Few Motor Related Consumer Questions

evolutionqy7

Right so im tangled up in this upcoming law exam study questions

Ive read over the notes but their utterly snobby and hard to understand

so hoping that some one around here might clear up a few things

Mods if there's a law section on boards please show me the way i got another unclear non motor related question

====================================================================================================

Question 1

Person walking by a dealership saw a car priced at 4'500 and thought it was a bargain...so he went in to talk to a salesman and he asked was that the right price on the car and the car salesman answer yes, isn't it great.

So he looked around the car was happy with it and they both shook hands on it...

When they went into the office the buyer gave the sales rep 4500, he counted the money and then asked the buyer wheres the rest of the money as the car was 14'500...

Does the buyer have a contract?
====================================================================================================

Question 2

The buyer is looking through the small ads in the evening bungle as he is looking for a second hand car. he sees an ad for a 1988 Nissan Micra with 450'000 miles being offered by the seller for 1000 euro.

He thinks that this is a bargain and rang the seller immediately and arranged to meet up at a petrol station to view the car

He met up with the seller and the buyer was pretty happy with the car and they did a deal on 900 euro for the car...

He drove of and 3 miles down the road the micra blows the head gasket and car comes to a grinding halt.

When the buyer contacted the seller about this, the seller said that as he is not a trader or dealing with the cars in the course of his business then he owes Jimmy no obligations.

The buyers talks to a friend of his and his friends tells him he had a similar experience with this seller 2 months earlier and found out that the seller sells in excess of 20 cars a year and always meets customers at petrol stations away from his house.

Advise Jimmy as to his rights as a consumer in this transaction!

====================================================================================================

Thanks for any help in advance

TestTransmission

you should do your own homework

evolutionqy7

asking for an advice is hardly homework...as i said this is an exam question and i havent a clue on it cause the context is so complicated

the handouts given out are confusing and contradicting each other

-Chris-

What do the handouts say and someone here may be able to tell you which the right answer is.

evolutionqy7

Not sure but it might be the answer but here it goes

Question 1

Offer - an offer may be defined as a clear and obvious statement of the terms upon which the offer or is eager to contract, should the person to whom the offer is addressed decided to accept

Observing - It is true that no written form of irrevocable undertaking had been produced for the defendants inspection at that time [ of agreement ] and that it was understood that one would be executed [the following day]. But the contract which the parties had entered into was not required by law to be in writing and the execution of a written document was made a condition precedent to the defendant's liability under the agreement; it was merely a means of implementing a concluded bargain.

Acceptance - acceptance may be defined as a final and clear expression of agreement to the terms of an offer.

Mistake - Where one or both parties to a contract enter into that contract on the foundation of a mistaken belief, then that contract may not be enforceable. A finding of mistake reduces a contract void as opposed to void able. whether this is the case depends on a number of factors. the mistake must be a cause of the contract

in my own opinion its no...but if i was giving an advice to some one on that and i dropped all of that on them i bet they would be confused...as i am now...and im still not sure is this the right composition for the answer...

Fun Stuff?

:cool:

Question 2

Definition of Consumer: A party is said to be a consumer if:

1. He does not make the contract in the course of business and does not hold himself out as doing so;
2. The other party makes the contract in the course of business and
3. The goods or services supplied are ordinarily supplied for private

Consumption & Use

Definition of Goods

Obligation 1: Seller has the right to sell the goods
Obligation 2: There is an implied warranty that the goods are free and will remain free until such time as the property is to pass from any burden not disclosed to the buyer and that the buyer will enjoy quiet possession of the goods except in relation to any disclosed burden

Section 14: Merchantable quality

Section 14.2 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893, states that there is an indirect condition that goods sold in the course of Business are of merchantable quality except in respect of

• Defects specifically brought to the purchaser's notice before concluding the contract and
• If the purchaser examined the goods, defects which ought reasonably to have been revealed by the examination.

The regulation specifies:

1. If one party to a contract for the sale of goods is a consumer, then the implied terms on sale by description, merchantability, fitness for Purpose and sale by sample cannot be contracted out of. Any attempt To do so is void under s 55(4) 1893 Act

2. Where the buyer is not a consumer an exemption section will only be Enforceable if it is “fair and reasonable” (s 55(4) 1893 Act as Substituted by s 22 1980 Act).

3. Under a contract for the sale of services, where the buyer is a Consumer, any sections contracting out of indirect terms must be “fair and reasonable”

====================================================================================================

if any one would be kind enough to make the question 2 answer readable and understandable to an average joe this would help alot

jaffa20

We aren't lawyers on the motors forum!

But in the first case, i wouldn't think there is a contract and the guy can take his money back and leave. Although, if it is clearly advertised as that price, i wonder can the dealer get away with this. A bit to good to be true all the same.

