When buying a car from a ltd (non dealer) company

premiumz

Hi,

I'm looking at buying a car from a ltd company. It's not a car dealership.
Do you have any consumer rights when buying a car that's been registered in a ltd company's name or does that only apply to actual car dealers?

Is this pretty much the same as buying from an individual?

Just wanted to check on this!

Cheers

Phoenix72

If they are not a car dealer it's a private sale regardless of the entity you are buying from....so no consumer rights.

premiumz

Phoenix72 said:

If they are not a car dealer it's a private sale regardless of the entity you are buying from....so no consumer rights.

Okay that's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying that for me!

DullGreyGuy

Phoenix72 said:

If they are not a car dealer it's a private sale regardless of the entity you are buying from....so no consumer rights.

On what basis are you saying that @phoenix72? 

The CRA defines a Trader as...

“Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

A business managing its assets/balance sheet is part of a company's business and therefore would fall within the definition and struggle to see why you think they dont?

Phoenix72

DullGreyGuy said:

Phoenix72 said:

If they are not a car dealer it's a private sale regardless of the entity you are buying from....so no consumer rights.

On what basis are you saying that @phoenix72? 

The CRA defines a Trader as...

“Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

A business managing its assets/balance sheet is part of a company's business and therefore would fall within the definition and struggle to see why you think they dont?

Simply because they don't trade in motor vehicles, to me the important part is "relating to that person's trade, business, craft or profession".

Where's the difference in a self-employed sole trader plumber selling a van to an individual (as an example) - would they be a car dealer in this instance?


I'm not saying it with 100% certainty and interested to hear other opinions.

prowla

Interesting; presumably the vehicle was purchased by the company for reasons relating to its trade/business/etc. and appeared on the balance sheet as a registered company asset.

So therefore selling has to be so related.

I don't know, BTW; just thinking out loud about something I've never considered before.

DullGreyGuy

prowla said:

Interesting; presumably the vehicle was purchased by the company for reasons relating to its trade/business/etc. and appeared on the balance sheet as a registered company asset.

So therefore selling has to be so related.

I don't know, BTW; just thinking out loud about something I've never considered before.

I'm in the same boat of not being definitive but thinking was along the same lines.

Phoenix72 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Phoenix72 said:

If they are not a car dealer it's a private sale regardless of the entity you are buying from....so no consumer rights.

On what basis are you saying that @phoenix72? 

The CRA defines a Trader as...

“Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

A business managing its assets/balance sheet is part of a company's business and therefore would fall within the definition and struggle to see why you think they dont?

Simply because they don't trade in motor vehicles, to me the important part is "relating to that person's trade, business, craft or profession".

Where's the difference in a self-employed sole trader plumber selling a van to an individual (as an example) - would they be a car dealer in this instance?


I'm not saying it with 100% certainty and interested to hear other opinions.

A sole trader is different because they can do both personal things and business things where as an incorporate company doesn't have a personal life. 

If the plumber has bough the van as a business asset, offset its value from profits, used it for his business then selling it would be a cashflow that is revenue for for the business and so would be a business activity. If it was his personal can that he used for his love of motorcross then thats different. 

Phoenix72

As the owner is not necessarily the registered keeper then is that not a factor? How would one know if the car had been used as a business asset?

DullGreyGuy

Phoenix72 said:

As the owner is not necessarily the registered keeper then is that not a factor? How would one know if the car had been used as a business asset?

How would the seller know if the buyer is buying it for their business or their love of motorcross? 

Ultimately the court would decide if the CRA applied to the contract or not depending on the evidence presented by both parties. This would require the seller to be deemed a Trader and the buyer a Consumer as stipulated in the legislation. 


It's who the seller is that matters, not the owner. A seller may not necessarily be the owner of the goods. When the Mrs was selling her creations it was on a sale or return basis so the sellers (two local shops) didnt hold the title of the goods when they were selling them but were authorised to sell them. If you are selling on behalf of someone else then you are more likely to be considered a trader but again not always... plenty sell their kids toys on their eBay account. 

Phoenix72

DullGreyGuy said:

Phoenix72 said:

As the owner is not necessarily the registered keeper then is that not a factor? How would one know if the car had been used as a business asset?

How would the seller know if the buyer is buying it for their business or their love of motorcross? 

Ultimately the court would decide if the CRA applied to the contract or not depending on the evidence presented by both parties. This would require the seller to be deemed a Trader and the buyer a Consumer as stipulated in the legislation. 


It's who the seller is that matters, not the owner. A seller may not necessarily be the owner of the goods. When the Mrs was selling her creations it was on a sale or return basis so the sellers (two local shops) didnt hold the title of the goods when they were selling them but were authorised to sell them. If you are selling on behalf of someone else then you are more likely to be considered a trader but again not always... plenty sell their kids toys on their eBay account. 

So, if the director of the company sells it as an individual and they are the owner then not a trader?

DullGreyGuy

Phoenix72 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Phoenix72 said:

As the owner is not necessarily the registered keeper then is that not a factor? How would one know if the car had been used as a business asset?

How would the seller know if the buyer is buying it for their business or their love of motorcross? 

Ultimately the court would decide if the CRA applied to the contract or not depending on the evidence presented by both parties. This would require the seller to be deemed a Trader and the buyer a Consumer as stipulated in the legislation. 


It's who the seller is that matters, not the owner. A seller may not necessarily be the owner of the goods. When the Mrs was selling her creations it was on a sale or return basis so the sellers (two local shops) didnt hold the title of the goods when they were selling them but were authorised to sell them. If you are selling on behalf of someone else then you are more likely to be considered a trader but again not always... plenty sell their kids toys on their eBay account. 

So, if the director of the company sells it as an individual and they are the owner then not a trader?

Why dont we stick the scenario the OP has given rather than look at all other possible permutations... the OP states the seller is a limited company.