Sold my car- Help

shabalala

Hope I'm posting this in the right place!
Anyway I sold my car this week, I've had it since new 2004 and covered 114k miles. Always trouble free apart from a gear linkage spring that broke twice. Which I made the buyer aware of.
I sold the car taxed and nctd. And gave the buyer a receipt of sale with all details, including sold as seen. (on advice from car dealer friend)
The buyer test drove the car and had a friend with him for 2nd opinion.

However I've had a call from him telling me that the car has a fault (something I've never had in that car) and that his mechanic has quoted x amount for repair and that unless I cover the costs he wants me to take the car back and refund him the money!

I dont know what to do here as I've never sold a car before.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated!

djimi

If it was a private sale then he has no legal basis to demand anything from you. Private sale = buyer beware.

godtabh

You gave him an invoice with sold as seen. Up to him to fix it now.

I'd have no more correspondence with him except to tell him he bought it sold as seen and it was a private sale so buyer beware.

Anan1

Politely, but firmly, tell him that this has nothing to do with you. If he persists then you may have to threaten to inform the Gardaí.

Kenny Logins

What fault?

TwoShedsJackson

Ignore him. It was sold as seen and he has no proof anything is in fact wrong with it. He has no comeback, if he needs to get it fixed it's his problem.

Kenny Logins

Have a look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82724536

shabalala

Thanks for the replies!! Seems I have nothing to worry about after all, il ignore it so and go buy my new car.

SouperComputer

It is now their car, therefore they decide if they want to fix it and they pay for it. Did they have a mechanic look at it before they bought it?

The Pontiac

Yes he has some comeback if car is not roadworthy, under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

Through a small advertisement
Vehicles are often advertised by private individuals on the internet and in the ‘small ads’ section of newspapers. If you buy a car from a small advertisement or on the internet from a private individual you are generally not buying from a person whose normal business it is to sell cars (although sometimes used car dealers do advertise in this way). Again in this case you have very little legal protection if you find that the car that you have bought is faulty. It is therefore important when buying from a private seller to protect yourself from unscrupulous people. It may be worthwhile to employ the services of a trusted mechanic who may be able to advise you on the mechanical state of the car.

It is an offence under both road traffic legislation and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 to sell a car which is not roadworthy. Also, the seller is required to give you accurate and truthful information in answer to any questions that you ask. However, a private seller does not have to provide information that is not requested. If you have a grievance after buying a car you should complain to the seller first. If you are not satisfied with the response you may be able to take legal action against the seller. Where the car you bought is unroadworthy, you could also refer the matter to the Garda Síochána.

mullingar

Only if the seller is not in the trade and unaware of the pre-existing fault. Seller did explain all known faults truthfully and also that it was a private sale.

Other than that, buyers problem now.

The Pontiac

mullingar wrote: »

Only if the seller is not in the trade and unaware of the fault.

Other than that, buyers problem now.

It doesn't matter if he/she is in the trade or not, or was aware of any problems. It is illegal to sell a car that is not roadworthy eg. brakes, serious corrosion etc.

I knew a person once that bought a car privately that had serious corrosion (steering I think), that couldn't be fixed. The seller wasn't offering the money back. She saw her solicitor and was told to get the car inspected by an automobile engineer and if the car was dangerous she was entitled to a full refund. The seller's solicitor advised the client to refund the money.

It's clearly stated in the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

Merch

shabalala wrote: »

Hope I'm posting this in the right place!
Anyway I sold my car this week, I've had it since new 2004 and covered 114k miles. Always trouble free apart from a gear linkage spring that broke twice. Which I made the buyer aware of.
I sold the car taxed and nctd. And gave the buyer a receipt of sale with all details, including sold as seen. (on advice from car dealer friend)
The buyer test drove the car and had a friend with him for 2nd opinion.

However I've had a call from him telling me that the car has a fault (something I've never had in that car) and that his mechanic has quoted x amount for repair and that unless I cover the costs he wants me to take the car back and refund him the money!

I dont know what to do here as I've never sold a car before.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated!

