3 Hour Buyer/Seller Debate

NeptunesMoon

im sure this would have been a lot quicker over the phone or in person but interesting to see it in logged text format its a discussion on a car being given on loan for an undisclosd period of time and who would bare the responsibility if it developed a fault soon after being given on loan.:pac:

(13:25:22) Giver I think it's fair that you pay for any maintenance/repairs as a result of your usage for leisure purposes and if the repairs are of too high a cost, that you pay me a fair price for the fact I wont be able to sell it on,
(13:25:55) Giver in it's current state with 2yr nct and 1 year tax, could easily sell it on for 500
(13:27:04) Taker yeah if I'm using it I'll pay for any damage
(13:28:01) Giver yeah so if you use it and it develops a fault too costly to repair then it's basically 500
(13:30:25) Taker well if it developed a fault within a few days that was too costly to repair I don't think it'd be fair to expect me to give you 500 euro. But after months of heavy usage it does then that'd be fair
(13:34:58) Giver but in it's current state, I'd be able to get 500eur for it easily if I was to sell it as is without using it, for whoever buys it it's a risk buying an old car, probably will be fine but that's a risk in buying a car, whereas if it was untouched, I could get 500eur for it and be safe in the knowledge with that so would value that asset at 500eur. by letting you use it, I'm running the risk of a fault developing so would make most business sense to not let you use it unless it was valued at 500eur from get go, it's like you buying a car for your own use for 500eur but you get the 500eur back if nothing goes wrong with it, if something does go wrong with it, then that's the same risk as anyone who'd buy the car. I don't know of any reasons it wouldn't last but right now I've an asset worth 500eur and don't want to jeopardise that
(13:36:03) Giver not to mention the hassle and time etc of then having to sort out gettinga new one and everything, which I actually also think should be your responsibility to replace with like for like
(13:37:15) Taker but surely you wouldn't want to sell someone a car that is a few days away from being worthless?
(13:38:04) Giver but I don't know that
(13:38:52) Taker I know it's a risk when buying an old car and if you sell it on not knowing that, then that's fine. But if a few days of usage turned up a big fault while I was using it then you do know, but you're still expecting the 500.
(13:40:21) Giver as far as I know, the car is fine and all faults will be explained to you. as would be a buyer. if I can currently get 500eur for it the way it is to buyer, then it's an asset I value at 500eur
(13:42:03) Giver it's up to the buyer to get it checked out before buying it, I'm disclosing what I know about it, if you want you could get someone to have a look at it, this should be your responsibility but unless you agree to the 500 value on it, then I've a big risk letting you use it
(13:43:31) Taker yes I know that but if the buyer returned a few days later to say that it actually had something wrong with it, which maybe you nor him were aware of at time of purchase, surely you'd feel that he was hard done by. I'm obviously going to take your word on the condition of the car esp since it just got NCT'd, but if something turns up that noone was aware of after a minimal amount of usage I don't think it's quite right to value the car at that.
(13:44:03) Taker anyway, I'm sure it's fine and will be grand for another good while
(13:44:03) Taker wasting a lot of time here
(13:47:26) Giver yeah I know, well the back right tyre I think has a slow puncture, bumper is a bit loose, which is failed on nct but I popped it back into place somewhat. nct don't really test much besides safety things so clutch, engine etc wouldn't have been tested.

also, since I bough the car for 500eur and have barely used it, I'd be the one losing out if a buyer came back in such a situation, I can hardly go back to who I bough it off ages ago and say there's a problem after only so many miles expecting anything back
(13:50:03) Taker well that's because it was ages ago. If you only had it for a few days and was driving it around and you discovered a fault that made it worthless I'm sure you'd get in touch with the guy.
(13:52:34) Giver I probably would yeah but know that I've ultimately no comeback on it and how much time is a buffer on a comeback anyway and how should that be decided on a 16 year old car
(13:54:05) Taker well yeah you'd be hoping that if you bought the car off someone and after a few days there was a fault you'd get back in touch hoping they'd be nice about it, and not just say tough ****, in the same way I'd hope that if a fault did come up after a few days of me using it you wouldn't just say tough **** because you could have sold it to someone else for 500 and given them no comeback.
(13:57:02) Giver well that would depend on my attitude and who knows what way they drove it in them few miles or what else may have happened and again, how much of a buffer is acceptable considering anything less than 500 will be my loss on it as I'm just making my money back, in fact it would be an even greater loss for me considering it now has longer tax and nct than what I bought it with
(13:58:52) Taker it doesn't really matter what is a loss or not...anything you give back to them is a loss regardless. If you think its unfair to sell someone a car that is a few days away from being worthless, then that shouldn't depend on what you paid for it yourself.
(13:59:34) Taker anyway, I'm heading now
(13:59:37) Taker talk to you later
(14:00:13) Giver well we have to agree something before you take the car.of course it matters if it's a loss or not asI'd be the one losing any money below 500 I don't get back for it
(14:00:18) Giver so that's not fair on me
(14:03:53) Taker what you paid for it doesn't really matter...you're the owner of the car now, so it's a question of whether you think it's fair to sell it on as the owner, for that amount, if it's days away from failure. Besides, you've gotten quite a big of usage out of it since buying it.
(14:05:40) Giver not really, it's just been sitting there as an asset really, if I get any less than 500 for it, that's a loss to me, besides the cost of nct and tax on top of that, anything less than 500 is me losing money on it, so if it developed a cost that was 200eur to fix, is it fair that the buyer comes to me looking to get the car for 300 so I lose 200, or is it fair that they buy the part meaning they have to pay an extra 200
(14:07:19) Giver neither is really fair as it's an unfortunate situation, but the risk is always with the buyer when buying a vehicle and not with the seller so in that case it should be the buyer who takes the responsibility to check as best as they can that this situation doesn't arrise
(14:08:01) Taker yes agreed but as I said if you are happy to just say tough **** to someone who buys it and a fault arises a few days later, then that's your own moral decision really.
(14:09:01) Taker So I don't want to take the car if you are going to expect me to pay 500 quid if a fault arises after a minimum amount of usage.
(14:09:04) Giver of course if the buyer can point out any fault and argue for a reduction in price, then the value will drop and I'll lose out as it's not worth as much now for me to sell, that's a fair loss, but as far as I'm concerned I'm selling the car as seen describing all known faults with it so am being honest in the sale and anything from that point is the buyers responsibility
(14:09:35) Taker and what if it's a fault that couldn't have been predicted?
(14:09:46) Giver that's the buyers risk
(14:09:49) Giver as it always is
(14:10:08) Taker and you wouldn't feel bad selling something to someone and it being worthless only a couple of days later?
(14:12:11) Giver I'd have no reason to feel bad about anything myself, I'd feel bad for them as it's unfortunate but I've done nothing unfair. what if I was selling it because I needed money for rent or food and they came back looking for a refund
(14:14:35) Taker what you use the money for isn't to do with it. You sell the car based on its estimated worth. If your estimation was way off, then you have greatly benefitted from their misfortune. It's not that you did a bad thing by selling the car, but it's not exactly a good thing to not recoup them somewhat.
(14:15:52) Giver but it's estimated based on what I paid for it originally too so any money they are looking to have recouped would be my misfortune then and they have gotten off with me sufferring
(14:17:08) Taker it's estimated based on its current value, it's got nothing to do with what you paid for it. That applies to everything. Nothings value is based on what someone paid for it X amount of years ago, it's only value is what you can currently sell it for
(14:17:57) Giver yes, but I bought it in the hope that I'd be able to sell it on for what I paid for it based on me not using it, so any loss in that would then be my misofrtune
(14:18:43) Giver whereas to the best of my knowledge, I was selling it as I boiught it, for the price I bought it for, it's not my responsibility to make sure it's worth that, I'm just making my money back, it's the buyers responsibility.
(14:24:44) Giver hmon, I don't want to be waiting ages for you to finely construct your arguments
(14:24:48) Taker I'm not saying that you selling the car at the estimated price is wrong even if there is a fault that comes about. But as I said if that estimated value turns out to be way off you are greatly benefitting from the others misfortune. Anyway, I don't want to take the car if you are going to expect 500 quid if the car has a fault that comes up after a small bit of usage. The car would likely have been used a good few times between now and you selling it.
(14:25:12) Taker you have gotten loads of usage out of it since paying 500 for it
(14:26:28) Giver I'm not benefitting from anything, I'm simply passing my misfortune on to them which of course is what happens if I'm passing the car onto them. I woudln't be aware of this but it just so happens to be the way it turned out
(14:26:54) Taker you are benefitting from getting way more for the car than it was actually worth
(14:27:11) Giver no I'm not, I'm breaking even
(14:27:56) Taker that's irrelevant. You could have bought the car for a tenner or 10k and it'd be the same...either way you are selling the car on for way more than it is actually worth, which is of great benefit to you.
(14:29:02) Giver no it's not, I'm selling the car on for the value I believe it to be worth, agreed with the buyer. anything that occurs after that is the misfortune of the buyer. if it was to happen to me before I sold it, it would be my misfortune against who I originally bought it from
(14:30:03) Taker Yes you are selling it on for its estimated value. If that estimation turns out to be way off, you have benefitted by selling something worthless for a decent amount.
(14:30:42) Giver I haven't benefitted at all from anything, simply passed on a misfortune I wasn't aware of and had to responsibility for
(14:31:21) Giver *no responsibility for
(14:32:58) Taker If you are in posession of something that you consider is worth 500, but is actually worth 0, selling it for 500 is benefitting to the tune of 500. It doesn't matter what you paid for it. If I bought a bar of gold 10 years ago for 100k and a bar of gold today is worth 500 and I sell it today, and tomorrow gold is worth as much as a bag of sand, then I have had very good fortune in selling it today before the value drops so much
(14:35:07) Giver so would you then refund the buyer 500 eur with you losing 500eur on top of your inirital loss of 99,500? you didn't know the value was going to drop but it did, you sold it at a fair market price and had already the misfortune of selling it for 99,500 less than you bought it for, so you're now saying that you greatly benefit because you sold it before it reached 0 value?
(14:37:16) Taker yes you benefit because you have sold something that is worthless, for 500. If I could sell a bag of sand for 500 euro, it'd be brilliant. It's the same thing. Of course I lost the 99,500, but in the end I had an object that was estimated to be worth 500, then a few days later was estimated to be worth 0. I was lucky to sell it while it was still worth 500 irrespective of what I paid for it
(14:37:58) Taker so you selling the car that you estimate to be worth 500 which is actually worth 0 is a brilliant outcome for you.
(14:38:18) Giver If I sold it when it was worth 500, then I sold it for market value, the car is currently worth 500 regardless of what happens to it in the future. you seem to have contradicted your point and argument with that example. anyway if you don't agree with it you don't agree with it. You should probably never buy a car without a warranty in that case.
(14:40:00) Taker yeah you sell the car for market value - that value being a car that will work for a decent period of time. If it turns out a few days later that the car is a write off, then it wasn't actually the market value so you really benefitted from selling something that was estimated way over its actual value
(14:42:59) Giver no, there is no guarantee of the car working for a decent period of time, there is no definition of time in the sale. I'd be selling the car sold as is, this means that I've described all known faults and it's the buyers responsibility to check that it will last the time they need it for within the budget of prepared expenditure they have on it. A car with 2yr nct, 1 year tax and with all mechanics in a current working order has a value of 500eur in this case. this is the market value and this is what I'd sell it for anything less would be a loss to me and anything that happens from that point on is a misfortune for the buyer that couldn't have been predicted from the state I sold the car in within an honest sale. It's simply the misfortune of the buyer
(14:46:01) Taker yes and the great fortune of you by selling something that is actually worthless for 500. We're going around in circles anyway. So if I am driving the car for a short period of time and it shows up a fault, are you going to expect 500 quid for it or what?
(14:53:07) Giver but if I sell it for 500, it's worth 500 at the time of sale, whatever happens after that is out of my hands and up to fortune itself. and yeah, I believe that if I currently have an asset worth 500 (which it is worth in its current state) which can easily be sold on for 500 (as is) then it wouldn't be sensible for me to risk that by doing someone a favour which could ultimately lead to a big headache and loss of money for myself. You're more than welcome to use it but I don't want to risk anything with that, I'm already risking my insurance with you driving it, I believe it's probably not a big risk for you since it's had the nct and everything just last week. The back right tyre may have a slow puncture and one or two tyres will also need to be replaced after another few hundred miles so these would be the known costs associated with you taking it now
(14:56:05) Taker well I think it's a bit mean to expect 500 for an asset that you now value at 500 but after a short time could be worth way less. If I was driving it out of CA and it suddenly broke down, would you still expect 500 like? Besides I don't have 500 to give you tbh.
(15:00:04) Giver Once I sell it, fortune is out of my hands my points are still the same, if I lose money on it, that's my misfortune, if you lose money on it, that's your misfortune, there is no benefit anywhere, just misfortune if anything happens as I'm simply breaking even with 500 and there is no profit involved at all so I can't benefit on something that gives me no benefit. If you dont' have 500 and can't see yourself having 500 then that's really the same as not being able to afford to buy something for 500. If something did happen you could pay me back when you can
