Bring the garage to court

Dmtiling

Ok here is the story - sorry if its a bit long but i'll try my best to keep it as short as possible.

Recently bought a second hand van (AS IS) without waranty. When I was in the garage the van had trouble starting and they had a mechanic look at it. After this It was said that it was just a loose wire or something. The van started and I drove it away thinking that the problem had been solved. I only got two days driving out of the van before it would not start for me. Because I bought it without waranty and I thought it was only a small problem I got it towed to a main dealer of the van. It was not the same Dealer which I bought the van off as they don't deal in this sort of van as new. I have now discovered that van will cost me nearlly 1700 Euro to get back on the road again. I am considering taking the garage to court to claim for that amount since I was told that the van was in working order when I bought it.

Here are some legall facts and consumer rights I have found on the subject.

Responsibility on the seller:

A motor vehicle must be in
roadworthy condition when sold to a
consumer. This means that it must be
safe for the user, and for other road
users. It is an offence under the Sale
of Goods & Supply of Services Act,
1980 to sell a car to a consumer which
is not roadworthy. It is also an offence
under Road Traffic legislation which is
enforced by the Gardaí.

Sale of Goods Act:

The Sale of Goods Act also requires
that all goods sold should be:
✽ Of merchantable quality
(reasonable, acceptable quality
given what was said about them
and taking into account the age
and history of the vehicle).
✽ Fit for the purpose they are
intended to be used for.
✽ As described.


Do you think I would have a case against the garage on this. All thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

The only downfalls I could see are.

I brought the vehicle to another garage to be looked at.

The fact that I bought the van AS IS dosn't seem to me like a valid point for the garage to use. Since I was told that van was in working order when I bought it. Even though I bought it AS IS I still expected to get more than two days driving from it.

10-10-20

As per the Sale of Goods Act, yes you have a valid reason to go for it. But, you must give the supplier an opportunity to rectify the matter first. If you don't, any costs that you might incur cannot be recovered from him.

Hagar

When a vehicle is sold "as is" there is a clear implication that it is not mechanically sound and will require work to get it legally roadworthy.

Did you pay a knockdown price for the van compared to another being sold with a guarantee?
That in itself is a clear indication of its condition.

I suspect you fully understood the term "as is" and knew that some work would be needed but grossly under-estimated the scale of work required and are now looking for a legal let out.

I think you're on your own my friend.

Dmtiling

Yes i understood the term as is and did pay less than if it had a guarantee.

But I was told the van was in good condition.

Henry Ford III

If it started when you bought it, as you say, I reckon you could have trouble winning on this.

Dealer could say "it was ok when it left here".

Without any warranty and sold "as seen" suggest you've no comeback at all.

Good luck with it btw.

Hal1

OP you should have got a mechanic to go with you, the AA provide a service like that. It seems that you dont have any grounds for any legal proceedings. You agreed with the dealer to make the purchase while knowing it needed work, it just unfortunate that you didnt know the extent of the work needed on the van

gyppo

Hagar wrote:

When a vehicle is sold "as is" there is a clear implication that it is not mechanically sound and will require work to get it legally roadworthy.

Did you pay a knockdown price for the van compared to another being sold with a guarantee?
That in itself is a clear indication of its condition.

I suspect you fully understood the term "as is" and knew that some work would be needed but grossly under-estimated the scale of work required and are now looking for a legal let out.

I think you're on your own my friend.

What the man said.
Basically, when you buy an item "as is", you essentially waive all lyour legal consumer rights.

Dmtiling

Well replies don't seem to positive anyway

Will have to think about what i'll do first. Its a though situation.

Mhmm...weetabix

Having the same issue as the thread starter. I bought a 97 mitsubishi colt 2 months ago. The car was running grand until last weekend when the electrics started to cut out while I was driving and the car battery had gone flat without any explanation. First of all I was thinking battery or altenator so I got a new battery to see if that would fix the problem. Brought it down to my local mechaninc less than 2k away today, with the car barely making it. He took one look at it and told me the car had being in a flood and to get my money back. The dealer who told me that "everything was above board and working fine" is telling me they knew nothing about it and are refusing to act, the car was sold to me under false pretenses but from what you guys are saying it seems I dont have a leg to stand on, hope my solicitor will say different like my mechaninc...

Stephen

Did you buy your Colt "as seen" or anything like that?

maidhc

gyppo wrote:

What the man said.
Basically, when you buy an item "as is", you essentially waive all lyour legal consumer rights.

