Moral question (and how much should two new tyres cost?)

anewman

Next people will be going off to buy cars for £600 then finding £2000 worth of things wrong and going banging on the sellers door to make them pay up.

If it troubles you that much you should have checked before handing over money. Or at least now consider it a lesson learned to check everything over as much as possible.

kitchpoo

You could legally take some recourse against the seller - and if you went to court (which I'm sure would be the result and at your expense) the result would probably be a percentage payment off the car price due to the vagueness of 'good'. Do you have the advert still?

[Deleted User]

Hintza wrote: »

What makes you think you can?

Well, the fact that I'm a lawyer? :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

anewman wrote: »

Next people will be going off to buy cars for £600 then finding £2000 worth of things wrong and going banging on the sellers door to make them pay up.

If it troubles you that much you should have checked before handing over money. Or at least now consider it a lesson learned to check everything over as much as possible.

I think you miss the point. If you sell a car and lie, saying it has four "good tyres" then if it doesn't the buyer is morally (and legally) entitled to seek recompense.

But: in this case I am convinced the seller wasn't lying, just mistaken. And I'm not sure they were that well off either. So I probably don't intend to pursue it, but I just wanted to check I wasn't being unecessarily soft. Obviously not.

Keith

Deleted_User wrote: »

Well, the fact that I'm a lawyer? :rolleyes:

As a Lawyer, you'd understand the principle that the seller is (I'm assuming) not a mechanic and is therefore judged upon his position against that of a reasonable man.

For this example, we'll use say you as the reasonable man to judge him against, he said the tyres were good, you with your basic knowledge of mechanics and motoring law (tyres must be legal, etc) agreed with him and purchased the vehicle.

You inspected the car, you decided that it was met the decription enough to part with your cash, so I'd say Caveat emptor applies, especially as the tyres are seen as a servicable item and one that you as the buyer would be expected to replace in the time of owning the vehicle.

tomstickland

Well, when they said that they were "good" you assumed that that meant that they had a enough tread on them to last a good while. As already said, they could have simply been passing comment that they thought the brand were "good".

[Deleted User]

tomstickland wrote: »

Well, when they said that they were "good" you assumed that that meant that they had a enough tread on them to last a good while. As already said, they could have simply been passing comment that they thought the brand were "good".

Erm, yes. I assure you this is the kind of argument that doesn't actually work in court.

goldspanners

so your a lawyer asking what to do in a situation like this,i think you already knew the answer,take the seller to court claim back your £460 and return the car.

i know this is a money saving site,but why is a lawyer buying himself a £460 ford mondeo? surely a good lawyer would be wanting to keep a succesful image?

tomstickland

Deleted_User wrote: »

Erm, yes. I assure you this is the kind of argument that doesn't actually work in court.

What sort of argument doesn't work in court?

photome

OP

pursue it and then post the result on here, it will make interesting reading.

as for the tyres I assume you earn good money, yet you drive an old banger and you are quibbling about how to save a tenner on a tyre.