(15:03:19) Taker there is good fortune in that you were lucky enough to "sell" it for 500 before driving those extra few miles that would have made it obviously worthless. I think if it breaks down only after a tiny bit of usage you shouldn't expect me to pay 500 quid for it, obviously you can demand it if you want to but I don't think many would consider it the 'right' thing to do or whatever. If the damage comes about from my continued usage than it is certainly my responsibility.
(15:06:15) Giver it's your responsibility from the moment you take responsoibility for the car, which is the moment you drive it. What would you say if without you doing anything with it and say it broke down on the way into corke abbey after just having passed and paid for the nct, new bits for it etc, with a problem that would cost 300eur to fix, that's my sole misfortune and the only difference between that and the same happening to you is time. if that was to happen, I'd be at a loss of 300eur + if I could only sell it for 200 or if I had to spend 300 to sell it again for 500.
(15:07:36) Giver your the one taking the risk in this situation, I've already taken my risk buying it off the previous owner, whoever wants to use it next has to take a risk aswell, it's simply passing on the asset and the responsibiltiies that come with ti
(15:10:44) Taker Yes I'm taking the risk but trusting that your not giving me something that isn't going to break down after a tiny bit of usage.
(15:11:04) Taker and trusting that you'd be fair about its actual value should something pop up in the first small bit of usage
(15:13:59) Giver and to the best of my knowledge, that's the case, but it's sold as seen. I have no reason to believe that the car should give trouble any time soon, if I did have reason then it would be unfair for me to sell at a price that would reflect the probablity of it giving trouble from my knowledge and that's a risk the buyer has to take just as I've already taken a risk using it for the time that I've used it in which anything could have happened and I would have lost some or most of my 500eur asset investment
(15:18:41) Taker Well I'd be borrowing it trusting that you're not giving me something that is going to fall apart a day after I start using it, for which I'll be landed the bill. It's a gentlemans agreement and a fair enough thing to do to not lend someone something and tell them they've to replace it if it turns out faulty. If I gave Aicha a lend of my laptop and it broke after a few days I wouldn't expect her to pay for it but if it broke after a couple of weeks I kinda would etc...just the regular thing you'd do between friends.
(15:26:48) Giver well it's a bit different when the thing is just sitting there not being used retaining it's value. I'm taking a risk by giving it to you in the first place, insurance etc and I've paid tax for the year, also if anything did happen to it in the time you had it and it needed to be replaced, it's not simply a case of giving money to me, I also need to source a new one as it's needed to validate my insurance, so that would involve work in ringing up insurance, sorting new ownership details, taxing, going to buy car etc so I'm actually already risking a lot by just lending it to you even if I was to get the 500eur straight up, that risk wouldn't be there and the value would still hold if I knew that car would do me and could still be sold on easily after another year. I need that car for my insurance, if I can retain that asset as is and sell it in 9 months time for the same 500eur I'd get off you if it broke down tomorrow, I'd prefer the 500 eur in 9 months time as I'd get 9 months more of not having to worry about anything and just having it doing what it needs to do, which is just sit there. So before comparing a situation to that of lending Aicha a laptop that may be getting the same use had you not lent it to her, you have to consider the other points and that if something went wrong I'd be landed with loads of hassle
(15:27:32) Giver and then to be expected to lose money off my 500eur asset to be lessen your misfortune, I don't think is fair on me.
(15:30:52) Taker right well then it's not a straightforward thing in that you are taking more of a risk by lending it. but that is a decision you should make that shouldn't really be passed on in a monetary fashion to the person you are lending it to...because then you are putting a price on the favour. I would consider it, from my perspective, the same as lending a laptop or anything else to someone, but as you describe it, there is more inherent risk for you... but I don't think it's necessarily right to convert that to monetary security you want from the person you're lending it to that you will extract even if the fault has been there all along rather than if the person you're lending it to caused the fault. Because that's the equiavelnt of me giving Aicha a lend of a laptop that was just sitting there that I was probably going to sell at some stage, that uknown to me or Aicha had a faulty fan which after a few days of use ruined the laptop, and then expecting the full market value of the laptop from Aicha.
(15:35:41) Giver well I'm basically doing you a favour and all I'm asking in return is the monetary value of my asset in full if anything happens my asset, I'm taking a risk of causing myself more hassle by lending it to you but that hassle can't really be defined and to the best of my knowledge, I'm hoping there won't be such hassle so I'm taking a risk in lending you my asset which may cause a lot of grief and hassle and all I'm asking is for you to take the risk of replacing the full current monetary value of my asset if anything happens it while it's your responsibility. seems very fair to me
(15:39:57) Taker and that is fair enough except if it turns out that the asset isn't as valuable as you thought when handing it over, ie if there was a fault with it that wasn't caused by me. in the same way that I wouldn't expect Aicha to pay the market value of the laptop at the time of lending it to her if it turned out there was a fault with it before I lent it to her. If she caused the fault then it's her responsibility, but I wouldn't consider it right to take money from her for something that wasn't her fault.