A consumer cannot waive all their legal rights. This is a fact, and not up for discussion. This is why "trade" cars are sold on the trade normally.

Your case depends on how your facts fit into s10 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, and as well possible misrepresentation on the part of the garage. I would say going on the facts you have given you have a reasonable case!

For €1700 you have the small claims court at your disposal, so that is one avenue you can consider. It only costs €10 or something trivial like that.

golden

Even though it sold as is, I would have automatically thought that as it was not a private sale it would fall under the Sales of goods act. You should really talk to your solicitor on this to clarify the situation.

Hagar

Are there any remarks or notes on the bill of sale to indicate that it was "as is" or "trade"?

If not you might be lucky.

Dmtiling

Im interested to see how this pans out.

I have been looking around the net gettin consumer rights info. I think i will have to pay the other garage that examined the car but maybe i can claim from the seller for this cost? Will have to wait and see what happens.

Dmtiling

If anyone can put the following into plain english for me it would be great. lol

Sale by description.

13.—(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description; and if the sale be by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

(2) A sale of goods shall not be prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale, they are selected by the buyer.

(3) A reference to goods on a label or other descriptive matter accompanying goods exposed for sale may constitute or form part of a description.

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness.

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—

( a ) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or

( b ) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

(4) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgement.

(5) An implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.

(6) The foregoing provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made.

Hagar

Dmtiling wrote:

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—

( a ) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or

( b ) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

In a "for sale as is" situation the buyer is invited to examine the goods for defects before purchase. If the buyer declines to examine the goods or the examination does not reveal the faults, provided that they have not been deliberately concealed by the seller, the buyer is deemed to be accepting any and all existing faults. That's how I understand it but I may be 100% wrong as I'm not a lawyer. Get professional advice.

maidhc

Hagar wrote:

In a "for sale as is" situation the buyer is invited to examine the goods for defects before purchase. If the buyer declines to examine the goods or the examination does not reveal the faults, provided that they have not been deliberately concealed by the seller, the buyer is deemed to be accepting any and all existing faults. That's how I understand it but I may be 100% wrong as I'm not a lawyer. Get professional advice.

... but if the buyer DOES NOT examine the goods then part b is not very useful to the seller.

You can argue this punishes due diligence, but it is meant to protect the "ignorant" buyer. The entire purpose of the section is to turn the principle of "caveat emptor" on its head in certain business to consumer transactions.

Hagar

How extensive does an examination have to be?

Kicking the tyres, sitting in the car, beeping the horn, turning on the radio, putting on the seat belt, turning on the lights/indicators... Is that legally an examination? I strongly suspect so. If the buyer does this and then goes ahead with the purchase hasn't he examined the car to his satisfaction?

I think the OP's only way out is if the sale documentation makes no reference to the fact that the van was sold as seen. Even at that the total lack of warranty is a bit of a giveaway.

How many people buy regular vehicles without at least some guarantee? The most restrictive guarantee I've heard of was 3 months limited to engine and gearbox.

mike65

"As is" should be treated like a private sale (you have no comeback from joe bloggs) and a so-called trade sale operates on the same principle. The presumption is that anyone who is confident enough to buy without any warranty is smart enough to know what to look for and then to be willing to make a judgement call.

In this case it was'nt a good call.

maidhc

mike65 wrote:

"As is" should be treated like a private sale (you have no comeback from joe bloggs) and a so-called trade sale operates on the same principle. The presumption is that anyone who is confident enough to buy without any warranty is smart enough to know what to look for and then to be willing to make a judgement call.

... but that isn't the law...

For a "gentlemans" point of view of course you are correct. I bought my car "as is" from a Toyota main dealer, but only because I was good friends with a salesman and he knew I wouldn't be back.

I didn't get a mechanic to look at the car either... because I took his word it was sound and because it had a good history... and because it was 4k cheaper than an identical one in a Ford main dealer

Mhmm...weetabix

Stephen wrote:

Did you buy your Colt "as seen" or anything like that?

I did buy the car as seen Stephen, thats what the dealer was trying to side track me with. I then told him he'd be hearing from my solicitor, he spoke to his boss and has changed his tune quite quickly.
I've also found the add on carzone.ie which I saved to me e-mail account and it states the car is in "Mint condition" http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=725686 It's the first car I bought so I was stupid enough to take their word, it's a learning curve at the least...

Churchy

Im speaking from experience up North.

