Section 75 Refund Who Owns Goods

km1500

section 75 does not imply a refund it implies compensation (maybe financial, maybe repair) for any financial loss. it implies putting the customer back in the place they should be had there not been a problem

this does not imply any transfer of title back to the credit card company

sheramber

km1500 said:

section 75 does not imply a refund it implies compensation (maybe financial, maybe repair) for any financial loss. it implies putting the customer back in the place they should be had there not been a problem

this does not imply any transfer of title back to the credit card company

But the OP is not asking about getting the repair refunded.

he is asking if the whole orice of the car is refunded 

if successful and I get a refund of the purchase price and/or repair costs who actually owns the car legally, especially if full refund given?

In that scenario the car would then belong to the CC company.

he doesn't get the full price refunded and allowed to keep the car as well.

Whether he will get the full price refunded ins another matter entirely, but he has not asked that.

km1500

in law, giving a refund does not in of itself transfer the title of the goods from the owner back to the person giving the refund

It may well be, of course,  that in the terms and conditions of giving the refund the owner has to agree to transfer the title back to the person giving the refund - in which case I would expect to see that in the section 75 legislation

However, I can find no such link

Edit: even when originally buying the goods the transfer of title has nothing to do with payment. Title is transferred once an offer an acceptance has occurred ie a contract has been formed. It is not necessary to have paid before title is transferred. In the same way, giving a refund does not transfer title

paul_c123

Its all a bit theoretical though - I can't see why the bank would (be obligated to) pay out on a S.75 claim, the garage and/or car dealer are presumably still in business and they can claw back funds, IF any refund at all is due - but the circumstances from the original post suggest not....

born_again

paul_c123 said:

Its all a bit theoretical though - I can't see why the bank would (be obligated to) pay out on a S.75 claim, the garage and/or car dealer are presumably still in business and they can claw back funds, IF any refund at all is due - but the circumstances from the original post suggest not....

This is the problem with S75. Retailer just ignores a customer & their rights. Then the CC has to pay out (if conditions met) In most cases CC writes this off. As it is not cost effective to claim the money back via the courts due to legal costs. As well as no guarantee that they would get the money anyway.
As retailer will simply ignore the bank. Only time they maybe able to apply pressure is if the retailer is using them as their merchant bank. But that is fraught with issues as they are separate parts of the bank.

km1500

Unfortunately we must agree to disagree

If I say to you "I would like to buy your car" and you say 'ok £1000" and I say "ok I agree" then at that point (in the absence of any specific T and C saying otherwise) ownership of the car passes to me even though no payment has been made.

Your example of goods in a shop is also incorrect. Yes the price displayed is an invitation to treat, but if I say I will buy that radio for the displayed price of £50 and the shop says okay then title transfers to me even though I have not paid for it. yes the shop has a lien on the radio which means I can't just walk off with it without paying, but nevertheless I own that radio even though I haven't paid for it.

This is a fundamental tenant of contract law - offer and acceptance, contract is formed, title transfers unless there is a specific T and C stated at the time the contract is formed (this is why online retailers specifically say a contract is not formed until the goods are shipped)

Transfer of ownership

The transfer of ownership (or property in legal terminology) is important as it determines who owns the goods at a particular point during the contract. The main reason why this is important is from the point of view of risk, for example, who has responsibility for the goods when they are in transit to the buyer,

In a contract of sale, ownership transfers from the supplier to the buyer as follows:

• specific goods ie goods that are identified and agreed 
  - the buyer takes ownership when the contract is made, irrespective of payment or delivery

The passing of ownership

Upon the conclusion of a sale, ownership usually passes to the buyer immediately because the goods are identified and agreed upon. Imagine a situation where the buyer selects a particular shirt from the shelves and tries the item on for size, comfort and style. Once he is satisfied with the shirt, the buyer then makes an offer to buy the item, which the seller accepts. The buyer now has a contract of sale with the seller and, more importantly, he has become the new owner of the shirt.

Finally, of course the buyer cannot have a refund and keep the goods. That is not the title if this thread and the question I was answering. The OP asked who OWNS the goods after a S75 refund and my reply was that a refund does NOT transfer title back to the CC company so the buyer still owns the goods but of course will have to return them if asked to as a condition of the refund.

Enjoy your bank holiday

DullGreyGuy

S75 
More complicated in a certain sense because the solution isnt necessary a full refund. In theory banks should do what motor insurers do and say that the customer can get their £1,000 if the pass the TV to the bank or can keep the TV but get a reduced settlement of £800 because the customer could sell the TV for parts for £200. 

In practice many more things that banks are dealing with wont have much salvage value and so in most instances its more cost effective to tell the customer to dispose of the goods and just pay them the £1,000.

Chargeback
The cardholder entered a contract of sale where the merchant offered to sell an item for a price, the customer agreed and promised to make payment, which they did. Therefore the contract was concluded and the title transferred to the customer. 

The chargeback process returns the money to the customer but that doesnt automatically rescind or void the contract and so you are then in the situation that the customer is still in contract and so in my mind they still legally own the goods but now are in breach of contract for having not paid (on a net basis).

A lot of this then depends on returns rights (statutory or contractual), timelines, and what had gone wrong. Clearly if the customer had said the item was faulty but the merchant said that it was broken by the customer then the customer simply returning the goods after a chargeback doesnt solve anything and the merchant will be entitled to continue to pursue for the monies.

[Deleted User]

springboot said:

I am not a lawyer, but I can provide some general information that may be helpful to you. In the scenario you described, if you successfully go down the Section 75 route and receive a refund of the purchase price and/or repair costs from your credit card provider, it's important to understand the legal implications regarding the ownership of the car.

Typically, if a full refund is given for the purchase price, it is likely that the ownership of the car would revert back to the dealer or the entity from which you purchased the car. This means that legally, you would no longer have ownership rights to the vehicle.

However, it's advisable to consult with a legal professional or consumer rights expert in your jurisdiction to get accurate and specific advice regarding your situation. They can provide you with guidance based on the laws and regulations applicable in your country or region.

Keep in mind that the specifics of your case, including any relevant contract terms or additional agreements made during the purchase, may also affect the ownership and refund arrangements. Therefore, it's crucial to gather all relevant documents and seek professional advice to understand the exact implications in your particular case.

Remember that laws can vary, and it's important to consult with an expert who can provide guidance based on the laws and regulations in your jurisdiction.

@IanManc actually responded, see the reply given.