(15:43:48) Giver if the fault occurs while it's your responsibility then it is caused by you. Cars develop problems, a lot are unforeseen. It's a risk you take when dealing with cars. If you want to use the car, then you bare this risk. The asset is currently as valuable as I've stated and this will only change if it develops a problem while in my posession or responsibility. I'm not making any profit here, I don't see how losing nothing and gaining nothing can be seen as being anything but fair
(15:46:30) Taker we've already been over that...if the thing isn't worth what you think it is then you gain from someone else giving you the money that you initially thought it was. And if the car is my responsibility and a fault arises it doesn't mean it was caused by me. It could have been from something you did to the car just before you gave it to me, or anything.
(15:47:36) Giver or something that the original seller did before selling it to me, so how is it fair that I lose the money for it? this is going around in circles
(15:50:39) Taker it's not fair on you if it happened from the original seller...but that is a separate issue. you are the current owner so the asset is worth to you whatever its current value is and it is then your choice to treat it like that or treat it like the value you want it to be. If it turns out, because of an existing fault, to be actually worth less than what you thought, then it would be unfair to extract that missing value from someone you lend the thing to
(15:54:20) Giver no, it's worth what is is worth now, nothing will change it's current worth at this moment in time. I've made you aware of what it's worth so you know the risks involved. I've already taken my risks with this vehicle to allow it to do what I need it to do, if you want it for your advantage to do what you want it to do, then you are the one who's going to have to bear the risk. it's not a serarate issue if it happened from the original seller as there's no way to tell, so no way to say who or what caused it. It's simply worth what it's worth now which you're aware of and you can either choose to take the risk by using it or not. There's no warranty, it's as is.
(15:58:17) Taker I'm saying that its value is currently 500 euro because as far as you're concerned it's a working car. I could drive it for 20 minutes and its value could drop to 0. You can hardly blame me for that and say that well tough ****, 20 minutes ago it was worth 500 euro...beause it wasn't worth 500, it was a car that was 20 minutes away from breaking down. you miscalculated its worth and are then trying to extract that missing value from me
(15:59:19) Taker in the same way that if I gave Aicha a lend of a laptop that was 20 minutes away from breaking down, I wouldn't expect her to pay me the amount that I thought it was worth before giving it to her
(16:04:28) Giver no I didn't miscalculate anything, that's simply an unfortunate unpredictable event. I calculated the worth to the best of my knowledge, you took the risk. If you want a risk free car, rent one for a set price per day, if you want a car guaranteed for 7 years, buy one with a 7 year warranty, if you want one for free and risk the value of buying it 2nd hand then this is an option. The car in its current state is worth what it is based on a currently functional, taxed and nct'd car. The car is currently serving its purpose of being an asset that is moveable whenever I see fit. That its sole us.
(16:05:21) Giver as I said, I've already taken my risks with this car to get it for what I need it for, if you want to extend that use, then you must bear the risk of that as I've already taken the risks for what it was intended for in the first place.
(16:06:36) Giver I simply bought an asset for a price which I felt would retain value based on me not using it and then will eventually sell it on for hopefully close to what I paid for it. That's a risk in itself and I've taken that and any increase in risk by usage such as by yourself, should be the responsibility of you
(16:11:07) Taker that's nothing to do with me though. how you have used it etc. At the end of the day you are giving a lend of something to someone, and are saying that if it turns out that that thing is fault and isn't worth the amount that you thought it was, that they must pay you the amount of money that you thought it was. That isn't fair imo because you are giving a lend of something to someone stating its value according to your own estimate, and saying that that value must be reimbursed even if after a tiny amount of usage it is revealed that it is not actually worth that value. I realise you are protecting your asset, but that is always a risk in lending things to people. I'm not saying I wouldn't contribute or pay or whatever but I'm saying it's not fair to state a value of something, allow someone to realise that that value was actually wrong and then expect them to reimburse you to that amount. . I doubt anything is going to happen so I will take a preliminary "risk" in bringing the car out here but I'd like to get other opinions on it or whatever
(16:12:17) Taker I have to go up to the bank before it closes, ttyl
(16:12:27) Giver what do you mean a preliminary risk?
(16:12:38) Giver I've stated the conditions so are you agreeing to them?
(16:12:43) Taker for now
(16:13:21) Taker but I still think it's unreasonable...so I'd prefer to get other opinions before agreeing to it indefinitely
(16:13:39) Giver well you're takingt he biggest risk now
(16:13:56) Giver the more you use it the less risk you're taking as your getting your usage out of it, so the biggest risk your taking is taking it now
(16:14:22) Taker the more i use it the more likely a fault is going to show though
(16:14:45) Giver and there's no thinking of worth value. it IS worth the amount I'm saying it's worth. The only thing that will change that worth is if it develops a problem. the only way it can currently develop a probelm is if you use it.
(16:16:12) Taker gotta go see ye

