We Buy any Car - Changing their mind

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

VAT on used cars uses the Margin Scheme.  Not the whole input price.
Different for vehicles that are owned by VAT-registered business.

Thanks @Grumpy_chap  

HillStreetBlues said:

OP will win. It won't matter if there was a glitch with the price.
If I see a £1000 watch in shop marked up as £1. I can go in a offer a £1 for that watch, if the retailer sees the mistake the retailer can refuse the sale. If the retailer fails to notices it and accepts my £1, item is sold.
If I then go to walk out and retailer notices their mistake and wants to void contract, it's too late unless I agree to it. I do not have to return watch for a £1.

I think the difference there is that the contract has been fully performed (or whatever the correct legal term is), whereas for the OP and WBAC it hasn't.

If they took your £1 but you were due back for the watch in a week's time or the other way around I'm not sure you'd be entitled to your £1000 watch. 

Whilst it is France I found this one interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67759639

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think the difference there is that the contract has been fully performed (or whatever the correct legal term is), whereas for the OP and WBAC it hasn't.

If they took your £1 but you were due back for the watch in a week's time or the other way around I'm not sure you'd be entitled to your £1000 watch. 

Whilst it is France I found this one interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67759639

The only reason the contract hasn't been fully completely is the fact WBAC has breached it by not paying. You don't get out of a contract that way.
If I buy something as say I'll pay next week, and after the week is out I haven't paid, I can't simply decide to return item because i found it cheaper elsewhere.
The seller can just refuse and chase me for the debt.

MeteredOut

OP, any more communications from WBAC? I can't imagine they want to leave a (further) depreciating asset sitting there for a long time. Have they tried to deliver it back to you? What will you so if they do?

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think the difference there is that the contract has been fully performed (or whatever the correct legal term is), whereas for the OP and WBAC it hasn't.

If they took your £1 but you were due back for the watch in a week's time or the other way around I'm not sure you'd be entitled to your £1000 watch. 

Whilst it is France I found this one interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67759639

The only reason the contract hasn't been fully completely is the fact WBAC has breached it by not paying. You don't get out of a contract that way.
If I buy something as say I'll pay next week, and after the week is out I haven't paid, I can't simply decide to return item because i found it cheaper elsewhere.
The seller can just refuse and chase me for the debt.

Yet another thing that would depend on the specific T&Cs  

Alderbank

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think the difference there is that the contract has been fully performed (or whatever the correct legal term is), whereas for the OP and WBAC it hasn't.

If they took your £1 but you were due back for the watch in a week's time or the other way around I'm not sure you'd be entitled to your £1000 watch. 

Whilst it is France I found this one interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67759639

The only reason the contract hasn't been fully completely is the fact WBAC has breached it by not paying. You don't get out of a contract that way.

...but this is not just a simple contract of sale from a trader to a consumer, like those covered by CRA 2015.

WBAC appears to be invoking clause 4 of the agreed T&Cs which state (edited by me for brevity):

4. YOUR REPRESENTATIONS

If we buy a Car from you, we will be relying upon your representation that...to the best of your knowledge, information and belief:

you have disclosed to us all matters which a prudent purchaser would want to know about, such as physical defects in the Car (e.g. if it has any material mechanical problems or damage) [and] all information supplied by you in respect of the Car (whether in obtaining an On-line Valuation, at any Appointment or otherwise) is true and accurate in all respects...
In the event that we discover (at any time) that any of the above representations are (or are likely to be) inaccurate, untrue or false then we reserve the right (at our sole discretion) to...withdraw any offer to buy the Car with immediate effect; and/or to rescind any Contract with immediate effect; and/or seek damages from you.

The USP of WBAC's business model is speed rather than value; they claim to pay out before all due diligence checks have been fully carried out. Those contract terms are to protect themselves.

I think the two questions to decide if there is a breach here are

• Are those contract terms fair having regard to all the circumstances (a matter of law) and if so

• what evidence is there that in this specific case none of the above representations are (or are likely to be) inaccurate, untrue or false (a matter of facts)?

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think the difference there is that the contract has been fully performed (or whatever the correct legal term is), whereas for the OP and WBAC it hasn't.

If they took your £1 but you were due back for the watch in a week's time or the other way around I'm not sure you'd be entitled to your £1000 watch. 

Whilst it is France I found this one interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67759639

The only reason the contract hasn't been fully completely is the fact WBAC has breached it by not paying. You don't get out of a contract that way.
If I buy something as say I'll pay next week, and after the week is out I haven't paid, I can't simply decide to return item because i found it cheaper elsewhere.
The seller can just refuse and chase me for the debt.

Yet another thing that would depend on the specific T&Cs  

There wasn't any other T&Cs as was my scenario

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I think the difference there is that the contract has been fully performed (or whatever the correct legal term is), whereas for the OP and WBAC it hasn't.

If they took your £1 but you were due back for the watch in a week's time or the other way around I'm not sure you'd be entitled to your £1000 watch. 

Whilst it is France I found this one interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67759639

The only reason the contract hasn't been fully completely is the fact WBAC has breached it by not paying. You don't get out of a contract that way.
If I buy something as say I'll pay next week, and after the week is out I haven't paid, I can't simply decide to return item because i found it cheaper elsewhere.
The seller can just refuse and chase me for the debt.

Yet another thing that would depend on the specific T&Cs  

There wasn't any other T&Cs as was my scenario

At which point you're back to the judge deciding if a 'reasonable person' would assume there was a trial period, consideration of how the delayed payment agreement might fit with your statutory rights (depending on your 'officially given' reason for wanting to return), and with consideration given to similar arrangements for this type of sale/goods... lawyers got to make their money somehow   

ArbitraryRandom

Alderbank said:

...but this is not just a simple contract of sale from a trader to a consumer, like those covered by CRA 2015.

WBAC appears to be invoking clause 4 of the agreed T&Cs which state (edited by me for brevity):

I'm not sure if that's clear as yet from what the OP has said... WBAC definitely seem to think they missed something - but it's not clear if it's something the OP had reason to think was materially relevant to the valuation (the OP stated there wasn't an option on the online form to give any info other than the car registration, for example). 

I'm willing to admit I may be missing some intricacy of the car purchase process... but they were aware the car had outstanding finance (the contract provided by the OP noted the settlement amount) so I'm not clear what it's being suggested the OP failed to disclose? 

HillStreetBlues

There would no " 'reasonable person' in this case, the sale is the sale.
Going back to the watch pricing error, no "reasonable person" would sell a £1000 watch for a £1, but that doesn't void the sale.

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

There would no " 'reasonable person' in this case, the sale is the sale.
Going back to the watch pricing error, no "reasonable person" would sell a £1000 watch for a £1, but that doesn't void the sale.

As I've said, I respect your confidence... I'm just well aware that, when it comes to interpretation of contracts (including implied contracts when there's no or ambiguous/unfair written T&Cs), it's often not as clear cut as you might think once it actually gets to court