Sold the wrong car

System

AdrianC wrote: »

And gawd knows how the rear of a FWD "slipped a bit" on a wet roundabout...

Quite easy. OP can't drive for toffee so goes steaming round a roundabout, realises they're going too fast, lifts off the throttle which transfers the weight on the rear wheels to the front of the vehicle resulting in lift off oversteer.

If the OP truly needed a 4x4 for their business they wouldn't be buying anything with a Vauxhall badge on it, they'd be looking at things like Land Rovers, Toyota Landcruisers and the like, vehicles that come with chunky tyres.

MysteryMe

The OP says

"This particular advert did not say it was a 2WD, nor could I see it in the main description, so I arranged a visit to see it. "

So it was neither advertised as a 4WD or 2WD.

If the OP had been a consumer then there would be grounds to claim misleading omission based on the OP saying buying a 4WD was important to them etc and making references to 4WD on several occassions during the sales process. Of course the OP could have done more but so could the salesman.

However as already pointed out OP is not a consumer so CPUTRS does not apply as it's B2B and covered by different legislation but I just don't go along with some of the responses on here laying all the blame at the OP.

Car_54

MysteryMe wrote: »

The OP says

"This particular advert did not say it was a 2WD, nor could I see it in the main description, so I arranged a visit to see it. "

So it was neither advertised as a 4WD or 2WD.

But the OP also said "I did not get a reply from him, but rather the MD of the group saying that it was advertised in Auto Trader as being 2WD (he sent me a copy of a page further into the advert, which I had not seen, which said 2wd in small grey letters) and therefore it was sold correctly."


So it was advertised correctly: he simply hadn't read it.

Mercdriver

It may be that the salesman mistook the talk of 4 x 4 as being the common misdescription of SUVs as 4 x 4s even when they do not have a 4 wheel drive system. And the OP not asking specifically about the car having 4 wheel drive didn't challenge that assumption.

waamo

Frankly who cares? It looks like a hit and run poster.

motorguy

MysteryMe wrote: »

The OP says

"This particular advert did not say it was a 2WD, nor could I see it in the main description, so I arranged a visit to see it. "

So it was neither advertised as a 4WD or 2WD.

If the OP had been a consumer then there would be grounds to claim misleading omission based on the OP saying buying a 4WD was important to them etc and making references to 4WD on several occassions during the sales process. Of course the OP could have done more but so could the salesman.

However as already pointed out OP is not a consumer so CPUTRS does not apply as it's B2B and covered by different legislation but I just don't go along with some of the responses on here laying all the blame at the OP.

So the O/P only checked the main description and then assumed it was 4WD?

And the dealership subsequently produced the autotrader showing it did say 2WD.

I think if there is a specific feature someone wants or needs on a car then they need to do the due diligence and confirm it has that feature. Clearly the O/P assumed - THATs the issue here.

matttye

There was a great reply from waamo at the start of this thread and then a whole heap of misinformation.

If this is a business to consumer transaction, then s10 Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies.

This states that if you make known to the trader a particular purpose for buying the goods, a term will be implied into the contract that the goods are reasonably capable for that purpose.

Therefore if you said you need the car to handle well off-road and the car is no good off-road, you may have a case.

There is a proviso further down that you must have relied on the skill of the trader, which is another question mark in your case as you appear to have already decided which vehicle to buy.

As you’ve said the main reason for buying the car is for business use you may also not be a consumer, which means the above isn’t relevant to you.

Finally, whether the contract is business to business or business to consumer, if the trader said anything about the vehicle being 4WD or agreed with you that it was 4WD (simply not correcting you doesn’t count - they would have to positively confirm), you may have an action for misrepresentation.

In short, see if you can half an hour free with a Solicitor to get some initial advice and then decide whether it’s worth pursuing.

AdrianC

matttye wrote: »

If this is a business to consumer transaction, then s10 Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies.

It isn't. He's buying it for business use, and the functionality in debate is a business requirement.

Car_54

matttye wrote: »

There was a great reply from waamo at the start of this thread and then a whole heap of misinformation.

If this is a business to consumer transaction, then s10 Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies.

But it isn't. The OP said in post #1 "My main criteria for choosing this car is it's 4WD capability, an essential requirement for my business."

matttye

Guys

A person is defined as a consumer under the Act as follows:

‘“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.’

It may be that he requires a car for business use but the majority of his driving is for personal use. He may be purchasing it with personal funds, not business funds.

A short post on a forum isn’t enough to know the full circumstances. Hence my suggestion to get professional advice.