We've got caught in the past when private punters try to buy cars at trade price without warranty. They went back on their word and complained about various problems - so company now never sells any trade car to a private punter.
It muddies the water for the honest bloke willing to take a chance but the messers arent worth the hassle.

Legally the OP is on solid ground (goods must be fit for purpose to a retail customer), morally I believe hes not sticking to his word buying "as is". Was given the opportunity of paying more for the reasurance of warranty and service.
Some facts are missing from the post , how much did the vehicle cost and how old was it?

unkel

Dmtiling wrote:

will cost me nearlly 1700 Euro to get back on the road again

What exactly is the main dealer offering to do for €1,700? Did you get a quote from an independent garage / mechanic? Did you go back to the garage that sold you the car to see what (if anything) they would do for you?

And indeed, what car / year / mileage etc. and what did you pay for it?

Keep us updated on this on, Dmtiling. Plenty of people here (myself included) would be interested in the outcome

Henry Ford III

I was thinking about this overnight for some odd reason.

IIRC the op said the van started and he drove it away on the date of purchase. That being the case the seller has no further obligation in a "as seen" sale. The van was "fit for purpose" at that time. Beyond that no warranty existed.

p.s. I hope I'm wrong but that's how it looks to me.

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

A consumer cannot waive all their legal rights. This is a fact, and not up for discussion. This is why "trade" cars are sold on the trade normally.

Your case depends on how your facts fit into s10 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, and as well possible misrepresentation on the part of the garage. I would say going on the facts you have given you have a reasonable case!

For €1700 you have the small claims court at your disposal, so that is one avenue you can consider. It only costs €10 or something trivial like that.

It's not be open to the OP to take this problem to the Small Claims Court. The SCC will only hear a case between a private consumer plaintiff and a business/commercial defendant. The fact that the OP in this case appears to have bought a van and also as he bought it "as is", suggests that this was a transaction between two business entities which I'm almost certain will put the case outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

Also, when a car is "sold as seen", you have absolutely no comeback contractually or at common law, should you have a problem with the vehicle. You really should have had a mechanic look at this van before you committed yourself.

Unfortunately I think you haven't a leg to stand on OP, but best of luck with it anyway.

Darragh29

Dmtiling wrote:

Yes i understood the term as is and did pay less than if it had a guarantee.

But I was told the van was in good condition.

This statement is kind of incompatible with the term "sold as seen". If it was in good condition, why was it being sold on a "sold as seen" basis??? What exactly is wrong with the van anyway that requires 1700 Euro to be spent on fixing it???

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

It's not be open to the OP to take this problem to the Small Claims Court. The SCC will only hear a case between a private consumer plaintiff and a business/commercial defendant. The fact that the OP in this case appears to have bought a van and also as he bought it "as is", suggests that this was a transaction between two business entities which I'm almost certain will put the case outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

I wouldn't agree that this falls outside of the SCC. It may do, but certainly on the facts here we have a punter buying a van from a garage. Order 53 does require the "goods or a service of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption", and you may argue a van is not this, but again I don't think it is obvious.

I don't see how you can state:

Darragh29 wrote:

when a car is "sold as seen", you have absolutely no comeback contractually or at common law

to put it mildly, this is plain wrong.

bazz26

I have no legal knowledge so cannot really advise the OP on what he/she can do but I am very interested to see what the final outcome of this with regards to "sold as seen" or "drive away as is" will be.

OP keep us posted.

Hagar

maidhc wrote:

Order 53 does require the "goods or a service of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption", and you may argue a van is not this, but again I don't think it is obvious.

I'm guessing that the OP's username suggests he is associated with a tiling firm and that therefore vehicle was paid for with a company cheque. If so it probably takes the purchase out of the realms of "private use".

maidhc

Hagar wrote:

I'm guessing that the OP's username suggests he is associated with a tiling firm and that therefore vehicle was paid for with a company cheque. If so it probably takes the purchase out of the realms of "private use".

The case law on that particular point is much and varied... to the degree that the Courts in Ireland and the UK have very different interpretations and judge upon judge has contradicted each other.

But certainly if it can be shown the OP was acting in the course of a business then not only will the small claims court not be available, but he will have less rights under the legislation.

As you said though, if he is a tiler, and if he bought the van for his business (i.e. not a car-van or commerical jeep for personal use) then the Sale of Goods act is less useful.

