I purchased a car now they want me to pay more

cx6

This smells very fishy indeed. No reputable salesman would put pressure on claiming they would get the sack.

Don't pay them any extra money. Check with your finance company that the debt has indeed been settled. Get advice. Be careful.

Ergates

MalMonroe said:

Ergates said:

I think they've probably got a reasonable case if it goes to court - the figures pretty clearly don't add up.

They gave you: a car for sale at £2800 and paid of £1750 of finance - total:  £4550
You gave them: a car worth £1500 and £1050 cash - total: £2550

They're 2 grand down!  I think that falls into "should have been spotted" 

Even you giving them the car worth £1500 (with you clearing the finance) and £1050 cash would have been a good deal (£2550 for a car stickered at £2800)

They're a business though! And they've said they 'miscalculated'. That isn't the OP's fault. 

Now, after the deal has been done and the OP has the car, this dealer is trying to mess them about and inconvenience them when the OP has disabilities and it seems like the dealer's just taking the mickey here. 

Because that is no way to operate any 'business'.

I don't know why you put miscalculated in quotes as if they up to something suspicious - it's extremely obvious this is what happened, the numbers are there for all to see - they effectively sold the OP a £2800 car for £800.  There is no way this was deliberate on their part.

Regardless of them being a business, contract law allows for contracts to be voided if the contract was based on a mistake.  

cx6

Having a blow out and scraping your car is clearly not a matter for the police in this or any country.

Jenni_D

cx6 said:

Having a blow out and scraping your car is clearly not a matter for the police in this or any country.

Huh? Wrong thread?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Am I reading this right, the deal was part exchange old car (free of finance) and £1050 in cash for the new car but the salesman paid off the finance rather than getting the customer to do it?

mikb

Jenni_D said:

cx6 said:

Having a blow out and scraping your car is clearly not a matter for the police in this or any country.

Huh? Wrong thread?

Probably blown over the fence from this thread ....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6339566/enterprise-are-trying-to-take-all-our-savings

DB1904

m0bov said:

The 3 months warranty is a scam as you have at least 6 months on CRA. I'd just ignore it and see if he starts a SCC again. He is a trader and is expected to act professionally and your not expect to pay for his mistakes.

A six month warranty? Post a link to help the OP.

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Am I reading this right, the deal was part exchange old car (free of finance) and £1050 in cash for the new car but the salesman paid off the finance rather than getting the customer to do it?

Yes, the salesman paid* £1750 of finance on a part ex worth £1500.

* Or claims to have paid - OP should check this has actually happened.

Jenni_D

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Am I reading this right, the deal was part exchange old car (free of finance) and £1050 in cash for the new car but the salesman paid off the finance rather than getting the customer to do it?

If you read the messages on the previous page then the sales guy agreed that the dealership would pay off the outstanding finance - and that was actually the main error; it should have been free of finance.  

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP if a contract contains what is known as a unilateral mistake then the contract can be void, this is a mistake than ought to have been known...

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you about unilateral mistake potentially making a contract voidable, but where I have a problem with it is if, say, the prospective purchaser might think that the price is too good to be true, and takes the trouble to check with the trader if it's right, and the trader confirms that it IS in fact correct - which seems to have happened here.

I can understand the effect of a single original error happening, but if the party making the error is basically asked "So it would be...blah, blah blah?  Sorry just making sure I have it correct!" and the trader confirms that it is correct - having been given ample warning to check it - then I'm not so sure that it's that easy for the trader to get out of it.