Just Put the Deposit Down on my 1st Car , What you think?

The O/P should buy the car and stop wasting the sellers time.

It is a heap of junk which I wouldn't touch.

My car was similar to this in that it was a CAT C (unrepaired) with no MOT but I didn't pay almost £1k for it. Infact I didn't pay anything for it.
 
Smiley Man said:
hey ajgoodfellow - whats wrong with the pug 1.6 8v lump? :p
Click to expand...

Just re-read my post and it's a little confusing

I meant to avoid the 1.6 8v lump in the Astra Mk 4 (a car I suggested as an alternative). This is a rough engine producing a pitiful 74 bhp :)
 
ajgoodfellow said:
Just re-read my post and it's a little confusing

I meant to avoid the 1.6 8v lump in the Astra Mk 4 (a car I suggested as an alternative). This is a rough engine producing a pitiful 74 bhp :)
Click to expand...

oh right ok

my 1.6 8v pug lump is 90bhp so its not too bad :D
 
[TW]Fox said:
It means he has never had a problem which, if the car was written off in 2001, is true..
Click to expand...

It's not airtight i said. It doesn't say how long the seller has had it though, does it?

What the seller means is irrelevant really. If he wants out of the contract take its literal meaning. The seller should say the car has never had a problem whilst I've owned it, not 'never had a problem'. He's just asking for trouble.
 
If we got nit picky, he said HAVE never had a problem. If the car had never had a problem it would say HAS never had a problem. The sentence as I read it means I HAVE never had a problem. Not the car HAS never had a problem.

Even so, I'd not touch it.
 
Mikol said:
If we got nit picky, he said HAVE never had a problem. If the car had never had a problem it would say HAS never had a problem. The sentence as I read it means I HAVE never had a problem. Not the car HAS never had a problem.

Even so, I'd not touch it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fair enough, the point being, however, is that it isn't clear, it could be read a few different ways. It's not the buyers responsibility to work out what the seller means. I know this is going a bit far but if it went to court I'm pretty sure the court would see it as ambiguous and side with the buyer if he relied on the seller meaning the car has never had a [major] problem or similar.

Even so, your right, he should definitely walk away.

[TW]Fox said:
It's a chav'd 306, he's clearly under 21ish so I doubt he's had it since 2001.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's not for the buyer to assume this. If it's unclear it's unfair to compel the buyer to buy the car or whatever.
 
Jet said:
Yeah, fair enough, the point being, however, is that it isn't clear, it could be read a few different ways. It's not the buyers responsibility to work out what the seller means. I know this is going a bit far but if it went to court I'm pretty sure the court would see it as ambiguous and side with the buyer if he relied on the seller meaning the car has never had a [major] problem or similar.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I agree with you entirely there.
 
Matt82 said:
the alloys must be worth a couple hundred when it comes to selling time too right?
Click to expand...
TSW's? Highly doubtful. Unless you can someone about as savvy as the OP...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom