Unable to return deposit!

Herzlos

Is it impossible to render though?



What's the issue from the sellers point of view? That the AML rebuild is too expensive?
Couldn't he have just gotten a quote from an independent and either had that done as part of the sale or reduced the price accordingly?


How much has the value of the car changed in the year?


Will the buyer take some negotiated go-away money? Might be cheaper to compensate him something for the loss of bargain and just sell the car on as-is.

shaun_from_Africa

Herzlos wrote: »

Is it impossible to render though?

No, but I was thinking of this bit:

which renders the contract either impossible to perform or deprives the contract of its commercial purpose.

The commercial purpose could be described as selling the vehicle to make a profit, something that probably wouldn't be possible if the seller has to spend £30k+ on the engine rebuild.

This of course is from someone with no legal training or experience at all so it could well be totally incorrect.

Manxman_in_exile

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

No, but I was thinking of this bit:


The commercial purpose could be described as selling the vehicle to make a profit, something that probably wouldn't be possible if the seller has to spend £30k+ on the engine rebuild.

This of course is from someone with no legal training or experience at all so it could well be totally incorrect.

I'm inclined to agree with that. It would seem that the whole purpose of the contract is frustrated on both sides.


I'm uncertain about the "change in circumstances" from your original link though. Has there been a change in circumstances after the contract was formed, or is it just a question that there was something wrong with the car that neither the vendor nor purchaser knew about at the time?


I've always looked at frustration of a contract as being about something that "happens" in the future that couldn't really be foreseen. So here, if the car was OK at the point of contract, but blew its engine before delivery, the contract is probably frustrated (unless re-negotiated). I'm not so sure about the situation where the engine is faulty pre-contract, but nobody could reasonably know about it.

AdrianC

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm uncertain about the "change in circumstances" from your original link though. Has there been a change in circumstances after the contract was formed, or is it just a question that there was something wrong with the car that neither the vendor nor purchaser knew about at the time?

The car was advertised as being in good mechanical order, but with no recent major work. The buyer offered on that basis.
The car has since been found to be in poor mechanical order. The car, as offered for purchase, does not exist.
The car plus fresh engine rebuild would be a different kettle of fish to what was originally offered for sale.

caprikid1

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Wouldn't this apply?:

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

What I read yesterday was the courts did not rush into considering a contract frustrated if possible. It also went on to say the another party making a loss was not reasonable grounds for it to be frustrated.
So for me the cost of putting the car back to a Saleable state is unfortunate but does not cause the contract to be frustrated.
I think the better option needs to be is the sale private or a trader. If it can be established Private then there is more an option to suck it up buttercup, but that would involve the transfer of the car and the money to fulfil the original agreement.


Lawyer up ….. personally I would be tempted to offer £5K and **** off (Deposit plus £3K inconvenience). I cannot see any outcome costing the OP less.


"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"