Trading in car with known issue - do I disclose?

Standard Toaster

Hi lads,

I'm planning on trading in my 01 Astra this asap. May go for the newer H model. My current car needs a new ECU (See thread here...Cheers Kev!) but is somewhat drivable. Do u think I should disclose this issue to the unsuspecting dealer?

Would it really affect the trade in value if I told them do you think? Would the garage follow up on the issues once they found out??
I wouldn't sell private as it is but I wouldn't feel as bad passing her onto a garage.

Cheers for any input lads.

bazz26

Mmm I think this thread will open up one of these:



All I will say is that it will definately affect the trade-in value of the car.

budweiserfrogie

Don't you think the dealers are having a hard enough time at the moment?
Don't trade it in.
Let it off through an auction listed as sold as seen.
That way the buyer is takeing a calculated risk, you'll get a bit less for your car but no comeback to you on any possible mechanical problems.
Now go to the dealer with cash in hand and wait till you see how much cheaper you can get your new motor for! You'll possibly even be altogether healthier in the pocket department after your whole adventure.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

How would you feel if you went to buy a car and was told everything was fine and the ecu was actually fried?

congo_90

Bryn wrote: »

How would you feel if you went to buy a car and was told everything was fine and the ecu was actually fried?

Exactly as i feel now! stupid car! Costing a fair few euro to put right enough to sell/trade in.

Go to a dealers and see what they'll say to ya they'll end up selling it cheap in anyways

Standard Toaster

Fair enough. I guess I was just wondering how much I'd lose on the trade in being honest vs the cost of a new ecu/repair. Would it make any odds trading into an Opel dealer (as it's another Astra I was thinking of getting anyway?)

I would have thought people are trading in dogey cars all the time. I mean, would the garage even give the car the once over?

I'm just eger to get rid of the car at this stage.

Auction is not a bad idea.

DublinDilbert

After reading the other thread it looks like you've jumped power onto the Fuel pump relay.... In the event of an accident the petrol pump will keep pumping as long as the ignition is turned on.

I've done it myself on a classic car while waiting for a part, but wouldn't leave the car like that if i was selling it on to someone unsuspecting.

If its a common fault with the low side driver for the Fuel pump relay, one of the places that fixes ECUs should be able to spot it very easy, probably just a solder joint or cracked SMT component, should be fairly easy to spot & fix.

Owen

I've said this before and been flamed for it, but if a Dealer did this to you, you'd be on here screaming from the rooftops. Not exactly the brightest idea announcing it on boards either, many Dealers are aware of this forum, and read it regularly.

Anan1

ned78 wrote: »

I've said this before and been flamed for it, but if a Dealer did this to you, you'd be on here screaming from the rooftops. Not exactly the brightest idea announcing it on boards either, many Dealers are aware of this forum, and read it regularly.

Exactly. If it's wrong it's wrong, doesn't matter who the victim is.

Henry Ford III

ned78 wrote: »

I've said this before and been flamed for it, but if a Dealer did this to you, you'd be on here screaming from the rooftops. Not exactly the brightest idea announcing it on boards either, many Dealers are aware of this forum, and read it regularly.

You are correct ned, but a dealer has certain legal obligations to a consumer (sale of goods etc.) but does that work the other way around? I'm not so sure.

I'd have thought a dealer should assess a car being traded in for overall condition in arriving at a figure for it's trade in value. If such a car has an obvious fault is it up to the dealer to identify it, or the customer to disclose it?

I think there is are legal and also moral issues here.

I'd certainly disclose it, but am not so sure whether OP is obliged to, or not.

Anan1

Whatever about the legal obligation, the moral one seems quite clear.

Alun

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I think there is are legal and also moral issues here.

Exactly ... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." and all that.

Owen

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If such a car has an obvious fault is it up to the dealer to identify it, or the customer to disclose it?

It's split 50/50. The Dealer should look for it, but under the terms and conditions of the contract the customer signs, it says "the trade in must be the customer's absolute property and free from all encumberances, and problems/difficulties except those specifically brought to the attention of the dealer".

If a customer trades in a vehicle with a major fault like this, and signs the contract with those conditions, the Dealer is free to seek extra monies from the customer to cover the cost of repair.

lifer_sean

Have been on the receiving end of this twice lately.

02 Avensis traded in from a friend - didn't drive car, asked him was all ok - he said it was. Turned out bearings gone in gearbox (obvious once I drove it) - he paid for gearbox rebuild.

