that’s not what you said.

Warwick_Hunt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. The OP doesn't have that car any more and doesn't want or need it. The cash loss of the sale price is entirely separate from anything else.

You can't just take something belonging to someone else and replace it with some random other thing of equivalent value. Otherwise I could come into your home (invited, of course, to avoid any charges there), remove your TV and leave you a dishwasher of equivalent value. By your logic you haven't lost your tv.

I think you miss the point. The OP sold the car and was happy the price they got, there simply is no loss. No one has taken anything belonging to anyone else. The only exchange was the car and the cash at the time of that transaction everyone was happy for it to happen.

Joe_Horner

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

I think you miss the point. The OP sold the car and was happy the price they got, there simply is no loss. No one has taken anything belonging to anyone else. The only exchange was the car and the cash at the time of that transaction everyone was happy for it to happen.

No, you're missing the point.

The sale is finished, in the past, a done deal. The OP now owns whatever the price paid was. The buyer now owns a car ostensibly of that value. No loss has been suffered in that sale.

BUT, by making a false representation as part of a plan to try and deprive the OP of the cash he (now) owns, the buyer is intending to inflict a loss of that cash on the OP.

The fact he might try to leave an (unwanted by either of them) car in exchange is entirely beside the point, just as me leaving you with an unwanted dishwasher would be if I caused you to lose you TV.

Note that the loss doesn't have to actually occur for fraud to be complete. All that's required is the false declaration (which is a given in this instance) and the intent to cause a loss.

George_Michael

I would say that the easiest way to look at it is to ask yourself one question.
"Why has the buyer transferred the car back to the OP without their knowledge or permission?"

Unless they did this out of the goodness of their heart and are simply giving the OP a present of the car, any other reasons can think of would result in the op suffering a loss or a potential loss, something that the buyer must be aware of.

Warwick_Hunt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, you're missing the point.

The sale is finished, in the past, a done deal. The OP now owns whatever the price paid was. The buyer now owns a car ostensibly of that value. No loss has been suffered in that sale.

BUT, by making a false representation as part of a plan to try and deprive the OP of the cash he (now) owns, the buyer is intending to inflict a loss of that cash on the OP.

The fact he might try to leave an (unwanted by either of them) car in exchange is entirely beside the point, just as me leaving you with an unwanted dishwasher would be if I caused you to lose you TV.

Note that the loss doesn't have to actually occur for fraud to be complete. All that's required is the false declaration (which is a given in this instance) and the intent to cause a loss.

No, the has to be a loss or the op needs to be exposed to a risk of loss. In this case there is no risk.

Joe_Horner

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No, the has to be a loss or the op needs to be exposed to a risk of loss. In this case there is no risk.

I think you'll find the law disagrees with you there...

2 Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

It's the intent that creates the offence, not the fact of loss or exposure. Any actual loss or exposure is immaterial in determining guilt but may be relevant during sentencing.

Effectively, an attempt to defraud is treated as fraud just as if it had been successful.