As a private seller, it seems you have done all you could, but
how valid is the "sold as seen" why does that add extra weight to the seller, and in particular on the advice of a car dealer,

To me, that smacks of, "there is something wrong with this car but that is not obvious and may cost a lot to fix and I'm saying no comeback"
as a private seller I would say its uneccesary
as a trade selle, surely thats not legal?

thecomedian

I had a similar problem after selling my last car.
The only worry would be if the car was a danger, not road worthy. Otherwise there is nothing they can do, tell them so.
It's not a great situation to be in,

coolbeans

Tell yer man to jog on. Honestly, you sold the car in good faith, he wasn't prepared to pay for the peace of mind of buying from a dealer so he goes private. Then he comes back to you effectively expecting you to honour a non-existent warranty. Politely but firmly tell him to jog on and to be quick about it.

djimi

<Ollie> wrote: »

It doesn't matter if he/she is in the trade or not, or was aware of any problems. It is illegal to sell a car that is not roadworthy eg. brakes, serious corrosion etc.

I knew a person once that bought a car privately that had serious corrosion (steering I think), that couldn't be fixed. The seller wasn't offering the money back. She saw her solicitor and was told to get the car inspected by an automobile engineer and if the car was dangerous she was entitled to a full refund. The seller's solicitor advised the client to refund the money.

It's clearly stated in the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

No its not. Its illegal to lie about its condition if asked. The OP clearly marked the recepit as sold as seen; its up to the buyer to know what they are seeing and buying.

People sell cars all the time that are not roadworthy; for parts or whatever. Theres nothing illegal about it provided you dont hide anything when asked about it.

The Pontiac

djimi wrote: »

No its not. Its illegal to lie about its condition if asked. The OP clearly marked the recepit as sold as seen; its up to the buyer to know what they are seeing and buying.

People sell cars all the time that are not roadworthy; for parts or whatever. Theres nothing illegal about it provided you dont hide anything when asked about it.

Yes it is illegal. I have first hand experience in a private deal. It's very black and white. How in gods name can you determine if someone is lying?

Read the Sales of Good Act. You cannot sell a car that is dangerous to the owner or the general public. Selling a car for parts in a totally different matter.

djimi

<Ollie> wrote: »

Yes it is illegal. I have first hand experience in a private deal. It's very black and white. How in gods name can you determine if someone is lying?

Read the Sales of Good Act. You cannot sell a car that is dangerous to the owner or the general public. Selling a car for parts in a totally different matter.

Surely sold as seen covers the seller for any condition that the car may be in, as the owner is acknowledging that they are consenting to buy the car in the state that they see it in?

The Pontiac

djimi wrote: »

Surely sold as seen covers the seller for any condition that the car may be in, as the owner is acknowledging that they are consenting to buy the car in the state that they see it in?

But if the car is not roadworthy then surely the seller is breaking the law by handing over the keys? The buyer then drives the car off in a public road risking the lives of themselves and the general public.

A certification of destruction and a car transporter for scrap or repair would be okay I'd imagine.

You can always say the seller didn't know, but the seller still has the rights. In the case I know of, the car was beyond repair (corrosion) and the money was returned. The two solicitors involved agreed to this referring to the Sales of Good Act. Maybe if it was just a case of repairing brakes, then maybe a refund to the amount of repair would suffice? Either way the private buyer has a comeback.

The Pontiac

djimi wrote: »

Surely sold as seen covers the seller for any condition that the car may be in, as the owner is acknowledging that they are consenting to buy the car in the state that they see it in?

But if the car is not roadworthy then surely the seller is breaking the law by handing over the keys? The buyer then drives the car off in a public road risking the lives of themselves and the general public.

A certification of destruction and a car transporter for scrap or repair would be okay I'd imagine.

You can always say the seller didn't know, but the buyer still has the rights in the case of a dangerous vehicle. In the case I know of, the car was beyond repair (corrosion) and the money was returned. The two solicitors involved agreed to this referring to the Sales of Good Act. Maybe if it was just a case of repairing brakes, then maybe a refund to the amount of repair would suffice? Either way the private buyer has a comeback.

Merch

djimi wrote: »

Surely sold as seen covers the seller for any condition that the car may be in, as the owner is acknowledging that they are consenting to buy the car in the state that they see it in?

excluding private sales where I'd have thought it not necessary, to a point

surely "sold as seen" means nothing as it says they believe they are writing off their responsibility to provide a good which will work for a reasonable amount of time?
I'd imagine "sold for breaking/parts" would be better if the car cant pass an NCT for a number of serious faults, but then they would be admitting it is not roadworthy and many cars would be unsellable in that case.

MagicMarker

<Ollie> wrote: »

Yes it is illegal. I have first hand experience in a private deal.