03 Megane diesel traded in from friend of a friend - did drive it (perfect) - turns out it has intermittent starting problem (electronics; under investigation). None too impressed that the guy didn't fill me in, at least in terms of what has been tried / not tried, which would save me some work. Not likely to take any action on this one. If I wasn't up front with him on the car I sold him then he'd have the law onto me.

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

It's split 50/50. The Dealer should look for it, but under the terms and conditions of the contract the customer signs, it says "the trade in must be the customer's absolute property and free from all encumberances, and problems/difficulties except those specifically brought to the attention of the dealer".

If a customer trades in a vehicle with a major fault like this, and signs the contract with those conditions, the Dealer is free to seek extra monies from the customer to cover the cost of repair.

So basically you're f*cked if you know a little about cars?

If you're some nice old lady, trading in your snookered shopping trolley with the words "it doesn't run quite as well as it used to" you're off the hook ?

Owen

peasant wrote: »

So basically you're f*cked if you know a little about cars?

Huh? No no no. It doesn't say anything like that. The clause is there for worst case scenario where people are deliberately withholding information like the OP that they're aware of. It's up to the Dealer to use their discretion, and in the majority of cases, most garages let the minor stuff slide.

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

Huh? No no no. It doesn't say anything like that. The clause is there for worst case scenario where people are deliberately withholding information like the OP that they're aware of. It's up to the Dealer to use their discretion, and in the majority of cases, most garages let the minor stuff slide.

Yes but ...(leaving aside all moral implications for the moment) ...the OP knows he fried the ECU on his car, the little old lady just knows that it doesn't drive as it used to ...that's why she's getting a new one

So ...once again leaving aside all moral implications ...if you're trading in a duffer, just play dumb and say that the car's gone a bit sluggish/noisey/whatever recently ("probably needs a service":D) and you'd like a new one please.

You can't disclose anything if you know nothing about cars ...why should you disclose if you do?


If you're buying a second hand car, you're advised to have it inspected by an independent mechanic ...I would advise dealers to inspect the car before they mention a trade in value (so what if it takes a day or two) ...if they don't ...their problem.

hobochris

Personally, Id trade it in with the dealer. Then once they have it and your in your new car, Id give em a call with a story like "I was talking to a friend yesterday who borrowed the car a few weeks back, He mentioned something about the fuel pump might be going,he knows a couple of things about cars so I figure I better let you guys know so you can check it out". they should check the fuel pump and the ecu as well. That way you get to stinger the "Poor"(bollox) dealer and pass on the knowledge about the faulty ecu.. any bad karma is on the dealer in my books if they sell it to someone unchecked.


Its what I would do anyway, after the years dealers have spent ripping us of I would have no problem return the favor.

that's just my two cents anyway..

Beta Ray Bill

2nd hand ECU's can be picked up very cheap.

Buy one from the exact same model as your car. should be no more that 40 euro, from a breaker, check the the UK also (a standard 2nd hand ECU for an EVO V is about £30-40. so for an Astra which is a far more common car, it should be cheaper)
Stick it in.

Bobs your Uncle

No one is hurt and it has cost you a minimal amount

Owen

peasant wrote: »

Yes but ...(leaving aside all moral implications for the moment) ...the OP knows he fried the ECU on his car, the little old lady just knows that it doesn't drive as it used to ...that's why she's getting a new one

If the little old lady trades in the car she knows to be driving problematically, and doesn't disclose it, she's witholding information that the garage could use to diagnose the problem and price her part exchange accordingly.

peasant wrote: »

If you're buying a second hand car, you're advised to have it inspected by an independent mechanic ...I would advise dealers to inspect the car before they mention a trade in value (so what if it takes a day or two) ...if they don't ...their problem.

Do you honestly for one minute think Customers coming in to get a ball park figure on their part ex allowance are going to sit around for 4 hours to wait to get their car up on a ramp and inspect it thoroughly because the workshop is busy all day and they've called in unannounced? It's hard enough to get a customer to sit still for 10 minutes these days.

Either way 'if they don't ... their problem'? No, it's not. If a customer signs a contract that tells them they have to disclose potential issues with the car, and they don't, they're then in breach of that contract of sale, and can be pursued by the other party in the contract if it's serious enough to merit it.

Beta Ray Bill

hobochris wrote: »

after the years dealers have spent ripping us of I would have no problem return the favor.

