Private car seller misrepresented car

caprikid1

Only car I could see described with no oil leaks of that age, its not something you normally put in an ad

steampowered

The law is pretty clear.

If one issues an untrue or misleading statement, which the other party relies on when entering into the contract, the party who made the untrue or misleading statement is liable to pay damages or for the contract to be rescinded!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation

If you can prove that the advert said "No oil leaks" and that there were in fact oil leaks, on the face of it that sounds like a strong case for misrepresentation to me ...

The seller could probably try and say the statement would be understood by a reasonable person to mean "no oil leaks" within the seller's period of ownership. That is up for debate.

Carrot007

steampowered wrote: »

The seller could probably try and say the statement would be understood by a reasonable person to mean "no oil leaks" within the seller's period of ownership. That is up for debate.

Or as any reasonable peron would understand it from a non expert. No visible/obvious oil leaks.


If it were a dealer then yes they would be liable.


Unfortunatly with these sort of idiots it is coming to the day where if you wanted to sell a car your description should jsut be "It's a car".

Gavin83

Carrot007 wrote: »

Or as any reasonable peron would understand it from a non expert. No visible/obvious oil leaks.


If it were a dealer then yes they would be liable.


Unfortunatly with these sort of idiots it is coming to the day where if you wanted to sell a car your description should jsut be "It's a car".

I really don't see why it's idiotic to expect what is written in a description to be accurate. Assuming it is the auction posted it doesn't say 'No obvious oil leaks' or 'none during ownership' it explicitly states 'no oil leaks' which isn't true. I don't know the car but I assume it's a common problem for this model and that's why it's been listed. Otherwise it's incredibly suspicious.

Yes the car is cheap. Yes the OP should have checked it but it doesn't take away from the fact they put a false statement in the ad. I'm honestly surprised there are people arguing this but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The best option for the seller would be to say it was fine when he sold it and it must have been damage sustained since the sale. OP, if you could get a mechanic to discount this it would help, although this might be difficult depending on the damage.

DoaM

As I've said several times, goods must match their description, but ... when a buyer has the opportunity to inspect the goods to ensure they conform to contract then the description part becomes a grey area.

I agree that the emphatic No Oil Leaks may swing things in the OP's favour, but it's not guaranteed. That's why I've also suggested that the OP should try to determine whether the seller is in fact a trader - a "driveway dealer" posing as a private seller.

Carrot007

Gavin83 wrote: »

I really don't see why it's idiotic to expect what is written in a description to be accurate. Assuming it is the auction posted it doesn't say 'No obvious oil leaks' or 'none during ownership' it explicitly states 'no oil leaks' .

Adverts try to keep word count to a minimum as people will otherwise ignore.


As like I said they are not a car expert so the meaning of a few words can be extrapolated logically to mean that.


You are just extrapolating it the other way. It did not say no oil leaks at all/whatsoever. It was ambiguous. And as a non expert the direction of the amibiguity must fall the other way logically in any possible court case.

wesleyad

Everyone agrees a normal seller is not an expert and therefore cannot be held to the higher standards a dealer would be. And as such there is always large leeway in selling (especially cars).

However the seller has changed this by stating "no oil leaks". This is a definitive statement, and it would be easy to argue that this has raised the expertise of the seller from layman to something higher. I would argue for them to make such a statement they must either have better knowledge than a layman, or have received expert advice.

Basically the seller made a right balls up. Whether the courts would agree is always down to the day as has been said.

Gavin83

wesleyad wrote: »

Everyone agrees a normal seller is not an expert and therefore cannot be held to the higher standards a dealer would be. And as such there is always large leeway in selling (especially cars).

Yep, I don't think anyone is denying this, a private seller has barely any obligations for the sale. However one of the very few things they need to do is make sure any description is accurate and in this case it isn't. It seems some are suggesting the wording is acceptable, which is their opinion of course, I don't believe it is. What I have more of an issue with is those that suggesting it's in some way morally wrong to claim for this. I disagree with this and believe the seller, on the balance of probabilities was aware of the problem.

Two stand out things for me. Firstly the entire statement of 'no oil leaks' is suspicious by itself. Secondly there is barely any MOT left on the car. Most people would get this redone before a sale, not doing so suggests there could be a problem that they don't want the garage to spot. In all honesty the OP should have walked away for this reason alone. Thirdly there would have almost certainly been a mess on their drive. However I'm surprised the OP didn't notice this either.

I've seen private car sellers on this very forum lose court cases with a much stronger case than this seller has but I guess there's only one way to find out the eventual outcome. Certainly in the OPs situation I'd be taking this to court.