You can still argue the point about misrepresentation by the garage. E.g. the problem was apparent to both, but the garage represented it was a small problem, and on foot of that he bought the van. Saying something is "sold as seen" would not necessarily get the garage of the hook in this regard.

We won't resolve the matter right here, but I will say again, those who say the OP has no potential remedies are incorrect.

Hagar

Agreed, my sympathies are with the OP but I think we are helping him by playing devil's advocate and possibly forewarning him of obstacles he will might face. Personally I could not afford to be at the loss of €1,700 and would not like to see anyone else in that position.

Sonnenblumen

Hagar wrote:

I'm guessing that the OP's username suggests he is associated with a tiling firm and that therefore vehicle was paid for with a company cheque. If so it probably takes the purchase out of the realms of "private use".

and also out of the Small Claims court, commercial goods claims are excluded.

crosstownk

I'm with Hagar and others on this. If it's a trade (as is) sale then your on a looser. You got the 'out the gate' warranty.

Just wondering, but, is their not an onus on the selling dealer/trader to ensure that a buyer is indeed 'in the trade'?

Dmtiling

Ok - here is abit of an update. I have been in touch with the cusomer rights people and they say that I can not be sold faulty goods. The AS IS dosn't come into play. The garage can not sell you a vehicle that is not in working order without pointing out the faults to you before hand. They advised me to contact the small claims court and see if they would take my case.

The van is in my name and not my business name so the small claims court is available to me.

When I rang the small claims court they said I have a case and they would take my case.

The only thing is that I have to pay for the damage to be repaired in the garage it is in now. After that I can claim off the garage where I bought the van for the costs of the repair work.

I am not in the motor trade so the van should not have been sold to me as trade in the first place. This is the garages fault even though it seems they were doing me a favour.

I will keep you all posted as to how this pans out. Hopefully i won't be out of pocket for to long.

Darragh29

Dmtiling wrote:

When I rang the small claims court they said I have a case and they would take my case.

I'm not too sure any Small Claims Court would give you any such advise. They are a division of the District Court, are independent in their functions and I seriously doubt that they would advise you whether you have a case or not.

Dmtiling wrote:

I am not in the motor trade so the van should not have been sold to me as trade in the first place. This is the garages fault even though it seems they were doing me a favour.

I'd say the garage have their arse well covered on this one. There is a form you have to sign when buying a vehicle "sold as seen" and if you have signed it, you have basically accepted that the vehicle is unsafe to drive, is unroadworthy and that you have accepted no warranty whatsoever with it, either express or implied. I've seen this form before and it actually recommends that the vehicle is not driven off the site but is professionally transported/recovered to it's next location, so should the worst case scenario arise and your brakes fail completely when you turn left out of the garage onto a main road, the garage has no liability. Also, as you have learned, you don't have to be in the trade to buy a vehicle on a "sold as seen" basis. If you go down to Wilsons Car Auctions on the Naas Road, every car is sold on a "sold as seen" basis and many of these are bought by private buyers. There is no recourse to the Sale of Good & Supply of Services Act, 1980 or to the SCC or anywhere else, should your new car go up in flames on the kerb outside Wilsons. Basically you can't really lose in the SCC because it's only costing you a tenner or something so that's all you can lose.

Again, what exactly is wrong with the vehicle now???

Darragh29

Section 13 of the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act, 1980, states:

Implied condition on sale of motor vehicles.

13.—(1) In this section "motor vehicle" means a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—


( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, and


( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical.


(2) Without prejudice to any other condition or warranty, in every contract for the sale of a motor vehicle (except a contract in which the buyer is a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles) there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery of the vehicle under the contract it is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.


(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply where—


( a ) it is agreed between the seller and the buyer that the vehicle is not intended for use in the condition in which it is to be delivered to the buyer under the contract, and


( b ) a document consisting of a statement to that effect is signed by or on behalf of the seller and the buyer and given to the buyer prior to or at the time of such delivery, and


( c ) it is shown that the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) is fair and reasonable.


(4) Save in a case in which the implied condition as to freedom from defects referred to in subsection (2) is either not incorporated in the contract or has been effectively excluded from the contract pursuant to that subsection, in the case of every sale of a motor vehicle by a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles a certificate in writing in such form as the Minister may by regulations prescribe shall be given to the buyer by or on behalf of the seller to the effect that the vehicle is, at the time of delivery, free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.


(5) Where an action is brought for breach of the implied condition referred to in subsection (2) by reason of a specific defect in a motor vehicle and a certificate complying with the requirements of this section is not proved to have been given, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the proven defect existed at the time of delivery.


