Legal rights when buying a catering trailer

Ngrieve87

Recently sold a catering trailer, the purchaser spent 4 hours over 2 evenings lookin over it, any questions wer answered honestly and she got a good deal on the price. She left very happy with the purchase however rang back a week later and said there's a problem with one piece of equipment and she wants her money back! After discussing with my husband we decided the deal was done fair and square and we would not take it back. Informed the purchaser and she said regardless of wether we want it back or not she is taking it back and wants her cash! Now I believe she had every opportunity to find faults with the trailer over the two evenings she was looking at it and was happy when leaving.

Has she a legal right to take the trailer back???

Procrastastudy

Ngrieve87 wrote: »

Recently sold a catering trailer, the purchaser spent 4 hours over 2 evenings lookin over it, any questions wer answered honestly and she got a good deal on the price. She left very happy with the purchase however rang back a week later and said there's a problem with one piece of equipment and she wants her money back! After discussing with my husband we decided the deal was done fair and square and we would not take it back. Informed the purchaser and she said regardless of wether we want it back or not she is taking it back and wants her cash! Now I believe she had every opportunity to find faults with the trailer over the two evenings she was looking at it and was happy when leaving.

Has she a legal right to take the trailer back???

Cant give legal advice but the situation would be very different depending on whether you are a private individual or a business.

As I have, in a round about way, answered your question perhaps you would answer mine. Why do people insist on using extraneous punctuation marks?

caprilicious

Not sure of rights, but sounds more like buyers remorse.
If I bought a car from a garage & the radio didn't work: I'd expect the radio to be repaired/replaced, not to get a full refund on the car!

I bought a car a few years ago that a friend who fancied himself as a mechanic checked for me prior to purchase. I got it home & there was a lt of faults with them, some major.

When I rang the seller, he said "Caveat Emptor", let the buyer beware. I would assume the same applies in your case as it was a private sale.

coylemj

The nature of the goods (catering equipment) would suggest to me that the law would not see this as a consumer transaction so no consumer legislation applies. Your buyer can't claim to be an innocent punter buying dodgy goods from a professional trader so I'd say it's Caveat emptor all the way and all of the risk rests with the buyer.

Reloc8

Mmmmmm. Not straightforward.

People forget that there is lots of Sale of Goods stuff which applies in respect of non-consumer transactions.

Section 10 Sale of Goods Act 1980 subsititing S. 14 of the 1893 act:-

"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."

The bits in bold are likely engaged in this case, if this is a transaction between two businesses. If the defect now complained of would have been discovered on inspection, the buyer has less to complain about (first bit in bold).

If however the purpose of the purchased good was made known to the seller expressly or by implication (which lets face it if you're buying catering equipment it was) then the second bit in bold is engaged and means that the seller is agreeing that the goods are fit for purpose, unless the seller can argue that it wasn't reasonable for this buyer to rely on the seller in this respect (say if the buyer was very experienced in a given area and should have spotted a given problem, where the seller was not, for example).

That said, the item of equipment which is said to be defective may be said to be severable from the vehicle as a whole i.e. may constitute a separate good. If it can't, then Section 13(2) of the Act of 1980 may apply (if the defect is one which renders the vehicle a danger to the public including persons in it). S. 13(2) applies except where a vehicle is bought by a person whose business it is to buy vehicles.

You need to consider getting proper legal advice on this.

Victor

Ngrieve87 wrote: »

Recently sold a catering trailer, the purchaser spent 4 hours over 2 evenings lookin over it, any questions wer answered honestly and she got a good deal on the price. She left very happy with the purchase however rang back a week later and said there's a problem with one piece of equipment and she wants her money back! After discussing with my husband we decided the deal was done fair and square and we would not take it back. Informed the purchaser and she said regardless of wether we want it back or not she is taking it back and wants her cash! Now I believe she had every opportunity to find faults with the trailer over the two evenings she was looking at it and was happy when leaving.

Has she a legal right to take the trailer back???

Who is buying and who is selling, it seems to change through the paragraph.

Procrastastudy

That's actually section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 inserted into Section 10 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. The sections highlighted seem to indicate the that the seller is acting in the course of a business - I'm not sure the OP was; I got the impression this was a private sale, and indeed second hand goods. Care to clarify OP?

Also I believe the Act (either of them) has to be read in light of Section 3


3.—(1) In the Act of 1893 and this Act, a party to a contract is said to deal as consumer in relation to another party if—

(a) he neither makes the contract in the course of a business nor holds himself out as doing so, and

(b) the other party does make the contract in the course of a business, and

(c) the goods or services supplied under or in pursuance of the contract are of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.

(2) On—

(a) a sale by competitive tender, or

(b) a sale by auction—

(i) of goods of a type, or

(ii) by or on behalf of a person of a class

defined by the Minister by order,

the buyer is not in any circumstances to be regarded as dealing as consumer.

(3) Subject to this, it is for those claiming that a party does not deal as consumer to show that he does not.

I welcome corrections as usual.

Reloc8

^ indeed - edited as regards subsection prior to your post.

If he sold in the course of a business (which would include him getting out of the catering business or what not) then he's got S. 14. If his business was the business of selling second hand goods generally then again he's got S. 14 because he sold in the course of business. If so much would depend on whether it can be shown that the buyer didn't rely on the implied condition under S. 14(4) or that it was unreasonable for them to rely.

If he sold it as a consumer himself to the buyer as a business he's in far better shape - but that is rare enough and I think less likely in light of the nature of the goods here.

If he sold it to the buyer as a consumer (the buyer being a consumer that is) he's got further difficulties with other sections of the acts.