How is it illegal to sell a car that isn't roadworthy?

If I advertise a car as having no breaks and a broken chassis and sell it to someone like that, have I broken the law?

djimi

<Ollie> wrote: »

But if the car is not roadworthy then surely the seller is breaking the law by handing over the keys? The buyer then drives the car off in a public road risking the lives of themselves and the general public.

A certification of destruction and a car transporter for scrap or repair would be okay I'd imagine.

You can always say the seller didn't know, but the seller still has the rights. In the case I know of, the car was beyond repair (corrosion) and the money was returned. The two solicitors involved agreed to this referring to the Sales of Good Act. Maybe if it was just a case of repairing brakes, then maybe a refund to the amount of repair would suffice? Either way the private buyer has a comeback.

To be honest, from reading the SOG act, Im not as sure of it as I thought I was. I was of the opinion that sold as seen meant just that, and it was up to the buyer to know exactly what it was they were buying. But this part of the SOG seems to contradict itself somewhat.

It is an offence under both road traffic legislation and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 to sell a car which is not roadworthy. Also, the seller is required to give you accurate and truthful information in answer to any questions that you ask. However, a private seller does not have to provide information that is not requested.

On one hand it says that you cannot sell a car that is not roadworthy. On the other hand it says that the seller does not have to provide information that is not requested, which to me implies that if the seller does not know that the car is not roadworthy, and the buyer doesnt ask about roadworthyness, then the seller is not at fault as they are only obliged to answer truthfully whatever question the buyer asks.

Anyway, in the case of the OP they dont mention if the fault was enough to deem the car unroadworthy, and assuming it is not then the seller has no comeback against the OP.

mullingar

What is illegal is pretending that nothing is wrong with the car and persuading the buyer that its perfect and ready to go when the seller knows its a death trap.

However, if the seller explained all the previous fault and stated that its sold as seen, the onus is on the buyer to get it checked properly.

unkel

<Ollie> wrote: »

Read the Sales of Good Act.

The sale of goods act only applies if the seller is a trader. If the seller is a private person, caveat emptor applies, but as per djimi's point, if the seller lies about something (and the buyer can prove this) the private sale is void.

The Pontiac

MagicMarker wrote: »

How is it illegal to sell a car that isn't roadworthy?

If I advertise a car as having no breaks and a broken chassis and sell it to someone like that, have I broken the law?

As long as he/she doesn't drive it off in a public road.


Sale of Vehicles

The act states that if someone sells a vehicle to another person, there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery of the vehicle it is free from any defect, which would render it a danger to the public, including persons traveling in the vehicle. The only situations that this condition does not apply are when the buyer and seller agree before the vehicle is handed over that the vehicle will not be used or when the buyer is dealing in motor vehicles. When a vehicle is bought in the garage a certificate in writing must be given to the buyer by or on behalf of the seller to the effect that the vehicle is, at the time of delivery, free from any defect, which would render it a danger to the public, including persons traveling in the vehicle.

The Pontiac

unkel wrote: »

The sale of goods act only applies if the seller is a trader. If the seller is a private person, caveat emptor applies, but as per djimi's point, if the seller lies about something (and the buyer can prove this) the private sale is void.

I'm sorry it doesn't. The act clearly differentiates between a private seller and a car trader, and what rights you have in each case. The only rights a buyer has in the case of a private sale is if the car is dangerous.

MidlandsM

...the whole sales of goods act balooney that gets trotted out all the time here on boards when it comes to 2nd hand private car sales.......makes me laugh out loud frankly..........because in the real world, its very hard to get recourse, if any.

coylemj

As a private seller you shouldn't write anything like 'sold as seen' on a piece of paper, that's the scam that dodgy dealers try on punters to discourage them from coming back looking to get faults fixed.

In 99% of cases 'Sold as seen' has no legal effect because...

1. In the case of a private sale it's assumed anyway - caveat emptor applies - unless the car is in a dangerous condition or the seller has given a false answer to a direct question.

2. In a sale by a dealer to a member of the public (i.e. not another dealer), there is an assumed warranty so nothing written on the receipt along the lines of 'sold as seen' has any legal effect.

