'Let the buyer beware' cannot and is not reduced down to the mere visual appearance of an item. It is not a legal standard at all as your added caveat and qualifications further admit.
Vehicle Sold But Not As Advertised
- Thread starter placeholder
- Start date
'Let the buyer beware' cannot and is not reduced down to the mere visual appearance of an item. It is not a legal standard at all as your added caveat and qualifications further admit.
it is a legal standard and a valid legal defence.
just that there are also other legal standards that have to be met too
eg:
scenario 1)
my car ad states it has a whine.
buyer comes and checks it over...and buys the car.
a week later the timing chain snaps and ruins the engine.
caveat emptor. not being a mechanic, i couldn't have reasonably known, or diagnosed what the fault causing the whine was.
now on the other hand...if i stated in the ad "drives like a dream" (always avoid ads that state this...lol)
then buyer can say that the product was misrepresented...as i had clear information advantage (an abnormal whine) that was hidden from them
misrepresentation of goods trumps caveat emptor
scenario 2)
i brought the car to the dealer and the dealer told me it would cost £x to fix the timing chain. i sold the car instead saying that there was an impending timing chain failure.
buyer has no recourse legally.
caveat emptor applies. my ad wasn't misrepresentation as i did list the exact fault.
but if i listed the ad with "has whine" and the buyer buys the car and brings it to the dealer...dealer says: omg you bought this car? i serviced it last week and noted the impending timing chain failure.
buyer can now say that the car was misrepresented on the ad as i knew exactly what was wrong with the car. and if the said buyer had this information, he wouldn't have bought the car.
misrepresentation of goods trumps caveat emptor
Last edited:
indeed.
A car can easily "drive like a dream" and fail an MOT, so I'm not sure that's a great example. The two things are not linked.
Hmm I would still say your first example is caveat emptor. As you're not a mechanic you could argue that it does drive like a dream, you had no knowledge or expertise to determine an impending timing chain failure.
This is also one of the most important reasons when putting an advert together that you stick to facts rather than opinions. It's factual information that the car has been serviced in line with manufacturer recommendations. Saying it drives like a dream is an opinion and is therefore subjective and would be considerably harder to prove misrepresentation.
We're all speculating on the issue here as the OP hasn't mentioned what fault there is with the car.
A nightmare is also a type of dream
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 6,708
- Location
- There's a voice that keeps on calling me.
Ive had 2 cars that ive sold over the years, have serious issues within days of selling them. One was a Merc with low miles, a failed oil pump took the engine with it. One was a ex taxi accord with 200k miles on it, which died.
In both cases i refunded the buyer, but with the accord i asked for the buyer to get the car recovered back to me at his cost, as even on the test drive the muppet was hammering the car, so i wasnt surprised the engine went on it. The Merc was mega annoying but one of those things.
My conscious always makes me do the right thing.
In both cases i refunded the buyer, but with the accord i asked for the buyer to get the car recovered back to me at his cost, as even on the test drive the muppet was hammering the car, so i wasnt surprised the engine went on it. The Merc was mega annoying but one of those things.
My conscious always makes me do the right thing.
Lopéz is right though. My TT recently failed its MOT on the rear suspension sensor arm for the headlight auto-levelling.
The fault had zero impact on how it drove, and the rest of the MOT sheet was clean, no advisories or anything else.
A car can easily drive well yet have characteristics that would cause an MOT failure.
Knowing someone who received almost a full refund on a GSXR after she took the seller to court and proved he had significantly misrepresented it's condition, yes, you do have legal rights and can pursue a claim. If you aren't able to accurately describe a car/bikes mechanical condition, then don't, stick to the facts.
Your only Legal viable route is to claim misrepresentation.
Contrary to popular belief, you can’t say a car works great and know it has issues the claim sold as seen.
The key word is “know”.
In court proceedings, this tends to go better than most suspect.
Dependent on car value and your own value of your time you must just want to sell on the vehicle yourself and declare what you have found.
Recently I drove home a 2004 plate Saab and it blew out fumes after 10mins of driving, turned out it had a slow puncture on a front tire, oil leak, loads of stuff. I just didn’t notice it when test driving. I believe I was misrepresented but sold it on with all declared at a 270 pound loss sadly but that was nearly 50% value.
I should have gone down legal route but left it wasn’t worth it — might have felt quite different if it was a 2700 loss I was having to write off.
Contrary to popular belief, you can’t say a car works great and know it has issues the claim sold as seen.
The key word is “know”.
In court proceedings, this tends to go better than most suspect.
Dependent on car value and your own value of your time you must just want to sell on the vehicle yourself and declare what you have found.
Recently I drove home a 2004 plate Saab and it blew out fumes after 10mins of driving, turned out it had a slow puncture on a front tire, oil leak, loads of stuff. I just didn’t notice it when test driving. I believe I was misrepresented but sold it on with all declared at a 270 pound loss sadly but that was nearly 50% value.
I should have gone down legal route but left it wasn’t worth it — might have felt quite different if it was a 2700 loss I was having to write off.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Posts
- 892
The only legal terms that cover a private sale contract are:
• The seller must have the right to sell the car
• The vehicle should match the description given by the seller
• The car must be roadworthy
If you do go to the small claims court, you would have to prove that on the balance of probability, the vendor knew about a fault, but withheld the information, before selling the car to you such as by saying it is mint condition but having recently repainted panels with filler in them or such like.
• The seller must have the right to sell the car
• The vehicle should match the description given by the seller
• The car must be roadworthy
If you do go to the small claims court, you would have to prove that on the balance of probability, the vendor knew about a fault, but withheld the information, before selling the car to you such as by saying it is mint condition but having recently repainted panels with filler in them or such like.
I don't understand why sellers would put themselves in this position. Its easy enough to highlight good points in an ad, and simply omit the bad points. Then you aren't lying, and it's up to the person viewing the car to inspect it properly and ask questions. Then you answer them honestly.
Like when I sold my Celica. I said in the ad that the paintwork and bodywork needs attention. I didn't say that the whole car has been poorly resprayed, it's two colours, and full of filler. Cos nobody would have even looked at it.
Like when I sold my Celica. I said in the ad that the paintwork and bodywork needs attention. I didn't say that the whole car has been poorly resprayed, it's two colours, and full of filler. Cos nobody would have even looked at it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,607
lol it's a 15 year old car.
Irrelevant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,607
Except it's not really. A 15 year old car under a grand, is going to have loads of issues. At that age, it has one foot in the scrapyard, unless you are prepared to spend some money and get your hands dirty, or spend more, getting a garage to do it for you.
If it wasn't as described it doesn't really matter how old or cheap it is, its still misrepresentation. If the seller says it has new brakes and it doesn't, or if they say it has a new clutch and its slipping by the time you get to the end of the road, legally your rights are exactly the same as if it were a 20,000 pound Merc.
(If they don't say anything of the sort and you are basing the purchase on your own inspection only, and no description from the seller, and then you discover various issues, then I agree with you entirely, that is different. We are talking about if the seller -expressly lies about something-)
Of course you are less likely to bother going down a legal route with a cheap car. I couldn't be bothered with the hassle when I had the Celica fiasco because the court costs etc would have been about the same as the loss I made by just selling it on, and I valued the time it would take to go through the process.
If the process would have helped me scrape back several thousand pounds I would definitely have gone through the process.