I completely agree with you. Dealers in this country have been screwing people for a long time.

However bare in mind that the Dealer will probably not fix it and will sell it on knowingly that there is a problem.

I have no problem screwing the dealer. but in this case you are actually screwing the person the dealer sells the car to. Dealer gets off Scot free... AGAIN!

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

Do you honestly for one minute think Customers coming in to get a ball park figure on their part ex allowance are going to sit around for 4 hours to wait to get their car up on a ramp and inspect it thoroughly because the workshop is busy all day and they've called in unannounced? It's hard enough to get a customer to sit still for 10 minutes these days.

Give them a ballpark figure if ballpark is what they want ...just make sure they understand it's not binding
Give them a courtesy car / a demo for a day if they're seriously interested

Either way 'if they don't ... their problem'? No, it's not. If a customer signs a contract that tells them they have to disclose potential issues with the car, and they don't, they're then in breach of that contract of sale, and can be pursued by the other party in the contract if it's serious enough to merit it.

Typical dealer taking the easy way out.

Ye are supposed to be the experts. Ye have us over a barrel with your parts prices, your specialist equipment, your warranties, your service and finance agreements and now you want us to diagnose our cars ourselves?

Ye take every opportunity to fleece customers who know nothing about cars with unnecessary parts replacements and shoddy diagnostics, taking ages (and hundreds of euros) to fix problems that you can't even find yourselves and now you expect the customer to disclose "potential issues" ?

Nice cop-out I say

Get yer act together and do it properly !


The issue of customers expecting an instant valuation of their trade-in only exists because you want it that way ...so you can pull of your bizarre bazaar-like sales spiel ...what with the disappearing to the managers office and pretending you got a better deal and whatnot.

Deal openly and fairly ...assess the car properly, give a detailed valuation, list the issues, cut the mumbo-jumbo and everybody will be happy

BTW ...not directed at you personally, but at the industry as a whole.

Darragh29

To be honest, this should be purely academic because there is no way a salesperson should take this car in without copping an issue like this. In the current times, if someone took a car in that needed this type of work and didn't factor it into the transaction, they'd likely be out of a job.

Owen

peasant wrote: »

Ye are supposed to be the experts. Ye have us over a barrel with your parts prices, your specialist equipment, your warranties, your service and finance agreements and now you want us to diagnose our cars ourselves?

Of course not, but if you know, like the OP that an expensive critical part of the car has to be replaced and you don't tell the retailer it's a whole different kettle of fish than asking you to diagnose the car yourself.

It's easy to sugar coat this and blame dealers, but the OP knows his car has a problem, and he's asking if he should withhold that information. It's wrong, and the very fact that he's in here asking should he, or shouldn't he is the proof that he knows it's wrong.

And less of the 'typical dealer' too, I don't sell cars. But if I did, I'd have a lot more to say on the issue.

peasant wrote: »

The issue of customers expecting an instant valuation of their trade-in only exists because you want it that way

.

B*llocks. Some customers in this day and age come in with precious little time, they want a quick trade in price, they don't even have time for a test drive. For those customers, they want no waiting, and all the facts in an instant.

peasant wrote: »

Deal openly and fairly

And let the customers be dishonest, and trade in cars with faulty ECU's today, crashed cars tomorrow? Hell of a double standard there. Either everyone plays fairly, or the merry-go-round we've had for the last few years continues.

I can't believe a Mod of the Motors Forum is actually condoning defrauding a business. Any business.

Owen

Darragh29 wrote: »

To be honest, this should be purely academic because there is no way a salesperson should take this car in without copping an issue like this.

Most sales people aren't mechanics, and I've seen a few times when ECUs had major faults, but no ECU warning light was on the dash. Sales person drives the car which could perhaps have an intermittent fault, it drives okay, no ECU light, and he appraises it as such, but the customer is aware that the ECU needs replacing, and keeps that to himself.

Somethings are not black and white.

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

Of course not, but if you know, like the OP that an expensive critical part of the car has to be replaced and you don't tell the retailer it's a whole different kettle of fish than asking you to diagnose the car yourself.

While I agree with you on the moral side of things, I'm talking about the technicalities here.

OP knows what's wrong ...little old lady doesn't and just says that the car isn't quite right because that's all she understands.

OP tells you that the ECU need replacing ....you reduce his trade in by 500 euro
Little old lady says the car chuggs sometimes ...you smile at her and give her the full book value

How's that fair? They've both "disclosed" ..but the person that actually knows what they're talking about gets punished

Drummerboy08

I think people are getting mixed up here slightly.

