Horsebox Sale

Soot2006

lincroft1710 said:

Even if the buyer had insurance, it would have to have been "any driver" or the OP being a named driver on the policy for her to avoid the charge of driving whilst uninsured

Almost always the case with horsebox insurance.

We have a terrible habit of falling off and getting hurt so other people are constantly driving each other's horses home. 

lincroft1710

Soot2006 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Even if the buyer had insurance, it would have to have been "any driver" or the OP being a named driver on the policy for her to avoid the charge of driving whilst uninsured

Almost always the case with horsebox insurance.

We have a terrible habit of falling off and getting hurt so other people are constantly driving each other's horses home. 

I was always the driver and never the rider, so avoided that problem

Flight3287462

Not sure it makes any difference but weight was the horsebox?  Two very different MOTs if it is over or under 3.5 tonnes.

I suspect the OP won't be back.  

In my view the OP made a fatal mistake offering to drive it for its MOT.  BUT the wagon would have had a lot more value with an MOT, so.....................................(then down the rabbit hole we go!).

I imagine this will turn very nasty.

bris

Not reading all six pages but bottom line is the buyers are due a full refund plus out of pocket expenses.

You broke the contract by no providing what you sold.

Some posters only see what they want to see but it doesn't change that fact.

tightauldgit

bris said:

Not reading all six pages but bottom line is the buyers are due a full refund plus out of pocket expenses.

You broke the contract by no providing what you sold.

Some posters only see what they want to see but it doesn't change that fact.

Of course they provided what they sold. Unless there was some agreement otherwise spelled out the new owners took possession of their undamaged horsebox when they paid for it. The contract was completed at that point.

Flight3287462

tightauldgit said:

bris said:

Not reading all six pages but bottom line is the buyers are due a full refund plus out of pocket expenses.

You broke the contract by no providing what you sold.

Some posters only see what they want to see but it doesn't change that fact.

Of course they provided what they sold. Unless there was some agreement otherwise spelled out the new owners took possession of their undamaged horsebox when they paid for it. The contract was completed at that point.

Depends what was agreed.  And if I was the buyer and the horsebox had been allegedly hit by a car that then drove off I would be doubly sceptical.

There is a smell about this one.

tightauldgit

Flight3287462 said:

tightauldgit said:

bris said:

Not reading all six pages but bottom line is the buyers are due a full refund plus out of pocket expenses.

You broke the contract by no providing what you sold.

Some posters only see what they want to see but it doesn't change that fact.

Of course they provided what they sold. Unless there was some agreement otherwise spelled out the new owners took possession of their undamaged horsebox when they paid for it. The contract was completed at that point.

Depends what was agreed.  And if I was the buyer and the horsebox had been allegedly hit by a car that then drove off I would be doubly sceptical.

There is a smell about this one.

You can certainly feel free to be sceptical about anything but it won't really change the legal situation. Certainly there could be an alternative arrangement in place if say they agreed to get it MOT'd and deliver it as part of the deal then that would potentially change things, but taking the OP at face value if the person came looked at the horsebox and then paid over £X to buy it then the horsebox is theirs and their responsibility to insure it, maintain it, repair it, and their liability if it gets damaged. 

Of course that doesn't change driving without insurance, etc. but I don't think that creates any financial liability since they apparently had the new owners permission.

km1500

bris said:

Not reading all six pages but bottom line is the buyers are due a full refund plus out of pocket expenses.

You broke the contract by no providing what you sold.

Some posters only see what they want to see but it doesn't change that fact.

Completely wrong. Title transferred to the buyer and the buyer (now the legal owner) asked the seller to take it for a MOT. The seller (rashly) agreed but has no responsibility for any damage etc whilst doing this.

Alderbank

km1500 said:

bris said:

Not reading all six pages but bottom line is the buyers are due a full refund plus out of pocket expenses.

You broke the contract by no providing what you sold.

Some posters only see what they want to see but it doesn't change that fact.

Completely wrong. Title transferred to the buyer and the buyer (now the legal owner) asked the seller to take it for a MOT. The seller (rashly) agreed but has no responsibility for any damage etc whilst doing this.

Agree about ownership but I'm not sure the former owner has no responsibility at all (except in the unlikely event that the new owner has given a specific indemnity). 
The former owner, the OP, is a bailee, i.e. he has possession of the goods but not ownership. Another example is when you are waiting at the airport and the traveller next to you says 'Could you keep an eye on my bag while I go to the toilet?' In each case the law says a bailee (even an involuntary one) must look after the goods in a way which is 'right and reasonable'.

If the damage had occurred because he was driving carelessly, recklessly or negligently to the MOT station or he was using the van to move his own horses when the accident happened then that would not be 'right or reasonable' and the owner would have a claim.
In this case though he was driving the van on the owner's instruction and a third party driver ran into him, so I don't see grounds for a civil claim.

Manxman_in_exile

Alderbank said:

km1500 said:

bris said:

Not reading all six pages but bottom line is the buyers are due a full refund plus out of pocket expenses.

You broke the contract by no providing what you sold.

Some posters only see what they want to see but it doesn't change that fact.

Completely wrong. Title transferred to the buyer and the buyer (now the legal owner) asked the seller to take it for a MOT. The seller (rashly) agreed but has no responsibility for any damage etc whilst doing this.

...In each case the law says a bailee (even an involuntary one) must look after the goods in a way which is 'right and reasonable'.

If the damage had occurred because he was driving carelessly, recklessly or negligently to the MOT station or he was using the van to move his own horses when the accident happened then that would not be 'right or reasonable' and the owner would have a claim...

I would suggest the law might consider that driving a vehicle belonging to a third party when the driver knows the vehicle is not insured is not taking "right and reasonable" care of it, and the law might well consider the driver to be at least negligent if not actually reckless in looking after the third party's property.

I doubt the third party would have agreed to the OP driving the horsebox uninsured.  (But who knows - neither party seems to have behaved sensibly... )