In the second case, i don't think the buyer has any rights as the car is without warranty etc. However, if the guy is selling over 20 cars + etc, he will need to be registered as a trader and i'm sure the revenue would have something to say about it.

That's all i have to offer on my limited knowledge.

evolutionqy7

i know but since in my knowledge there is no law related forum on boards this is as relevant as it gets :S

and you pointed out where i was getting confused...on one hand it was advertised on Q1 that the price is 4500 so therefore its an invitation to form a contract under the advertisement...and the salesman agree it was the right (even though the rule of mistake contradicts that) (as well since no written contract was made it cant be proven in court)

on the Q2 im unclear whether he should pay it...yes the vehicle has no warranty but theres such thing as the product or service has to be of merchantable quality meaning it has to last certain amount of time after the purchase...

Seth Brundle

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633

gerrycollins

in the first instance while the price was queried no value was added to the queiry also the salesman did not complete the sale so no contract exists. in its situation as you described, it was at offer and acceptance level.

while its the UK and not about cars the court ruled in favour of Boots that a pricing offer as per the price ticket is only an invitation to treat. the contract happens at the moment the sales person accecpts money for the product and completes the sale. if mentioned to the consumer that the price is in fact €x instead of €y the consumer has the option to cough up extra to complete the sale or to walk away.

ill think about the second one

Max Power1

TestTransmission wrote: »

you should do your own homework

my sentiments exactly


Students these days..... :rolleyes:

Bodhan

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Right so im tangled up in this upcoming law exam study questions

Ive read over the notes but their utterly snobby and hard to understand

so hoping that some one around here might clear up a few things

Mods if there's a law section on boards please show me the way i got another unclear non motor related question

====================================================================================================

Question 1

Person walking by a dealership saw a car priced at 4'500 and thought it was a bargain...so he went in to talk to a salesman and he asked was that the right price on the car and the insurance salesman answer yes, isn't it great.

So he looked around the car was happy with it and they both shook hands on it...

When they went into the office the buyer gave the sales rep 4500, he counted the money and then asked the buyer wheres the rest of the money as the car was 14'500...


====================================================================================================

Question 2

The buyer is looking through the small ads in the evening bungle as he is looking for a second hand car. he sees an ad for a 1988 Nissan Micra with 450'000 miles being offered by the seller for 1000 euro.

He thinks that this is a bargain and rang the seller immediately and arranged to meet up at a petrol station to view the car

He met up with the seller and the buyer was pretty happy with the car and they did a deal on 900 euro for the car...

He drove of and 3 miles down the road the micra blows the head gasket and car comes to a grinding halt.

When the buyer contacted the seller about this, the seller said that as he is not a trader or dealing with the cars in the course of his business then he owes Jimmy no obligations.

The buyers talks to a friend of his and his friends tells him he had a similar experience with this seller 2 months earlier and found out that the seller sells in excess of 20 cars a year and always meets customers at petrol stations away from his house.


====================================================================================================

Thanks for any help in advance

Does the buyer have a contract? Should have gotten the price in writing befor handing over the money, get your money back and leave.


Advise Jimmy as to his rights as a consumer in this transaction! Jimmy should have known better than to buy anything from a petrol station, he'll have to prove the seller is a trader before going any further

Probably not the right answers, but I don't study law

djimi

Im not a lawyer, and if you fail your exams based on these comments then tough ****, but from interpretation (which could be completely wrong):

Q1: No, the advertised price is not a legally binding contract and the seller has no obligation to sell to the buyer at that price unless something is agreed in writing and signed. That goes for all aspects of selling, not just cars (ie if you see something priced incorrectly in a supermarket they have no obligation to sell to you at that price).

Q2: Buyer beware; Jimmy should have gotten the car fully checked before handing over the money. To the best of my knowledge you have no comeback on private sales.

Jimmy Bottlehead

For some reason I thought in a private sale, if something big goes wrong and it can be proven the seller was aware, you can have comeback. Could be wrong though.

Law forum is your best bet OP.

daingeanrob

Q1. a contract needs consideration (usually money) to have been exchanged so the answer is no contract existed

Q2 a guy trading this amount of cars can be seen as a dealer in the court, so you do have re-dress, usually a phonecall and a mention of revenue sorts this matter out though

evolutionqy7

can you move it to legal discussion forum please so

thanks to people who tried to help here

Absurdum

Q1: give him a slap

Q2: give him a slap

danjo

In relation to Q1 I think he should have confirmed the price with the car salesman and no the insurance salesman.

"Person walking by a dealership saw a car priced at 4'500 and thought it was a bargain...so he went in to talk to a salesman and he asked was that the right price on the car and the insurance salesman answer yes, isn't it great."

evolutionqy7

danjo wrote: »

In relation to Q1 I think he should have confirmed the price with the car salesman and no the insurance salesman.

well he did he asked was that price right...it was the salesman's fault in not checking the price shown

Cuddlesworth

Q1=Invitation to treat. Its not until the contract is signed and the goods paid for that either side can't pull out.

