Unable to return deposit!

NBLondon

The opening post says all monies to be paid to the owner - not the dealer. Presumably, on completion - the owner then pays the dealer the agreed commission. I'm guessing that there was a "gentleman's agreement" here between owner and dealer rather than a formal commission/sale agreement and that is now falling apart because the customer isn't being a gentleman.

Does the customer think he's being stitched up? Does he suspect that the engine problem is being made up because there's another buyer gazumping him?

I'm inclined agree with shaun - if the customer wants to buy at the agreed price and "sold as seen" - he can. Would that then be a sale between him and the owner - making it a private sale? The fault wasn't known at that point - at least not to ricardo - maybe it was known to the owner? Or could that have been disguised by a previous owner?

The other thing that makes me ponder is:

A list of works was asked for along with the usual PDI.

Is this a separate agreement between the buyer and the dealer? Is it quoted for or was it part of the sale agreement e.g. I will buy at £70K if this work is done. That work cannot now be done - so the sale agreement is void.

It sounds like ricardo and the owner are trying to do the right thing and the customer is trying it on. The fact that he is demanding it be rebuilt by his choice of engineer is nonsense. Claiming the full cost of the car and more is nonsense. But yes - you do need to use the solicitor to check what contracts might be deemed to exist between the three parties - even verbal ones.

caprikid1

I'd certainly be looking to see if I could identify cases where the claimant had won to see how much he is willing to throw at this. Lets not forget that if time has gone on this Aston could now be worth considerably more than the agreed sale price.

caprikid1

I think its certainly worth at least one hour of a solicitor, I had wondered whether the contract was because of the engine frustrated. It would appear not. I think they are being unrealistic in their request, the original car with a 30K receipt from Aston Martin would be worth more, that in itself would take an expert to ascertain.


"A contract is frustrated where, after the contract the contract is concluded, events
occur which make the performance of the contract impossible, illegal or something
radically different from what the parties had contemplated.
 The doctrine of discharge allows the courts to discharge the operation of the contract
and bring it to an end automatically (Hirji Mulji v Cheong SS Co).
 However, the courts are reluctant to invoke the doctrine of frustration where the
contract has simply become a bad bargain for one of the parties. (The Nema – Lord
Roskill).
 Davis – C was contracted to build 78 houses for D at £94000 which was
scheduled to take 8 months. However, due to labour shortages the work
took an extra 14 months at a cost of £150000.
The HoL rejected the argument that the contract had been frustrate"

Rotor

Seems to me this will revolve around whether this is a business sale or a private sale.
The garage has never owned the car and is acting as an introductory service between buyer and seller and so may be under the caveat emptor private sale rules.
The garage ( or aston martin) cannot do whatever work needs doing on the car ; they do not own it - they need permission which may or may not be forthcoming.

Sounds complicated and will need proper advice to determine.

As a note , if it is a private sale I would say it is the buyer in the dodgy position as the contract was formed when the deposit was taken and can be counter sued for the agreed £70k for the car in the condition it was in when purchase agreed. ( sounds like it's worth considerably less than 70 now)

Hoof_Hearted

Note to self: don't ever think of buying an Aston Martin. £30,00 for an engine repair!

AdrianC

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

Note to self: don't ever think of buying an Aston Martin. £30,00 for an engine repair!

For a full engine rebuild - from the "classic" division of the factory.

And that's why it's so daft of him to insist on it. Apart from the element of betterment (and a documented AMW rebuild will add to the value substantially), there are perfectly good indie AM specialists who would rebuild it for a fraction of that.

OP - When you say "classic car", I'm guessing we're talking a modern Aston? Virage/DB7 and newer? £70k would be fairly entry-level for a V8 or original DBS, and anything older would be skywards from there.

unholyangel

Sounds like there may possibly be a contract. The owner is seeking legal advice so I'd hope he will be adequately advised.

A contract is formed when all of the necessary elements are present. I won't name them all but in a nutshell:
There needs to be an offer and also acceptance of that offer. The terms of acceptance must exactly match that of the offer, else it will not be acceptance and will be a counter offer - which destroys the original offer.
There needs to be consideration. This doesn't need to pass at the time the contract is formed. It just needs to be promised. It must move from one party to another. It must be something of value although need not be market value. It must not be something that already occurred/passed.


If there is a contract, then it simply being bad value won't be enough. Nor can you alter the terms of the contract retrospectively.

You could provide him with a brief statement detailing what was discussed as well as a copy of any advertisements or written communications regarding the vehicle. Just be aware, you may potentially be handing him information he later uses against you. Road to hell is paved with good intentions!

ricardo72

Just to be clear.
I was then operating as a classic car specialist in sales and repair. Due to ill health I packed in work to get myself well. This episode happened in Autumn 2018.
The car is a 70's quad cam V8. I can't go into any more detail on that for now other than to say that the engine overhaul price is realistic and not an AML quotation, which in my experience would be higher.
I had a verbal agreement to try and sell the car on the owners behalf at a commission to be paid after a successful sale. The deposit was paid into the business account via a PDQ for the convenience to the customer on that day.. The balance was to be paid directly to the owner. The deposit money was to be sent on to the owner once the sale had gone through, just incase we needed to return it in case the sale failed.
The additional work which was asked of us, was requested by the customer and mostly cosmetic. The PDI and service was our policy.
I am certain that the owner was totally unaware of the issue, the car was used infrequently, more of collectors piece which he owned for a few years.
As mentioned before, the customer would not except the returned deposit from the garage as it was not from the owner, which has been admitted so it looks as if he is attacking this as a personal sale issue.
It could also be down to the fact that the owner has greater financial wherewithal than myself.
Head is spinning but thank you all for your input so far.

AdrianC

ricardo72 wrote: »

I was then operating as a classic car specialist in sales and repair.

Limited company, or sole trader?
If limited, is it still extant?

Due to ill health I packed in work to get myself well. This episode happened in Autumn 2018.

So we're a year or more into it already...? He's clearly not going away, you NEED to get legal.

The car is a 70's quad cam V8.

Niiiice. So £70k isn't exactly top-end money, is it? What would you think that a documented AMW engine rebuild would have added to the value?

I can't go into any more detail on that for now other than to say that the engine overhaul price is realistic and not an AML quotation, which in my experience would be higher.

Yes, I bet!

As mentioned before, the customer would not except the returned deposit from the garage as it was not from the owner, which has been admitted so it looks as if he is attacking this as a personal sale issue.

It could also be spun as he's willing to accept the £2k and close the deal.

shaun_from_Africa

Wouldn't this apply?:

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Frustrated-contracts.php

A contract may be discharged by frustration.

A contract may be frustrated where there exists a change in circumstances, after the contract was made, which is not the fault of either of the parties, which renders the contract either impossible to perform or deprives the contract of its commercial purpose.

Where a contract is found to be frustrated, each party is discharged from future obligations under the contract and neither party may sue for breach. The allocation of loss is decided by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.