The Sales of Goods and Supply of Services Act does provide for a car being sold 'as seen' either for parts or requiring major repair where the buyer and seller both agree in writing that the car is not intended to be used in the condition it's in at the time of sale. Otherwise if you buy a car and drive it away, getting a piece of paper from the seller (dealer or private) which says 'sold as seen' means nothing.

mathepac

A sale of a second-hand car by a private individual is outside the scope of the SOG & SOS Act 1980

"Purpose

This act offers protection to the consumer, when he purchases or hires new goods or services from a business for his own personal use. Note when purchasing goods from an individual, who is not trading in the goods, then the seller just has to be the owner of the goods and the goods have to be as described."


"as described" includes the wording of the original ad, the responses the seller makes to the buyer's questions and "sold as seen" if that appears on the receipt / bill of sale memorializing the transaction.

http://resources.teachnet.ie/apatton/government_acts/sales.html

coylemj

mathepac wrote: »

A sale of a second-hand car by a private individual is outside the scope of the SOG & SOS Act 1980

"Purpose

This act offers protection to the consumer, when he purchases or hires new goods or services from a business for his own personal use. Note when purchasing goods from an individual, who is not trading in the goods, then the seller just has to be the owner of the goods and the goods have to be as described."


"as described" includes the wording of the original ad, the responses the seller makes to the buyer's questions and "sold as seen" if that appears on the receipt / bill of salememorializing the transaction.

Totally not true, read the act, not some interpretation of it...

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

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0013.html#sec13

Which means that in any sale where the buyer is a private individual, there is an 'implied condition' that the vehicle is not in a dangerous condition.

coylemj

MagicMarker wrote: »

How is it illegal to sell a car that isn't roadworthy?

If I advertise a car as having no breaks and a broken chassis and sell it to someone like that, have I broken the law?

No, but you and the buyer must agree in writing that the vehicle is not intended to be used in the condition it's in at the time of the sale, it's covered by the act.....


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


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

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

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

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

The Pontiac

From the CAI website.



"When you buy a car from a dealer or a garage, you have certain consumer rights that protect you if the car is not of merchantable quality, not as advertised, or not fit for its purpose. Unfortunately, if you buy from an individual who isn’t in the trade, the transaction is not a contract between a business and a consumer, but a deal between two individuals. This means you have very little legal protection if the car turns out to be faulty, as the purchase falls outside the scope of consumer law. Your only right to redress in this case is if the car was sold with a defect that would endanger those driving it. For these reasons, if you buy a used car privately, never ever hand over payment until you are absolutely sure about the car’s condition, because you are very unlikely to have any comeback afterwards."

slimjimmc

<Ollie> wrote: »

Yes it is illegal. I have first hand experience in a private deal. It's very black and white. How in gods name can you determine if someone is lying?

Read the Sales of Good Act. You cannot sell a car that is dangerous to the owner or the general public. Selling a car for parts in a totally different matter.

Just one small teeny weeny point. Nothing in the SoGaS Act says it's an offence to sell a dangerous car, all it says is that there is an implied warranty and therefore you have legal entitlement to redress. Therefore it seems it's not illegal under the Act (i.e you won't face criminal prosecution under this Act) but you could be dragged through the civil courts. It may be illegal under other laws, I don't know.

In fact the number of offences in the SoGaS Act is surprisingly small.

The Pontiac

slimjimmc wrote: »

Just one small teeny weeny point. Nothing in the SoGaS Act says it's an offence to sell a dangerous car, all it says is that there is an implied warranty and therefore you have legal entitlement to redress. Therefore it seems it's not illegal under the Act (i.e you won't face criminal prosecution under this Act). It may be illegal under other laws, I don't know.

In fact the number of offences in the SoGaS Act is surprisingly small.

Well I'm can absolutely guarantee you the buyer has comeback in a private sale if the car is deemed unsafe. Maybe it's included in other laws/acts too. See my above post from the CAI website.

slimjimmc

<Ollie> wrote: »

Well I'm can absolutely guarantee you the buyer has comeback in a private sale if the car is deemed unsafe. Maybe it's included in other laws/acts too. See my above post from the CAI website.

You do indeed have comeback alright as the SoGaS clearly states but you may have to take civil action such as the SCC. Even your CAI quote say's nothing about it being illegal.

The Pontiac

slimjimmc wrote: »

You do indeed have comeback alright as the SoGaS clearly states but you may have to take civil action such as the SCC. Even your CAI quote say's nothing about it being illegal.

But at least we're after determining the buyer has comeback (if the car is deemed dangerous). The case I knew of never went to court, so I'm not sure if it would have been a civil case or not.