If you are trading in a car, you are legally obliged to tell the dealer about whatever problem your car may have.

A dealer is not legally obliged to give you a good deal.

I would agree with ned, a customer does not want to sit around waiting for a trade in value for an hour while a mechanic looks at a car, and more than likely will not want to leave his car there while you do it either, regardless of if you give him a courtesy car or a demo. Bear in mind, if every dealer were to do this, the customer would be days trying to get a price from a few different dealers.

You cant always give a "ballpark" figure either - for example, if you give him a price of say, €5000, then you get the car inspected, and discover €1000 of work that has to be done in order to sell the car on. So when the customer comes back to do a deal, you say i can only give you €4000 for this car, as there is X,Y, and Z to be done to it, he'll only say, "sure you told me it was €5000 two days ago, i dont care what work needs to be done, thats your problem", he will then proceed to walk out, and you've just lost that deal.

I noticed someone saying that if you didnt disclose whatever problems your car had, the dealer wouldnt bother fixing it either- wrong. In this day and age, i think the majority of dealers wil fix it, they do not want to be haned a legal bill of thousands of euro for a problem that would have cost a few hundred to fix. And as i think Ned pointed out, you sign a legal agreement when handing over the car, so even if a dealer sells it on without fixing it, the problem and bill will be handed straight back to you, if you know about the problem, as you have told the dealer that there are no problems, and have signed a legal document to that effect.

Bottom line is, you should tell the dealer, the same way as you would expect to be told.

bazz26

I knew this thread would open up a can of worms.

I'd be very interested to know how a dealer would be able to prove that the previous owner knowingly traded in a car with say a faulty ECU? A customer could claim ignorance in that the car was working fine up to the time it was traded. While most car sales people are not mechanics neither are customers.

Surely the burden of proof would then be on the dealer to prove that the customer mislead them? Surely in alot of cases it's the customer's word against the dealers?

Owen

peasant wrote: »

OP tells you that the ECU need replacing ....you reduce his trade in by 500 euro
Little old lady says the car chuggs sometimes ...you smile at her and give her the full book value

Where'd you make that leap of faith? If 2 people tell you there's a problem with the running of their car, you check both cars, despite the technicalities of their descriptions.

You're jumping to very quick conclusions here Peasant, and condoning illegal motor trading - which is very surprising for a Mod of this forum.

Owen

bazz26 wrote: »

I'd be very interested to know how a dealer would be able to prove that the previous owner knowingly traded in a car with say a faulty ECU?

They don't have to. The clause in the contract says that if the car is faulty and the customer doesn't inform the dealership of it, the dealership is entitled to pursue costs. Even if the customer doesn't understand how a car works, or how the fault developed or could be remedied.

Jonty

ned78 wrote: »

They don't have to. The clause in the contract says that if the car is faulty and the customer doesn't inform the dealership of it, the dealership is entitled to pursue costs. Even if the customer doesn't understand how a car works, or how the fault developed or could be remedied.

Surely if its traded in an Opel garage, they will plug it into a diagnostic computer and it'll be spotted??

Owen

That's dependent on the procedures at that particular garage. Every garage is different, and still doesn't change the fact that lying about something like this is wrong, and if the OP signs a contract saying the car is okay, pretty illegal too.

leon8v

peasant wrote: »

OP knows what's wrong ...little old lady doesn't and just says that the car isn't quite right because that's all she understands.

OP tells you that the ECU need replacing ....you reduce his trade in by 500 euro
Little old lady says the car chuggs sometimes ...you smile at her and give her the full book value

You are assuming that the little old lady gets full book value though which is convenient for your argument and IMHO in reality wouldnt always happen if at all.
If the dealer gives full book value to the old lady after her telling them the car "chuggs" a little then its their own fault. She knows there is a problem, doesnt know what it is but has disclosed it to them that there is a problem, she cant be expected to know what it is. I doubt a good sales person would do that though, they would test drive it and if need be get the service dept to check it.
The OP also knows there is a problem, and again normally wouldnt be expected to know what it is but to disclose to the dealer that there is a problem be it intermittent or not. However in this case, he knows what the problem is, whether its from his own mechanical knowledge or by having it checked out by someone. In this case he would be deliberately misleading the dealer he is trading into by not saying what it is. A different scenario to the little old lady.