(6) Regulations under subsection (4) may apply to motor vehicles generally or to motor vehicles of a particular class or description (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) and different forms of certificate may be prescribed for different classes or descriptions of vehicles.


(7) A person using a motor vehicle with the consent of the buyer of the vehicle who suffers loss as the result of a breach of the condition implied by subsection (2) in the contract of sale may maintain an action for damages against the seller in respect of the breach as if he were the buyer.


(8) The Statute of Limitations, 1957 , is hereby amended—


(I) by the insertion in section 11 (2) of the following paragraph—


"(d) An action for damages under section 13 (7) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 , shall not be brought after the expiration of two years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.";


(II) by the insertion in section 49 of the following subsection—


"(5) In the case of an action claiming damages under section 13 (7) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 , subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words 'six years' there were substituted the words 'two years'.".


(9) Notwithstanding section 55 (1) of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 22 of this Act) any term of a contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of this section shall be void.

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

I'm not too sure any Small Claims Court would give you any such advise. They are a division of the District Court, are independent in their functions and I seriously doubt that they would advise you whether you have a case or not.

They will. They have their own registrar who deals with the queries and who assists people in filling out forms. It isn't very bureaucratic and is designed for ordinary people. If the registrar felt the OP wouldn't have a chance, he would say it and save everyone the hassle.

Buying goods in an auction is a very different state of affairs!

My understanding of "sold as seen" is that there is no warranty. It is not an out for a dangerously defective vehicle, nor will it allow someone to avoid any representations they made to the customer as to the condition of the vehicle. I would bet my bottom dollar that this is how the district court judge will view it too.

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

Buying goods in an auction is a very different state of affairs!

Not at all. An auction and a car dealership both rely on the same exemptions found in section 13 of the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act, 1980, that provide for a car to be "sold as seen" to a buyer, should the buyer (in exchange for a knocked down price), accept the terms of the contract with regard to the exclusion of warranty. Obviously the garage/dealer would have to have such a contract in writing with the buyer, which is clear from section 13 above. If the buyer has signed a "sold as seen" contract, I don't see any chance of him getting relief at the Small Claims Court. I'd be surprised if the garage just let the OP walk out the door with no "sold as seen" contract or they would be stupid and he would have a case, but I very much doubt that this is what the circumstances are here.

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

Not at all. An auction and a car dealership both rely on the same exemptions found in section 13 of the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act, 1980, that provide for a car to be "sold as seen" to a buyer, should the buyer (in exchange for a knocked down price), accept the terms of the contract with regard to the exclusion of warranty. Obviously the garage/dealer would have to have such a contract in writing with the buyer, which is clear from section 13 above. If the buyer has signed a "sold as seen" contract, I don't see any chance of him getting relief at the Small Claims Court. I'd be surprised if the garage just let the OP walk out the door with no "sold as seen" contract or they would be stupid and he would have a case, but I very much doubt that this is what the circumstances are here.

s.3 provides that when buying at an auction a person cannot be considered a consumer. As we have discussed above the issue as to whether the OP is, or is not, a consumer is very relevant. Again, as I said above, if the OP is a consumer he has certain rights that he cannot contract out of...i.e. his agreement not to come back for redress may not be binding on him!

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

s.3 provides that when buying at an auction a person cannot be considered a consumer. As we have discussed above the issue as to whether the OP is, or is not, a consumer is very relevant. Again, as I said above, if the OP is a consumer he has certain rights that he cannot contract out of...i.e. his agreement not to come back for redress may not be binding on him!

He is not a "consumer" as it is defined by the act, if he is not using the vehicle for private personal use. In this case, he is using the vehicle for business use, which as fas as I know puts his case outside the remit of the act in question, and this is irrespective of what his trade or profession is. He can purchase the vehicle privately but when he uses it for any purpose other than personal private use, as far as I can see, he places himself outside the definition of consumer in terms of its definition within the act. He can contract himself out of any warranty once he signs a contract to this effect in writing and his contract in which is has accepted no warranty is binding on him, once of course he ticks all the boxes for being a consumer, which I don't think he does...

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

He is not a "consumer" as it is defined by the act, if he is not using the vehicle for private personal use. In this case, he is using the vehicle for business use, which as fas as I know puts his case outside the remit of the act in question, and this is irrespective of what his trade or profession is. He can purchase the vehicle privately but when he uses it for any purpose other than personal private use, as far as I can see, he places himself outside the definition of consumer in terms of its definition within the act. He can contract himself out of any warranty once he signs a contract to this effect in writing and his contract in which is has accepted no warranty is binding on him, once of course he licks all the boxes for being a consumer, which I don't think he does...

