Reposessing a car;

junkyard

What's the quickest way to repossess a car? i.e. a car that was given to another car dealer who doesn't want to give it back. What if the car has been sold on to a third party? Would it be legal to just go and pick up the car with the spare keys? Just curious.:)

seamus

Depends on the circumstances. I argued before that a dealer can't hold onto your vehicle in lieu of and unpaid bill, but it would seem that there's no firm line on it.

You also have to be aware of trespass - if your vehicle is stored on their property, you may be trespassing by going in to get it back. If you need to open any doors/gates to get in, then you could be charged with breaking & entering.

If the dealer has no valid reason to hold onto the vehicle, talk to the Gardai.

Eru

Your question is confusing to start with. You need to explain the scenario better.

If you won the vehicle, why do they have it? Secondly, people cannot take the law into their own hands.

junkyard

Car dealer A owns the car. Car dealer B approaches car dealer A and tells him he has a buyer for the car. Two dealers know each other and opperate in the same town. Car dealer A gives car to dealer B in good faith. A few days later dealer A contacts dealer B to see whats happening and dealer B tells him the deal is going through. Later dealer A tries to contact dealer B who won't return calls etc., Dealer A locates his car in another dealership with a for sale sign on it. Dealer A is alarmed to say the least. What does dealer A do?

dermot_sheehan

junkyard wrote:

Car dealer A owns the car. Car dealer B approaches car dealer A and tells him he has a buyer for the car. Two dealers know each other and opperate in the same town. Car dealer A gives car to dealer B in good faith. A few days later dealer A contacts dealer B to see whats happening and dealer B tells him the deal is going through. Later dealer A tries to contact dealer B who won't return calls etc., Dealer A locates his car in another dealership with a for sale sign on it. Dealer A is alarmed to say the least. What does dealer A do?

First question does Dealer A transfer title of Car to dealer B? It depends on their understanding, does dealer A transfer title to dealer B with implied condition that Dealer B remit him purchase money from subsequent sale less a fee? Or does dealer B act as agent for Dealer A and the title of the car remains with dealer A.

Even if dealer A transfers title, it's probable that a constructive trust in the property was created in the property since it was a transfer without consideration between unrelated persons. Since dealer A still has beneficial ownership of the car, in the first case, and legal and benficial ownership of the car in the second case (where delaer B is acting as his agent), no problem with him simply getting in car and driving away. Alternatively he can sue dealer B for detinue if dealer B is still in possession of vehicle, or for fraudulent conversion if he's sold it and not remitted purchase money in line with prior agreement.

What would happen if it was sold to a third party? If the third party was a bona fides (i.e. with good faith) purchasor for value (i.e. not undersold) of the legal interest without notice (he didn't know the car wasn't dealer B's, and he wasn't in a situation where he was put on inquiry and ought to have looked further into it) dealer A would have no cause of action against him. Such a person is termed (equity's darling), basically an innocent third party. Dealer A's only cause of action would be against Dealer B.

ilovelamp2000

Sue car dealer B.

junkyard

Could the car be reported stolen?
Thanks for your help everyone.

dermot_sheehan

It can,

if it's the legal owner's and it has been taken without authority, an offence under s. 112 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended by s. 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 has been committed, taking without authority.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA25Y1968S65.html


The reason this offence exists is that under the old law of larceny, the state had to prove an intention to permanently deprive the true owner of possession, which was difficult to do in the case of joy riders.

The modern law of theft, as codified in s. 4 of the Fraud and Theft Offences Act 2001 is easier to prove. Only have to show dishonest appropriation, dishonest being without good claim of right which might be difficult to prove in this scenerio.

One solution would be just to call cops and show up at premises seeking to remove vehicle. If person refuses to allow you to take vehicle, they're interfering with you ownership rights and in the presence of a garda, soing it without a good faith belief of your consent.

Also note if the owner decides to remove vehicle himself, trespass is generally only a civil wrong and rarely a criminal offence. It's a criminal offence to trespass with intent to commit burgulary, to trespass on a dwelling or the curtilage of a dwelling in a manner likely to cause fear in another person, or to trespass on land when having been directed to leave by a garda.

junkyard

So technically car dealer A could walk into the showrooms and drive out in the car with the spare key, having informed the Gardai of course of his intentions.

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

So technically car dealer A could walk into the showrooms and drive out in the car with the spare key, having informed the Gardai of course of his intentions.

If the item is in a showroom dealer a would probably be a licensee rather than a trespasser, i.e. the showrooms are open to the public at large.

Dealer A owns the car, dealer B is merely a bailee, I assume dealer A has a very stong right to recover physical posession, but I don't really know the law all that well in this area.

Eru

Hang on a second here, A gave car to B in order to sell to C.

What C does afterwards with the car is his right as new owner. If C decides to sell then thats his right.

The problem here is that B has not paid A as per their agreement. Why does A not simple go into B's showroom and speak direct?

