Contract law?? Car purchase?

Jetjockey

BogOff.

What’s your problem?

And yes there is more than a third party witness who is a friend, there was another witness present who saw the money and documents change hands.
In addition, the third party friend is known equally by both myself and the seller so is effectively impartial.

Finally AD, you’ve got it wrong again. When I said it was not rocket science I was clearly referring to my decision to seek legal advice on here to save me wasting time tomorrow. I was not referring to the answer not being rocket science.

It’s hard work this (already).

DUTR

Jetjockey wrote: »

BogOff.

What’s your problem?

He doesn't have a problem (and neither do you really)
AD is a valid contributor on this board, so I for one wouldn't want to see him go, I'm sure other frequenters here agree.
You had a decent reply in post #15.

waamo

A lawyer won't give professional advice unless covered by indemnity insurance. They won't have that on a forum like this.

Some solicitors do a free 30 minute clinic. Why not see if there is one local to you for professional advice?

Jetjockey

Hello again, and thanks waamo, that’s nice clear sensible advice.

BogOff obviously does have a problem, hence the sarcasm in his reply (happy now?)

It also matters not whether AD is a valued contributor or not, he got it wrong and I quite rightly pointed it out.

Finally, regards a decent reply (which is all I was asking for), I have now looked up contract law and the items “Offer, Acceptance, Consideration”.

It seems clear to me after reading the reference material that all of these criteria have without doubt been met.
The seller made an offer in front of several witnesses, I accepted the offer in front of several witnesses, the money was paid in front of two witnesses and I took receipt of the vehicle documents and keys etc. The seller then deviously took these items back in a deliberate attempt to renage on the sale.

I will check with a contract lawyer tomorrow obviously but it seems fairly straightforward to me.

wgl2014

Jetjockey wrote: »

will check with a contract lawyer tomorrow obviously but it seems fairly straightforward to me.

I would agree that it does sound fairly obvious that the other party has backed out of the deal however......... forcing the point and putting any meaningful effort to trying to get the car back is unlikely to go smoothly or really be worthwhile. In theory you could get a court order requiring the seller gives you the car (and you give him the £500) but even then if they refuse you just start a load more messing about.

I respectfully suggest it may be better to move on and look for a different motor.

Arklight

He sound loopy. I don't think I would want that car now. I wouldn't want to shine a UV light in there in the dark.

Aylesbury_Duck

Jetjockey wrote: »

It also matters not whether AD is a valued contributor or not, he got it wrong and I quite rightly pointed it out.

I’m curious. What did I get wrong beyond your rather spurious point of context used to distract from your otherwise flimsy argument?

And now you’re drip-feeding information to suit your version of events. When did the one witness from your original post turn into the “several witnesses” in your last one and two that saw the money change hands? And his offer to drive the car to your place (probably perfectly sensible in insurance terms if you hadn’t arranged immediate cover) turned into a devious attempt to renege on the deal? If you do go down the legal route, it’s advisable not to lie or to embellish your account to try and strengthen your case.

I am beginning to see why the other party backed out of the sale. If you’re as self- righteous and slippery as you come across on here, he probably foresaw more problems after going through with the sale than he did by backing out.

waamo

Whilst it may look clear cut to you a lawyer may see it differently. Take a read of this https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-107-6849?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

What if the guy said there was a clear misunderstanding? He wanted £500 deposit not a full payment of £500? If he went down that path you might struggle. On the other hand you may still win.

You have to balance is the risk worth the benefit on a low value car? If it's worth far more than £500 so as to make action worthwhile then it kind of proves the point about clear error.

lincroft1710

I think this is a case of even if you are in the right, it would be impractical to pursue this. If you went down the MCOL (small claims) route it could take several months to come to court.

If you lost, then you will have wasted more money (and time), if you won would you really want a car from an aggrieved seller. Who knows what could have happened to the car in the intervening months? If the seller resells the car before you refer the case to MCOL, you have very little chance of getting it back.

Just let this one drop, it is too much time and effort for a £500 car

AdrianC

Jetjockey wrote: »

What I’m obviously asking is do I have legal grounds to force the seller to return the car to me?

There are two possible ways to resolve the issue, legally.

One is to return the money. The contract is void.
The other is to force the goods to be handed over. "Specific performance" of the contract.

One of these is far simpler, and far more likely to actually be enforceable.

Three guesses what courts like.

Now, how much time/effort/blood pressure/money do you want to put into this, given that you currently are in exactly the same position as if this chap had simply never shown up to the cafe to do the deal?

BTW, what "Picasso" are we talking about? That's a badge that simply means "sprogbus", and refers to four different basic models, six if you count the difference between five- and seven-seaters of two of models.