Q2=Private sale. You would have to prove he was aware of the fault with a signed declaration from him that there was no faults at sale. If he buys and sells a lot of cars, it was still a private sale. But you can report him to revenue to see if he declares the income. Linking to some ad's and providing his name, number and address would help.

danjo

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

well he did he asked was that price right...it was the salesman's fault in not checking the price shown

Yes, but he should have asked the CAR salesman not the insurance salesman as cited.

evolutionqy7

danjo wrote: »

Yes, but he should have asked the CAR salesman not the insurance salesman as cited.

oops fixed

Milk & Honey

There is a lot of nonsense posted here.
Q1. There has been an offer and acceptance therefore there is a contract. The invitation to treat has been passed. The issues which arise are
1. Writing requirements. The Statute of Frauds as amended by the Sale of Goods Act 1893 requires all contracts for the sale of goods of more that €12.70 to be evidenced in writing.
A way around this is by way of part performance. The payment of money cannot of itself be an act of part performance.
Next issue is mistake. A contract is void if one side makes a mistake, and the other side knowing of it tries, to take advantage.
A further issue is agency. Can the salesman bind his employer?

2. The second case concerns the rights of the purchaser in a sale of a car.
Question is what are the indicia of a trade vendor?
Secondly comment on the ambiguity in the legislation regarding merchantable quality. On a literal reading even a private seller has to sell a car of merchantable quality. The books on contract law say that only a trade seller does.


These are outline pointers. In an exam a student would be expected to quote from legislation and case law.

The practicalities of the situation are remote from the legal position. A student is not expected to get involved in discussing how difficult it would be to prove something is the case or not. E.G do not comment on how it can be proven that the seller in q2 sells 20 cars per year.

evolutionqy7

well that made me completely confused

Q1 what do you mean can a salesman bind his employee? what has his employee do with the situation?

Q2 so by law a consumer can sell a car of non merchantable quality and get away with it?

corktina

Q2. You only have the Buyer Beware defence if you genuinely didnt know about a problem. If you knowingly sold a car with a defect, you would be liable to sort it out. proving it is another matter of course

Milk & Honey

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

well that made me completely confused

Q1 what do you mean can a salesman bind his employee? what has his employee do with the situation?

Q2 so by law a consumer can sell a car of non merchantable quality and get away with it?

Q1. I said nothing about employee. I said employer. I presume the salesman is an employee.

Q2. A non dealer might be able to. The legislation is ambiguous.

Motor Mouth: Daragh

Hi - I hope you don't mind, we have a solicitor in studio tonight on Motor Mouth on Newstalk and I'm hoping to put these questions to him.

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Right so im tangled up in this upcoming law exam study questions

Ive read over the notes but their utterly snobby and hard to understand

so hoping that some one around here might clear up a few things

Mods if there's a law section on boards please show me the way i got another unclear non motor related question

evolutionqy7

Motor Mouth: Daragh wrote: »

Hi - I hope you don't mind, we have a solicitor in studio tonight on Motor Mouth on Newstalk and I'm hoping to put these questions to him.

well i dont mind...though these dont belong to me so i cant say

these were (a small bit modified by me) exam question in DIT Automotive Management & Technology law subject...

though i would love to hear it...do you do pod-casts so i could download one and listen to it afterwards?

Motor Mouth: Daragh

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

well i dont mind...though these dont belong to me so i cant say

these were (a small bit modified by me) exam question in DIT Automotive Management & Technology law subject...

though i would love to hear it...do you do pod-casts so i could download one and listen to it afterwards?

No podcast but you can listen back tomorrow on www.newstalk.ie. I won't be taking any of the comments from here - I'll just ask your questions to the solicitor.

evolutionqy7

Motor Mouth: Daragh wrote: »

No podcast but you can listen back tomorrow on www.newstalk.ie. I won't be taking any of the comments from here - I'll just ask your questions to the solicitor.

not alot of time...got an exam 2mo...and another one the day after so no time to listen to radio :S

evolutionqy7

hehe finaly found the answer to the Q1

Offer
What the dealership is offering is not an offer. Its a statement

Statement can be described as an invitation to treat. By the invitation to treat you can overlook what is being offered in more detail and either decide to accept of reject the offer.

So in easy words it was a typo but it wasn't stated as an offer only a statement that this car cost XXXX.XX

an offer would be something like an advertisement on a billboard with offering a product at certain price

eg some company would state that their tyres will not burst, if they would burst the company would pay for the damages done to the car. a person buys them and one of the tyres burst. In that case the company is liable.

Mistake
In this case a unilateral Mistake was made. The basic rule is that if only one pary is mistaken then the contract will be void only where the other party knew or should have known of the mistake.

well i think thats the answer anyway