If your response is TL/DR, the clue is in the title :D:cool:

So if it so happened that a fault developed in a short period of time, who would you be agreeing with above?

Where did you get that from? I stopped reading it after a few lines to be honest.

whippet

the bees are at the what now?

my head hurts and I only read about 4 lines ............

Reloc8

I would neither buy a car from sell a car to or go for a pint with either person.

mickdw

(13:25:22)Giver Ive an old car there for 5 hundred
(13:25:23)Taker I will give ya 4 hundred
(13:25:25)Giver Done.

langdang

And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat..

Reloc8

(13:23:22)Giver Ive an old car there for 5 hundred that I can't sell I think its fecked to be honest
(13:24:23)Taker I need the lend of a car actually for a while
(13:25:25)Giver Fair enough - no problem mate. Its in grand running order. But if it breaks you owe me 500 quid
(13:26:23)Taker What ? If it breaks down immediately I sit in it ?
(13:27:25)Giver Yep. Its the only way I can protect my valuable asset that is in grand running order until someone sits in it probably
(13:28:23)Taker...



[edit does giver understand that if you lend someone something you still own it yourself ?)

Limerick Bandit

WTF Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Delancey

OP , the exchange is an assault on the senses , perhaps it is witty and amusing but nobody will read that to the end...........

Owen

I saw 'giver' and 'taker', and my mind began to wander. Then I tried reading it, and my brain promptly assploded.

TestTransmission

whippet wrote: »

the bees are at the what now?

my head hurts and I only read about 4 lines ............

I managed 2 :pac:

Buffman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFZh92MUOY

So anyway, which one are you OP, giver or taker? Or where did you get this conversation?

dirtydiesel

I managed to read 6 lines at the start, 2 half way down and the last line, and my eyes are hurting!

-Chris-

A shiny new donkey for the first person to read to the end...

El Guapo!

-Chris- wrote: »

A shiny new donkey for the first person to read to the end...

I'm sorry but lifes too short :pac:

Reloc8

-Chris- wrote: »

A shiny new donkey for the first person to read to the end...

I claim my donkey.

Slow day.

-Chris-

I'll email it to you.

OldmanMondeo

Reloc8 wrote: »

I claim my donkey.

Slow day.

No day is that slow

Delancey

Reloc8 wrote: »

I claim my donkey.

Slow day.

How terribly terribly sad

So Reloc8 - wot was it all about ?

vetstu

Can someone add an "I don't care" option to the poll

mawk

that guy is a dick.

bhur

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

im sure this would have been a lot quicker over the phone or in person but interesting to see it in logged text format its a discussion on a car being given on loan for an undisclosd period of time and who would bare the responsibility if it developed a fault soon after being given on loan.:pac:



If your response is TL/DR, the clue is in the title :D:cool:

So if it so happened that a fault developed in a short period of time, who would you be agreeing with above?

TL/DR

subway

Taker is clueless about private sales.
And renting a 500 car? Wtf?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

What absolute garbage. What was that all about? You need to get out more.