It never fails to amazie me, Cars are one of very few items you can buy where the seller (ie dealer) will take a trade in of your old item yet at every opportunity they are slated about it, be it prices or building into the agreement a clause about problems to cover themselves.
How many estate agents will take a trade in of your old house when you want to move?

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

Where'd you make that leap of faith? If 2 people tell you there's a problem with the running of their car, you check both cars, despite the technicalities of their descriptions.

Check every car, problem solved

You're jumping to very quick conclusions here Peasant, and condoning illegal motor trading - which is very surprising for a Mod of this forum.

I'm condoning nothing here, merely pointing out flaws in the system which (surprise, surprise) work in favour of the dealer again

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

... still doesn't change the fact that lying about something like this is wrong, and if the OP signs a contract saying the car is okay, pretty illegal too.

I agree with you that lying is wrong ...legally as well as morally ...but I'm really not sure that it can be legally correct to have the seller sign such a contract. After all, the seller is not the expert.

That's kind of like your doctor making you sign a statement saying that you're healthy before he agrees to examine you, just in case he gets his diagnosis wrong

Owen

peasant wrote: »

I agree with you that lying is wrong ...legally as well as morally ...but I'm really not sure that it can be legally correct to have the seller sign such a contract. After all, the seller is not the expert.

The contract is legal, and making someone sign it is also legal. It doesn't matter that the seller is not the expert- ignorance is no defense in a court of law.

peasant wrote: »

That's kind of like your doctor making you sign a statement saying that you're healthy before he agrees to examine you, just in case he gets his diagnosis wrong

Hardly.

Owen

peasant wrote: »

I'm condoning nothing here ...

peasant wrote: »

if you're trading in a duffer, just play dumb

Right!

peasant

As I've said before ...in my opinion dealers should change the way they work this.

A good dealership will have to examine the car anyway and fix any issues before they sell it on.
So why not exame it at the time of trade in (give the customer a courtesy car for the day) and come back with a detailed evaluation, listing all faults, if any.

This way both parties know what they're getting.

It would also quickly sort good dealers from the shady ones and enable customers to build up a relationship of trust with "their" dealer which in the long run can only be good for business.

Drummerboy08

Its just interesting to see how many people are actually condoning breaking the law here.

What makes it even more interesting is the fact that, had someone here actually bought a car from a dealer, and later found that the car has a serious problem that should have been fixed by the dealer, they would have been straight on here to complain about it "those pesky car dealers foolin me again" etc etc.

The law is the law people, it is as much wrong for a dealer to sell you a dodgy car, as it is for you to sell a dodgy car to a dealer.

If you know you have a problem with your car, either fix it, tell the person (dealer, private individual, whoever) about the problem and take the hit on it, or scrap it.

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

Right!

tsk ...as a fellow moderator you should also know not to deliberately quote out of context and distort the meaning

Owen

peasant wrote: »

tsk ...as a fellow moderator you should also know not to deliberately quote out of context and distort the meaning

tsk my arse. You've had a very clear opinion about the subject the whole way through this thread. And as a fellow moderator, you should know that condoning breaking the law by you, or any other boardsie in a forum such as this should be infraction central.

peasant

For all the late comers and those who don't read all posts I probably had better clarify:

I do not condone or advise lying about the condition of your car on a trade in. That is not only immoral, but as it stands also illegal.

However, in this thread I'm playing devils advocate, saying that the system as it stands isn't right, has flaws (which I pointed out) and that it is strongly favoured towards the dealer and current dealership practices.

A change in the system could be made for everybodies benefit.

Owen

There are no flaws in the system, it's very very clear. If you have a car, which has a significant issue and you trade it in to a garage as a perfect car, without telling them, whether or not you know about the issue, as it is your property - you're liable.

robtri

wow.. this is a can of worms.....

I am of the opinion if there is a problem with your car disclose it, doesn't matter who you are selling too.....

I do have an issue with dealers, who then tell you stupid prices for repairs on trade in's, dealer repair prices on trade in's, should be at cost, not full retail price..... that part is scandelous....

it is a bit amazing how many people here are happy to lie and be dishonest when trading a car in....
if you thought to yourself reading this, no I wouldn't tell the dealer and let him suck it up, would be happy if they bought a car of a dealer and then found a problem, an expensive problem, to sit back and say ahh welll I got shafted, no way, everyone would be back on the phone to the dealer screaming and shouting to get it fixed.....
so why should be any different for a dealer.....

