Private Seller - misleading sale, admits it, what can I do?

pramsay13

King size is 5' so 60" so a 64" bed doesn't really make sense.

What was the website they sent you a picture of? Was it a sales receipt for the bed, or was it just a generic bed measuring site?

It sounds to me like they have made a mistake so you would be hard pressed to claim successfully against them. If it absolutely had to be super king size you should have measured it.

I think your best bet is to sell it on.

DoaM

IMHO I believe the OP has a case for mis-described goods. Whether it is worth following that up via MCOL is another matter entirely.

unholyangel

The act of viewing goods does not prevent it being a sale by description. There are things which can prevent it being a sale by description but just the act of viewing them is not it else there would be no need for the other provisions of s13 clarifying goods selected by the buyer aren't prevented from being a sale by description and that where its sale by sample and sale by description, its not sufficient that the goods only match one of the two. However the opposite is (almost?) always true - that where you have not examined goods, it will be a sale by description. Likewise if you didn't rely on the description when purchasing then its not a sale by description.

Of course not being a sale by description doesn't mean the description doesn't form part of the contract, just that it won't automatically be treated as a breach of condition allowing you to terminate the contract.

But more to the point, the OP hasn't told us when they entered the contract. Or that they held off agreeing to buy until they had inspected the goods in person (indicating that they may not have relied on the description) - they only make reference to collecting the goods.

OP the £255 fee is the fee for a set aside - the fee you pay when you've had a judgement entered against you and make an application to the court to have the judgement set aside. You would be looking at definitely paying a filing fee, potentially paying a hearing fee if they contest it and then potentially having to pay their lost wages (capped) and travelling expenses if you lost. Of course, even if you win, enforcement is another matter. Even if you obtained judgement at their parents address, unless they have a house of their own somewhere, they're unlikely to own much in the house that could potentially be used to recover any debts.

If it was for a substantial sum then it might be worth a punt but £100 (some of which can be recovered if you sell the bed on as advised)....not so much. Doesn't stop you sending a letter before action though, just personally I wouldn't progress on to court action.

Although if it was their parents bed, why were they selling?

Hermione_Granger

unholyangel wrote: »

The act of viewing goods does not prevent it being a sale by description. There are things which can prevent it being a sale by description but just the act of viewing them is not it

At least one court case has shown otherwise.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Statutory-implied-terms.php

Harlington & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564

The claimant purchased a painting from the defendant for £6,000. The painting was described in an auction catalogue as being by German impressionist artist Gabrielle Munter. Both the buyers and the sellers were London art dealers. The sellers were not experts on German paintings whilst the buyers specialised in German paintings. The purchasers sent their experts to inspect the painting before agreeing to purchase. After the sale the buyers discovered that the painting was a fake and worth less than £100. They brought an action based on s.13 Sale of Goods Act in that the painting was not as described.

Held:

By sending their experts to inspect the painting this meant the sale was no longer by description. S.13 only applies to goods sold by description and therefore the buyers had no protection.

unholyangel

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

At least one court case has shown otherwise.

It wasn't because they viewed the goods - it was because they did not rely on the description (they sent their own "experts" to view and assess the work) and had knowledge that the seller was not familiar with works of that type. Read the judgement, they specifically state that - that they did not rely on the description so it cannot be a sale by description.

You'll find cases going both ways where the goods were viewed. Thats because - as I said - it doesn't hinge on whether they were viewed but on other factors.

owen_money

Surely you should have measured it?

PNebb

Thank you everyone - I did agree to buy before seeing it, certainly that's how the messages read. I simply said if it's in good condition I will take it.


On balance it seems I do have a very strong case, but that being said, do I want to sink hours into this for a fairly meagre moral victory? I do believe it was a genuine mistake initially, and they are a young family, so despite their subsequent failure to make right their mistake, I would have mixed feelings about them getting served with a significant bill (if that happened).


Overall I'll send the letter, see what's said. I'm hoping their parents know nothing about the mis-selling and advise them to just accept the return. It really is bad form, and over not a lot of money. Some people sell their honour cheaply it seems.


As for "Surely you should have measured it?" thank you for the helpful comment :rotfl:I have a wife for that kind of insightful adjoinder, though you are (both) completely correct :beer:
Live and learn. Heartened to see such a strong response from you all.



Thank you, honestly.:A

owen_money

PNebb wrote: »

Thank you everyone - I did agree to buy before seeing it, certainly that's how the messages read. I simply said if it's in good condition I will take it.


On balance it seems I do have a very strong case, but that being said, do I want to sink hours into this for a fairly meagre moral victory? I do believe it was a genuine mistake initially, and they are a young family, so despite their subsequent failure to make right their mistake, I would have mixed feelings about them getting served with a significant bill (if that happened).


Overall I'll send the letter, see what's said. I'm hoping their parents know nothing about the mis-selling and advise them to just accept the return. It really is bad form, and over not a lot of money. Some people sell their honour cheaply it seems.


As for "Surely you should have measured it?" thank you for the helpful comment :rotfl:I have a wife for that kind of insightful adjoinder, though you are (both) completely correct :beer:
Live and learn. Heartened to see such a strong response from you all.



Thank you, honestly.:A

Sorry, I was only saying what my wife would have said :rotfl:

I've been there my friend :cool:

waamo

PNebb wrote: »

Thank you everyone - I did agree to buy before seeing it, certainly that's how the messages read. I simply said if it's in good condition I will take it.


On balance it seems I do have a very strong case, but that being said, do I want to sink hours into this for a fairly meagre moral victory? I do believe it was a genuine mistake initially, and they are a young family, so despite their subsequent failure to make right their mistake, I would have mixed feelings about them getting served with a significant bill (if that happened).


Overall I'll send the letter, see what's said. I'm hoping their parents know nothing about the mis-selling and advise them to just accept the return. It really is bad form, and over not a lot of money. Some people sell their honour cheaply it seems.


As for "Surely you should have measured it?" thank you for the helpful comment :rotfl:I have a wife for that kind of insightful adjoinder, though you are (both) completely correct :beer:
Live and learn. Heartened to see such a strong response from you all.



Thank you, honestly.:A

Personally I think that's the most sensible way forward. Court should always be an absolute last resort and sometimes you have to pick your battles selectively.

I see little benefit in a hollow victory.

bris

Yip as above, description only goes so far, mistakes can be made. When you go to see the item you do your own due diligence at this point, confirm what you are buying.


Description counts for unseen goods, you would struggle to win this in court.


A judge would also wonder why you didn't mitigate the loss, you do this by selling the bed for as much as possible and suing for the difference plus any costs associated with the sale such as auction fees etc.


Digging your heels in is one thing, getting it right is another.