It was settled out of court, the two solicitors agreeing this was the best course of action after the car had been inspected by an automobile engineer and found to be dangerous. A full refund was issued and the car returned to the seller.

SouperComputer

These threads with people banging on about the sale of goods..act are getting old. Really old.
Car was sold in good faith by seller, buyer opted to not have a professional asses the car before purchase.
Quote all the law snippets you want but the bottom line is that in the real world, for the buyer trying to come back with this is best described as an exercise in futility.

mgbgt1978

As we are still awaiting the OP's description of the fault all this SOG Act discussion is moot.
It is just as likely to be an "expensive" fix, as an issue concerning how roadworthy the car is.
Perhaps if the OP could let us know what the alleged fault is, then he/she may receive some pertinent advice for their particular situation.

Bandara

SouperComputer wrote: »

These threads with people banging on about the sale of goods..act are getting old. Really old.
Car was sold in good faith by seller, buyer neglected to not have a professional asses the car before purchase.
Quote all the law snippets you want but the bottom line is that in the real world, for the buyer trying to come back with this is best described as an exercise in futility.

Yep.

The whole oh no it isn't, ohhhh yes it is nonsense is just boring.

The real world gets a bit lost in the posturing on here

MidlandsM

SouperComputer wrote: »

These threads with people banging on about the sale of goods..act are getting old. Really old.
Car was sold in good faith by seller, buyer neglected to not have a professional asses the car before purchase.
Quote all the law snippets you want but the bottom line is that in the real world, for the buyer trying to come back with this is best described as an exercise in futility.

+1

totally, I'd love to see a buyer going back in person to a seller with a copy of the statute book under their arm, and start to read their rights from it.......


.LOL.........they'd be quickly told where to go! :pac:

The Pontiac

SouperComputer wrote: »

These threads with people banging on about the sale of goods..act are getting old. Really old.
Car was sold in good faith by seller, buyer opted to not have a professional asses the car before purchase.
Quote all the law snippets you want but the bottom line is that in the real world, for the buyer trying to come back with this is best described as an exercise in futility.

Every time there's a thread on this matter the same advice gets branded about i.e the buyer has no comeback. The first reply to the OP query was thanked 27 times, from this advice..

"If it was a private sale then he has no legal basis to demand anything from you. Private sale = buyer beware."

The above is simply not true. From the Consumers’ Association of Ireland website. "Your only right to redress in this case is if the car was sold with a defect that would endanger those driving it."

Surely it better to advice people correctly, rather then say "in the real world" or these threads are "getting old". In the real world if the car is dangerous, then you have a right to redress. You're not obliged to get a "professional to asses the car before purchase."

Red Crow

Unless the buyer can prove that the OP lied about the defect/issue etc. then it becomes illegal but the burden of proof is on the purchaser. This is covering people who have been sold a death trap/2 cars welded together which can be easily proven. In reality the law isn't applicable in a situation like this.

You have very little to worry about unless you posted on Facebook that you knew about issues with the car which could deem it unroadworthy.

I'd say ZERO cases have even went to court on this issue.

The Pontiac

Eli Manning wrote: »

Unless the buyer can prove that the OP lied about the defect/issue etc. then it becomes illegal but the burden of proof is on the purchaser. This is covering people who have been sold a death trap/2 cars welded together which can be easily proven. In reality the law isn't applicable in a situation like this.

You have very little to worry about unless you posted on Facebook that you knew about issues with the car which could deem it unroadworthy.

I'd say ZERO cases have even went to court on this issue.

Yes I know a case the went to court (actually settled out of court) and the buyer was fully reimbursed and the car returned.

It has nothing to with lying, proof etc. I actually know the two solicitors involved in the case and they advised their clients that a refund should be issued.

Maybe the two solicitors got it wrong? The Consumers’ Association of Ireland website also got it wrong?

djimi

<Ollie> wrote: »

Every time there's a thread on this matter the same advice gets branded about i.e the buyer has no comeback. The first reply to the OP query was thanked 27 times, from this advice..

"If it was a private sale then he has no legal basis to demand anything from you. Private sale = buyer beware."

The above is simply not true. From the Consumers’ Association of Ireland website. "Your only right to redress in this case is if the car was sold with a defect that would endanger those driving it."

