Lawgistics client wins court case over private sale

legal updates

The customer sought to reject under the Consumer Rights Act.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

One of our clients sold a car which he correctly told the intending purchaser was a vehicle owned by him and his wife.  The customer was interested and bought the vehicle with a receipt signed by them both acknowledging that it was a private sale.

A problem occurred and the customer sought to reject under the Consumer Rights Act.  His rationale for making out that it was a business sale and not a private sale were:

1.    The transaction was concluded on the seller’s garage premises (although the buyer happened to work a short distance away and was done there for mutual convenience)

2.    The car was insured in the name of the garage (so that any employee could drive it if necessary)

3.    He found a very old advert for that car for sale by that garage.

4.    Trading Standards – we are told – confirmed that it was not a private sale.

In evidence the client was able to show the finance agreement that his wife had for the car, bank statements showing her making monthly repayments and paying off the finance at the time of the onward sale.  These were clearly influential.  The advertisement for the car predated the client’s wife becoming the registered keeper of it.

The court ruled that – not surprisingly in our opinion – that this was clearly a private sale and that the buyer knew of this before agreeing to buy it.  The “buyer beware” rule applied and no damages could be awarded to the buyer/claimant.

Interestingly, the court also held that the failures within the vehicle were not present at the point of sale.  The buyer had caused damage by allowing the car to be driven until it was devoid of fuel.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

A settlement agreement may not protect you

An agreement does not need to be in writing to be binding, but it is much easier to prove the terms of an agreement if there is a documented paper trail.

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.