And who has the cert of ownership?

This is not a criminal matter under RTA or theft. Its civil. For criminal A would not have given permission for the car to be taken whereas in this case he clearly did give permission.

maidhc

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

What C does afterwards with the car is his right as new owner. If C decides to sell then thats his right.

Nope. B cannot give title to C, as he has no title to give. C however could give title to D (AFAIK, as equity's darling.. help me here commerical law people).

So A could just take the car of C as much as B, despite C giving good money to B. I know personally of a situation where this happened. An expensive farm tractor was stolen in the UK, got a false VIN and plates, and was sold in Ireland to a farmer. They farmer lost both the tractor and his money despite being totally innocent.

junkyard

Thanks for the help everyone.:)

Eru

maidhc wrote:

Nope. B cannot give title to C, as he has no title to give. C however could give title to D (AFAIK, as equity's darling.. help me here commerical law people).

So A could just take the car of C as much as B, despite C giving good money to B. I know personally of a situation where this happened. An expensive farm tractor was stolen in the UK, got a false VIN and plates, and was sold in Ireland to a farmer. They farmer lost both the tractor and his money despite being totally innocent.

Yeah but thats because B had stolen the car from A. In this scenario it was agreed that B would take posession and sell to C. The deal from A to C was perfectly legal except now B is refusing to pay A.

B did not steal the car from A. A actually handed over the keys and freely allowed him leave on the express agreement that it would be sold to C.

If you buy a house and the solicitor makes a mistake or overcharges you and wont refund you cant move back into the house.

Likewise if theres a problem between Nike and Champion sports Nike cant take your runners back.

dermot_sheehan

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Yeah but thats because B had stolen the car from A. In this scenario it was agreed that B would take posession and sell to C. The deal from A to C was perfectly legal except now B is refusing to pay A.

B did not steal the car from A. A actually handed over the keys and freely allowed him leave on the express agreement that it would be sold to C.

If you buy a house and the solicitor makes a mistake or overcharges you and wont refund you cant move back into the house.

Likewise if theres a problem between Nike and Champion sports Nike cant take your runners back.

It could be argued though, that dealer B fraudulently embezzeled the property. This would be an offences under the old larceny act 1916 and would be covered i think by either sections 4 or 6 of the fraud and theft offences 2001 act

jhegarty

junkyard wrote:

Car dealer A owns the car. Car dealer B approaches car dealer A and tells him he has a buyer for the car. Two dealers know each other and opperate in the same town. Car dealer A gives car to dealer B in good faith. A few days later dealer A contacts dealer B to see whats happening and dealer B tells him the deal is going through. Later dealer A tries to contact dealer B who won't return calls etc., Dealer A locates his car in another dealership with a for sale sign on it. Dealer A is alarmed to say the least. What does dealer A do?

If they are in the same town can Dealer A just call over to Dealer B and sit in his office until he speaks to him...

Eru

gabhain7 wrote:

It could be argued though, that dealer B fraudulently embezzeled the property. This would be an offences under the old larceny act 1916 and would be covered i think by either sections 4 or 6 of the fraud and theft offences 2001 act

Section 6. yes I can see your point there. I still think its a civil matter though.

Lplated

I think (can't find the source but its in the back of my mind from college days) that cars are one of those items where the bona fide purchaser without notice principle does not apply - i.e. that Dealer A can recover the car from anyone, be it Dealer C or someone that Dealer C sells to, or someone that the person Dealer C sells to sells it to. AFAIR its a common law principle in the equitable subject of tracing.

Re-inforcing this unsourced notion, I can remember a number of newspaper reports in recent years where Gardai recovered, in various parts of the country, cars which had been innocently purchased by people through various sources. i.e. the cars were stolen, maybe sold on to intermediaries, and then sold with faked documentation to innocent people. The 'innocents' would have had no comeback other than to sue the person they gave the money to.

Our man in Havana

Related question, how does a bank manage to sell on a car it has repo'd if the log book is in the name of the person they snatched the car from?

maidhc

Bond-007 wrote:

Related question, how does a bank manage to sell on a car it has repo'd if the log book is in the name of the person they snatched the car from?

In the case of HP they actually own the car. Not sure about car loans, but I assume the bank has a charge over it, and getting the log book changed is only a formality involving a member of an Garda Siochana.

Eru

maidhc wrote:

In the case of HP they actually own the car. Not sure about car loans, but I assume the bank has a charge over it, and getting the log book changed is only a formality involving a member of an Garda Siochana.

When its a bank loan isnt it the same as a mortgage? As in, they have to get a court order declaring the property in their name?

pred racer

No a bank loan is treated as a personal unsecured loan that is just used for the purposes of buying a car, the bank has no rights. Thats why I always get loans for my cars, so that if my circumstances change I can always sell the car and pay back the loan, an option you dont have with a lease deal.