Buying 2nd hand laptop with outstanding finance on it - still guaranteed?

shaun_from_Africa

shooby100 said:

No I don't know the person, it is just a local seller.

In which case, I would say definitely don't do it.
It may have finance, then again, it might be nicked.

cymruchris

davidmcn said:

cymruchris said:

I personally would still avoid anything with finance attached to it. 

The finance isn't "attached to it". It's not like ye olde days of "hire purchase".

My poor choice of words - I meant anything that the owner hadn't fully paid for - whether or not it's a secured or non-secured finance. 

davidmcn

cymruchris said:

davidmcn said:

cymruchris said:

I personally would still avoid anything with finance attached to it. 

The finance isn't "attached to it". It's not like ye olde days of "hire purchase".

My poor choice of words - I meant anything that the owner hadn't fully paid for - whether or not it's a secured or non-secured finance. 

The point is that there's no risk to onward purchasers. If you buy with finance you have just as good a title to the goods as you would if you paid with cash. All the lender can do is chase you for the money, they don't have any rights over the goods.

(generally speaking - obviously different for vehicles where some types of finance come without you getting a clear title to the vehicle).

unholyangel

shaun_from_Africa said:

You are correct in saying that if the original owner defaults on the payments, it is them that is liable for the debt and not you.
Even though a credit agreement was taken out, ownership of the computer still transfers to the original purchaser and in the event of a default payment, the finance company can't repossess it and may have to take the original owner to court to recover their money.

Depends on the credit agreement and terms of hire/sale (and when property passes to the original owner). You can't give what you don't have yourself. Although I don't think JL trade on that basis so probably moot in this case. 

However what isn't moot is that JL's offer to transfer ownership is only enforceable by the original purchaser. So if it wasn't paid off, JL could refuse to transfer the warranty regardless of what the warranty says about being transferable. 

davidmcn

unholyangel said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

You are correct in saying that if the original owner defaults on the payments, it is them that is liable for the debt and not you.
Even though a credit agreement was taken out, ownership of the computer still transfers to the original purchaser and in the event of a default payment, the finance company can't repossess it and may have to take the original owner to court to recover their money.

Depends on the credit agreement and terms of hire/sale (and when property passes to the original owner).

Yes, in theory that's correct, but in practice nobody is selling household goods under any sort of hire purchase agreement these days. I don't know why the seller in this case has confused matters by even mentioning it, it's a complete red herring.

However what isn't moot is that JL's offer to transfer ownership is only enforceable by the original purchaser. So if it wasn't paid off, JL could refuse to transfer the warranty regardless of what the warranty says about being transferable.

The terms quoted above don't say it's conditional or that JL's involvement is even needed, it's deemed to be transferred to whoever the current owner is.

unholyangel

davidmcn said:

unholyangel said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

You are correct in saying that if the original owner defaults on the payments, it is them that is liable for the debt and not you.
Even though a credit agreement was taken out, ownership of the computer still transfers to the original purchaser and in the event of a default payment, the finance company can't repossess it and may have to take the original owner to court to recover their money.

Depends on the credit agreement and terms of hire/sale (and when property passes to the original owner).

Yes, in theory that's correct, but in practice nobody is selling household goods under any sort of hire purchase agreement these days. I don't know why the seller in this case has confused matters by even mentioning it, it's a complete red herring.

However what isn't moot is that JL's offer to transfer ownership is only enforceable by the original purchaser. So if it wasn't paid off, JL could refuse to transfer the warranty regardless of what the warranty says about being transferable.

The terms quoted above don't say it's conditional or that JL's involvement is even needed, it's deemed to be transferred to whoever the current owner is.

There's no brighthouses of the world anymore? Some companies still do it (although it's definitely more common in commercial agreements) but I think the issue nowadays is that most household items are relatively cheap and disposable. So you tend to only get that retention of title (or charge if the clause is too wide) on goods which can be resold and which hold their value reasonably well.

Well it technically is conditional - on ownership (rather than possession). But those terms were terms that the original purchaser agreed to. The OP wasn't party to that contract. I'm not saying it's not enforceable, just that it would be for the original purchaser to enforce it. Since it is their contract that would have been breached. 

davidmcn

unholyangel said:

davidmcn said:

unholyangel said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

You are correct in saying that if the original owner defaults on the payments, it is them that is liable for the debt and not you.
Even though a credit agreement was taken out, ownership of the computer still transfers to the original purchaser and in the event of a default payment, the finance company can't repossess it and may have to take the original owner to court to recover their money.

Depends on the credit agreement and terms of hire/sale (and when property passes to the original owner).

Yes, in theory that's correct, but in practice nobody is selling household goods under any sort of hire purchase agreement these days. I don't know why the seller in this case has confused matters by even mentioning it, it's a complete red herring.

However what isn't moot is that JL's offer to transfer ownership is only enforceable by the original purchaser. So if it wasn't paid off, JL could refuse to transfer the warranty regardless of what the warranty says about being transferable.

The terms quoted above don't say it's conditional or that JL's involvement is even needed, it's deemed to be transferred to whoever the current owner is.

There's no brighthouses of the world anymore?

Ok, I forgot about Brighthouse. But they're very much an outlier, and even they would rather be clawing in the vast amounts of interest rather than repossessing your sofa or telly.