Even so, it does not get the garage off the hook if they represented the Van was in pefect working order and he bought on the strength of that promise.

Believe you me, I have seen these cases run, and district court judges never like used car salesmen much!

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

Even so, it does not get the garage off the hook if they represented the Van was in pefect working order and he bought on the strength of that promise.

Believe you me, I have seen these cases run, and district court judges never like used car salesmen much!

I dunno Maidhc, what he said or what the garage said is one thing but what he may have signed as a party to a contract is another. I don't have the experience that you have with seeing the cases in action, my knowledge on this goes back a few years to college.

If I was the OP, I'd be getting a solicitor involved immediately with a view to piling on the pressure to leverage a settlement with the garage in the short term. I'm surprised the garage won't entertain him at all, because this is just bad business in my opinion. If that didn't have the required result, I'd go down the small claims road, the case could be rejected (or accepted) if the SCC deals with the matter of whether the buyer was a private buyer or a commerical buyer as a preliminary issue and then rules on that and moves onto the substantive issues at hand. Either way, for a tenner or whatever it is, I'd do it, if only to tie up their staff for the day! The OP hasn't told us what is wrong with the vehicle that now requires over a grands worth of work. I'd be interested in hearing this.

laney82

What kind of document did the OP sign when he bought the van? Was it an SIMI form?

dionsiseire

im considering similar with the garage i bought my car from

i paid €3600 for a car the car had 41,200 miles on it
i dont think i even managed to break 42,000 miles on it in the 9 months its been in my ownership

The problem is that the Bigend is gone on the engine and is feeding bits of metal into the oil cogs which is grinding them up.
ive been told i will need a new engine and possible other small parts to make up a complete fix which the garage believe to be as good as "beyond economical repair"

Everyone ive talked to about it has said that there is no way a bigend on a car should be gone after 40,000 miles.

ive been considering my option on it as 3600 is a big loss to me.

do people think i stand a chance, would i be better trying to do a trade in using the car and see if i can get something for the car towards a newer car?

Dmtiling

Been a day or two since i checked back on this post.

To answer the question as to what is wrong with the van...

The ECU is gone. And the wiring loom going to the ECU had alot of broken wires in it.

I have decided to get a solicitor involved or atleast get his advise on the matter.

maidhc

Dmtiling wrote:

I have decided to get a solicitor involved or atleast get his advise on the matter.

Very sensible. Solicitors are surprisingly cheap too

Looks to me like the garage knew there was a huge problem and tried to pull a fast one.

PanhardPL

maidhc wrote:

Very sensible. Solicitors are surprisingly cheap too

Looks to me like the garage knew there was a huge problem and tried to pull a fast one.

Solicitors Cheap? Tell me where they are.

laney82

If, when purchasing a vehicle from a garage, you signed an SIMI Vehicle Order Form then you should be aware that this contains a provision that in the event of a dispute between the customer and the dealer it shall be referred to arbitration firstly.

I work in a garage.

maidhc

laney82 wrote:

If, when purchasing a vehicle from a garage, you signed an SIMI Vehicle Order Form then you should be aware that this contains a provision that in the event of a dispute between the customer and the dealer it shall be referred to arbitration firstly.

I work in a garage.

Thats not a major problem though. Same rules apply. It might require the OP to pay 1/2 the arbitrators fees up front... which could be up to 5k.

If the OP is a consumer then the Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations can be used to block the arbitration clause.

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

Thats not a major problem though. Same rules apply. It might require the OP to pay 1/2 the arbitrators fees up front... which could be up to 5k.

If the OP is a consumer then the Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations can be used to block the arbitration clause.

The SIMI have a grievance procedure which can be invoked by a customer against a garage/seller that is affiliated to the SIMI. I've read on here before of a customer who used the procedure and didn't think much of it at the time. If I was you, I'd just go to a solicitor and get a letter written threatening court action if the matter is not remied. It might put the ****'s up them, and force a response out of them. I think thought you need reflect fully on the fact that "sold as seen" does not automatically mean "trade buyer". I mean you could be buying as a "sold as seen" basis with a view to having your uncle or brother who is a mechanic, fixing anything that might be wrong with a car thats "sold as seen".