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

There are no flaws in the system, it's very very clear. If you have a car, which has a significant issue and you trade it in to a garage as a perfect car, without telling them, whether or not you know about the issue, as it is your property - you're liable.

....whether or not you know about the issue,.... - you're liable


And you don't call that a flaw?


Customer is not aware of a problem with the car

Some spotty young kid from sales gives the car a once over, doesn't find anything wrong with it, offers a trade in value, deal is sealed.

Customer drives off with his new car, two days later the dealership rings him, points at the contract and asks for a thousand euro because they discovered an expensive fault.

Not a flaw?


Seriously?

-Chris-

OP - quick question for you...

If you keep this issue to yourself and you trade the car in and the dealer doesn't spot the issue until you have your new car, you'll feel like you've got one up on the dealer and saved yourself some money.
They will spot the defect later as they prep the car for sale, but you'll know that it's impossible to prove that you knew about the defect anyway.


What if the new car you bought from them then subsequently malfunctions (let's say the ECU goes :P), it might be a pre-existing fault in the car or it might be fresh.
Maybe they knew about the fault in the car, maybe they didn't, it's hard to prove.


What level of support would you demand from the dealer to repair the car they sold you? What rights would you feel you had?
Why do you feel the dealer doesn't have similar rights?

ntlbell

AudiChris wrote: »

OP - quick question for you...

If you keep this issue to yourself and you trade the car in and the dealer doesn't spot the issue until you have your new car, you'll feel like you've got one up on the dealer and saved yourself some money.
They will spot the defect later as they prep the car for sale, but you'll know that it's impossible to prove that you knew about the defect anyway.


What if the new car you bought from them then subsequently malfunctions (let's say the ECU goes :P), it might be a pre-existing fault in the car or it might be fresh.
Maybe they knew about the fault in the car, maybe they didn't, it's hard to prove.


What level of support would you demand from the dealer to repair the car they sold you? What rights would you feel you had?
Why do you feel the dealer doesn't have similar rights?

Is it not up to the garage to fully inspect the car before purchase/trade in

If they sell on a car that they have taken in that's faulty is it not the responsibility of the garage again to make sure the car is tip top before they sell it to the next customer?

robtri

peasant wrote: »

....whether or not you know about the issue,.... - you're liable


And you don't call that a flaw?



Some spotty young kid from sales gives the car a once over, doesn't find anything wrong with it, offers a trade in value, deal is sealed.

Customer drives off with his new car, two days later the dealership rings him, points at the contract and asks for a thousand euro because they discovered an expensive fault.

Not a flaw?


Seriously?

likewise then
If you buy a car of a dealer and two days later find a thousand euro problem, you shouldn't go back to the dealer for it....

if you sell something that at the time of sale is damaged or not as per description, you are in the wrong, just cause the buyer is a dealer doesn't make it right...

Owen

peasant wrote: »

....whether or not you know about the issue,.... - you're liable

And you don't call that a flaw?

If you're an estate agent, and I sell you a house that has subsided, and I didn't know about it, you'd make damn sure your contract included a clause about that, wouldn't you? You'd go after the original owner of the house about the subsidence and the cost to rectify it, wouldn't you? But I'm not a builder, and how should I be expected to know if my house has subsided or not? And because I didn't know if it had subsided, then I shouldn't have to pay for the repairs, despite my telling you it was in perfect condition and you buying it as such?

Silly silly argument Peasant. As drummerboy said, the law is the law, if you sign a contract of sale stating the car is perfect and it's not, you're still liable!

peasant

ned78 wrote: »

Silly silly argument Peasant. As drummerboy said, the law is the law, if you sign a contract of sale stating the car is perfect and it's not, you're still liable!

The whole point is that as the consumer, the non-expert, you are in no position to make such a statement.

In your mind and to your knowledge the car may well be perfect.

Knowingly lying about an issue that you are well aware of is quite another matter.


But with this general get-out of jail clause the dealers are making it too easy for themselves in my opinion.

Owen

This clause is implemented in about 1-3% of sales Peasant, the majority of the time most Dealers say oops, put it down to bad judgment and pay for costs themselves.

So it is quite fair indeed to say yes, the Dealers are indeed covering their asses, because it's their trade, their business, and they need some form of insurance when it comes to that 1-3% of people who are shady enough to try something like this. For the other 97-99% of people, they won't be affected by it, or care about it.