XSeries-forum

I know we have some chaps on here that know the legal side of the car trade.
If someone is selling a vehicle, through a very well know auction site, and they're doing it under their garage username, then do they have to provide some sort of warranty, even though in the ad its states that it's a "trade sale, with no warranty given or implied".
My thoughts were, that if you are a dealer selling a car then by law you had to give at lease a 3 month warranty, no matter what you stated.

A garage does not have to provide a warranty in the sense of AUC or Warranty Direct. However, as a commercial seller, as opposed to a private one, they come under the Sales of Goods Acts, so car has to be as described, fit for purpose and of reasonable quality. The last one is very subjective, dependent on price etc.

They also have to ensure that the car is not sold in a dangerous condition in relation to brakes, steering, body condition etc. even a new MOT does not absolve them from that, as it is a strict liability offence. The only defence is where the seller makes it clear that the car must not be used on public roads prior to repair, or is being sold for export.

Buying from an auction site also potentially removes the protections of the distance selling regulations.

I'd be asking them what exactly they mean by a 'trade sale'.

Trade Sale is simple. It's a sale between 2 traders.

Some traders try to suggest that they will sell the car as a trade sale to a member of the public which, in some misguided way, they believe absolves them of their responsibilities under SOGA. It doesn't and it's highly likely they know that as well. Just another way to con the public. I'd certainly not deal with a trader who put such rubbish in an advert.

Having said all that, and quoted the SOGA "protection" that you "have" buying from the trade then you'd better hope you never have to try and use it, after buying a lemon. Traders that sell rubbish will be almost impossible to get anything from if it all goes tits up. If they won't live up to their SOGA responsibilities and you get a small claims court ruling, they'll then up sticks and disappear off the face of the earth, opening up again under a new name and continue trading their dubious practices.

[quote="Denis O"]
Trade Sale is simple. It's a sale between 2 traders.

Some traders try to suggest that they will sell the car as a trade sale to a member of the public which, in some misguided way, they believe absolves them of their responsibilities under SOGA. It doesn't and it's highly likely they know that as well. Just another way to con the public. I'd certainly not deal with a trader who put such rubbish in an advert.

Having said all that, and quoted the SOGA "protection" that you "have" buying from the trade then you'd better hope you never have to try and use it, after buying a lemon. Traders that sell rubbish will be almost impossible to get anything from if it all goes tits up. If they won't live up to their SOGA responsibilities and you get a small claims court ruling, they'll then up sticks and disappear off the face of the earth, opening up again under a new name and continue trading their dubious practices.
[/quote]

Agreed, you only have to see programmes such as 'The Sheriffs' to see how some traders will just disregard court judgements.

My opinion after having bought from a trader with 3 months warranty means absolute nothing I'm going thru the process of claiming for suspension repairs thru my credit card company who I paid  a £250 deposit to secure the vehicle,repairs came to £334.00 they've judged in my favour just got to wait and see if he pays up.

I stand to be corrected but a trader selling to a private punter does not have a legal requirement to provide any sort of formal warranty. Many traders sell cars with so called warranties many of which are paid for by the buyer at additional cost, many require excess or betterment payment from the owner and many aren't worth paper they are written on. Some sell the warranties themselves (trade seller legally required to be FSA approved if selling same). Some decent higher end reputable traders do in house free of charge warranties effectively picking up the bill themselves in event of an issue raised by buyer but not disputed by seller).

It is wholly wrong for sellers to refer buyers to a sold or provided official warranty as a way of somehow attempting to bypass their obligations under SOGA where the seller has clearly sold a defective car as useable.

A buyer should  within a short time of sale have opportunity to reject a car but no specific timescale - assume days not weeks.

Any defect found within 6 months form date of sale shall be deemed to have been present at point of sale. If a defect is found and trade seller  disputes this then on a claims court the onus is on seller to prove the vehicle was absent of the defect at point of sale.

If for example a buyer had an alternator  fail on a used car absent of warranty and say 2 months after the used sale then if a civil action was raised the trader would have to prove the defect was not there when sold.

Although the onus is on trade seller to prove a defect wasn't present at point of sale it is actually fairly easy for the seller to convince court in his/her favour. He might present an invoice signed by buyer with small print agreeing that the buyer had checked the vehicle and was satisfied it was absent of defects at the time of sale. The seller might also argue that if a significant item was defective at point  of sale then surely the seller buyer would have noticed it earlier.

Mileage and age will come into it and any award in favour of the buyer would have to be offset with consideration of betterment. For example if buying a car with 150k and an auto gearbox  fails within 5 weeks the court might only award part replacement cost as the seller would argue car sold was used and had already covered significant mileage. Arguably a buyer would achieve great benefit if he ended up with entire gearbox replacement cost covered. Court would decide a percentile based on any additional benefit the buyer would yield over and above the scenario where the car was sold without a new gearbox but the gearbox did not fail.

The law seems less clear re disputed declared defects. Consider where someone buys a car from a trader & advertised as needing an accurately described non safety component  replacement (panoramic roof declared not working), yet sold for  a reduced price to reflect this.  This is where things become muddy but common sense  prevail.....stop to consider the trader selling a barn find E Type for restoration to a private car restorer wanting to keep it it for own use or to store for later restoration.


Back to the main point queried - A trade sale is just that - trade to trade. Arguably a trader is anyone who buys and sells with prime  intent to make a profit. ( I am NOT talking of someone who buys a scruffy car, uses and improves it before moving it on a few months later without a profit agenda when 1st sourced).


Buying and selling cars can be full of pitfalls and potential for civil &/or legal disputes. If it makes some feel better - traders can get had over too....That's main reason for used margins between trade and retail prices - a buffer to allow for fixing things before resale. Sadly many traders use the buffer as profit and don't use if to sort known issues on acquired stock.

I am aware I have elaborated somewhat but the above should be of use to folk who are unsure re rights under sale of goods act or unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of dealing some member of the trade when buying used.


Can of worms.

Need to go and have a drink now

AW8 the dealer I bought the porker off was/is a 1st class twat  I'm going to be honest I'd rather knock ten shades of poop out of him it's not allot of money but he was a pain in the arse do this do that to try and solve the suspension fault by the way he's a 4hr drive away from me.

Reusch,

Good that you legally fought your corner. Keep us posted.

I know it can be difficult but composure throughout legal or civil conflict dealings is ideally key.

Will do he's got 21 days to say yep or nope I'll take him to the small claims court if he doesn't pay up I'll not name him yet only that he's from Romford Essex.

Well he's just offered me £250.00 I've politely told him no pay in full or court we go.

I would take the 250 as by the time court offset any betterment benefit from the barns new parts you may be worse off.

AW8 your probably right but sod it,I can't see it going to court I'll leave it until the 21 days is up and go from there.

Well he paid up in full got the cheque yesterday still a 1st class tosser.

Whilst you find his personal qualities questionable - at least he paid in full (no doubt your tactics swung it).

Yes true,he could have made it easier for me and been a lot more helpful from the start and it actually would have saved him money regarding diagnostics fees,it's sorted now so ending well.