In fairness the OP mentioned absolutely nothing about roadworthyness or a fault that would endanger the lives of anyone. Its simply said that the car had a fault that the buyer didnt want to pay for. At no point has the OP mentioned the nature of the fault, and if it was as serious as you are assuming I would have expected it to have been mentioned.

djimi

<Ollie> wrote: »

Yes I know a case the went to court (actually settled out of court) and the buyer was fully reimbursed and the car returned.

It has nothing to with lying, proof etc. I actually know the two solicitors involved in the case and they advised their clients that a refund should be issued.

Maybe the two solicitors got it wrong? The Consumers’ Association of Ireland website also got it wrong?

So the case didnt go to court then?

Were the solicitors working off a past precident or were they forming their own opinion regarding the outcome? Is it perhaps possible that they may have come to the conclusion that it would less costly for the money to be returned rather than to embark on a potentially drawn out legal affair involving the courts?

Or perhaps the buyer had good evidence to suggest that the seller knew about a dangerous defect to the car?

The Pontiac

djimi wrote: »

In fairness the OP mentioned absolutely nothing about roadworthyness or a fault that would endanger the lives of anyone. Its simply said that the car had a fault that the buyer didnt want to pay for. At no point has the OP mentioned the nature of the fault, and if it was as serious as you are assuming I would have expected it to have been mentioned.

I'm not necessarily talking about the OP case, but private sales in general. We don't know enough facts about the OP's sale. The car might indeed have been dangerous, or it may not.

The Pontiac

djimi wrote: »

So the case didnt go to court then?

Were the solicitors working off a past precident or were they forming their own opinion regarding the outcome? Is it perhaps possible that they may have come to the conclusion that it would less costly for the money to be returned rather than to embark on a potentially drawn out legal affair involving the courts?

Or perhaps the buyer had good evidence to suggest that the seller knew about a dangerous defect to the car?

The solicitors weren't working off any precedent. The car was not roadworthy and it's written into law. http://www.skoool.ie/skoool/examcentre_sc.asp?id=265

1980 Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act

Traditionally, the basic principle for consumers when entering transactions was "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) which encouraged the application of common sense and due care in one's dealings. However, a more substantial framework for consumer protection was established in the 1980 Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act:

This transferred legal responsibility to the retailer ("caveat vendor" - let the seller beware).
The onus is now on the seller to ensure that goods are of merchantable quality, as described, fit for their purpose, and conform to sample. Services must be provided by persons with due skill, the materials used must be of merchantable quality and any goods supplied as part of the service must be of merchantable quality.
Signs limiting the liability of retailers were now to be illegal.
Guarantees could not affect statutory rights and the time period must be clearly stated.
Hire purchase goods are protected by the act but the consumer may complain to either the retailer or HP Company.
Unsolicited goods (unordered goods sent to your home) may be kept within thirty days of telling the seller to collect them or within six months if no notice is given.
Motor vehicles sold privately have an implied condition that the car must be free from any defect, which renders it dangerous to the public.

Red Crow

<Ollie> wrote: »

Yes I know a case the went to court (actually settled out of court) and the buyer was fully reimbursed and the car returned.

It has nothing to with lying, proof etc. I actually know the two solicitors involved in the case and they advised their clients that a refund should be issued.

Maybe the two solicitors got it wrong? The Consumers’ Association of Ireland website also got it wrong?

And what do you think is the likelihood of a normal person pursuing someone over the sale of a car which is 2nd or 3rd hand? I've had solicitors advise me incorrectly on numerous occasions professionally and personally. Everybody can get it wrong. Since there is no precedence set in court and there never will be you can't say that it's illegal.

It's never going to get though the court.

The Pontiac

Eli Manning wrote: »

And what do you think is the likelihood of a normal person pursuing someone over the sale of a car which is 2nd or 3rd hand? I've had solicitors advise me incorrectly on numerous occasions professionally and personally. Everybody can get it wrong. Since there is no precedence set in court and there never will be you can't say that it's illegal.

It's never going to get though the court.

I don't know tbh. The case I know of - it was act above (the part in bold) the solicitors were pointing to. There must have been cases the went to court, surely?

djimi

What exactly is the legal implication of that clause in the SoG act? It says that the car must be free from dangerous defects; but what exactly does that mean to the seller? Does the buyer have to prove that the seller was aware of the defect? Does the buyer have to prove that the defect in fact existed in the car when it was bought? If neither can be proven, does the seller still hold any legal responsibility over the vehicle? The way its worded looks a bit too vague to me, which is why I was asking if the solicitors were working off a precident or not.