What Irish law's cover private sales of cars

grodge

I recently bought a car privately. Knowing this is a risky process I did my research and looked up what I need to be aware of an I brought a mechanic friend with me.

Mechanic did a visual inspection, picked up on a few bits that needed attention (main one was timing belt was not replaced yet for the milage).

I had memorised a checklist of questions to ask, and specifically asked what work has been done on the engine, if there was any mechanical issues with the engine and was told no work done, only work listed in the log book has been done to the car.

That turns out to be untrue, I drove the car off and then as I got close to home issues started. Car was towed and another mechanic has told me considerable work has been done on the engine recently (since the last entry on the service book anyway.) This work is not noticeable upon visual inspection.

I will be contacting a solicitor about this as I believe that the seller lied about the engine work in an attempt to sell the car and not have to deal with the problems (mechanic says that the damage is irreparable and only a new engine will fix this). I contacted the seller after I found this out and they are refusing to acknowledge that they did any work on the engine. I requested they take the car back and refund my money but they are refusing.

What laws in Ireland cover this type of dispute? I would like to do some more research. Thanks in advance for your help.

Pro Hoc Vice

Have a look at the Sale of goods and supply of services Act 1980.

JimsAlterEgo

if you were deceived then surely its in the realms of fraud?

davo10

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

if you were deceived then surely its in the realms of fraud?

If ops own mechanic examined the car and advised him that it was fine, is that not a case of caveat emptor unless op is able to prove that work was carried out after last service in contradiction of what buyer said. Also, how many of us if selling a car privately would be able to answer technical questions about our cars? My limit would be telling the buyer that up to now it runs fine, has a few dents on it and might need new tyres. You would expect a higher standard from a registered dealer and a warranty but you have to pay more, would that be expected of a private owner who would not be expected to be knowledgable in cars and unless op can prove otherwise, has not mislead the op?

slimjimmc

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Have a look at the Sale of goods and supply of services Act 1980.

Links for the OP:

Sale of goods and supply of services Act 1980 to be read as one with the Sale of Goods Act, 1893
Note that any sections which refer to either the seller as a business or the buyer as a consumer (buying from a business for private use) do not apply to private sales.

Atlantic Dawn

Was the seller the person named on the logbook or someone else?

TheCowboy

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Have a look at the Sale of goods and supply of services Act 1980.

For a private sale?


http://www.consumerhelp.ie/cars-rights-wrong "If you buy a car from a private seller and discover a problem, there may be little you can do beyond taking a civil case through the courts. Because of this you should be very careful when buying from a private seller and you really need to be aware of what you’re buying. Remember, a private seller may not have all the answers, so it is important for you to have the car checked by a mechanic"

seamus

davo10 wrote: »

If ops own mechanic examined the car and advised him that it was fine, is that not a case of caveat emptor unless op is able to prove that work was carried out after last service in contradiction of what buyer said.

Well that's pretty much it.

You would have to be able to prove that the previous owner was the one who owned the vehicle when that work was carried out, or otherwise knew that the work had been carried out.

The seller is technically only required to answer any question honestly. They are not required to disclose anything they are not asked about, and anything they are not aware of.

In order to prove fraud you would have to prove that not only was the seller aware of the engine work, but also aware that the engine was screwed.

That is, proving he lied about the engine work is one thing - but if the car still drives fine, then that's a minor matter. You also have to be able to prove that he was aware the car was fncked.

Did you do a test drive?

slimjimmc

TheCowboy wrote: »

For a private sale?


http://www.consumerhelp.ie/cars-rights-wrong "If you buy a car from a private seller and discover a problem, there may be little you can do beyond taking a civil case through the courts. Because of this you should be very careful when buying from a private seller and you really need to be aware of what you’re buying. Remember, a private seller may not have all the answers, so it is important for you to have the car checked by a mechanic"

Much (not all) of the 1980 Act relates only to consumer transactions but parts do covers other sales contracts too; for example, Sect 44 from the 1980 Act appears relevant to all contracts. In any case very little of both Acts are offences so often the only way to enforce them is to take a civil case even as a consumer.

44.—Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him, and
(a) the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract, or
(b) the contract has been performed,
or both, then, if otherwise he would be entitled to rescind the contract without alleging fraud, he shall be so entitled, subject to the provisions of this Part notwithstanding the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Likewise Section 13 gives you certain protections should someone sell you a dangerously defective car and it applies even to private sales. However the OP does not indicate if his car is deemed to have a dangerous defect.

MarkAnthony

OP you have all the agreed terms in writing I take it?

While it's not true that an oral contract is useless it will make things quite a bit more difficult especially given you had your own mechanic. Is your mechanic prepared to spend a day or more (assuming delays etc) in court. Is all of this going to cost more than simply repairing the car?

I applaud you for not letting yourself get ripped off but practicalities need to be looked at.

brian_t

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Is your mechanic prepared to spend a day or more (assuming delays etc) in court.

The OP's mechanic friend seems to have recommended the purchase of the car (he obviously didn't say 'don't buy').

Surely it wouldn't be in the OP's interest to have his mechanic friend as a witness in court.

Could he be called as a witness by the seller.

MarkAnthony

brian_t wrote: »

The OP's mechanic friend seems to have recommended the purchase of the car (he obviously didn't say 'don't buy').

Surely it wouldn't be in the OP's interest to have his mechanic friend as a witness in court.

Could he be called as a witness by the seller.

He would be a witness to the oral contract, assuming that gets over the myriad of issues of sales puff etc.

DanDublin1982

Judge Rinder threw out a case like this on TV the other day. Unlucky OP.

234

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Judge Rinder threw out a case like this on TV the other day. Unlucky OP.

No. Just no.

Uno my Uno.

Buyer beware is the principle here so the Op has little recourse except for a civil case of fraud or possibly mistake in relation to the contract.

Proving that fraud may difficult as it will require you proving that the seller knew of the defect at the time that he sold it to you.

Unless there is a large amount of money involved it may not be economically viable to pursue the matter.

MarkAnthony

234 wrote: »

No. Just no.

Is that like a **** Judge Judy?

TheCowboy

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Buyer beware is the principle here so the Op has little recourse except for a civil case of fraud or possibly mistake in relation to the contract.

Proving that fraud may difficult as it will require you proving that the seller knew of the defect at the time that he sold it to you.

Unless there is a large amount of money involved it may not be economically viable to pursue the matter.

private sales are not a good idea

234

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Is that like a **** Judge Judy?

I just won't accept the idea of what is best described as a legal-themed daytime entertainment show being linked with legal rights.

DanDublin1982

234 wrote: »

I just won't accept the idea of what is best described as a legal-themed daytime entertainment show being linked with legal rights.

Guess I should have thrown in a smiley. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

234

Also I think that most people here are missing the issue. It's not a question of damages for breach. It's the availability of rescission for misrepresentation. The particular misrepresentation being the number or times and times at which the car was serviced.

Whether this is sufficient for rescission is another question and one that I won't attempt to answer as it would be legal advice and there isn't enough info. But this isn't just a caveat emptor situation.

my3cents

OP any sign that this wasn't a genuine private sale?

Might be easier to make a case if you can prove the the seller is making a business out of selling cars.

Uno my Uno.

TheCowboy wrote: »

private sales are not a good idea

I've bought and sold several cars privately and never had an issue. Its a case of you pays your money and you takes your chance but if you go about it sensibly and carefully it can work out.

234 wrote: »

Also I think that most people here are missing the issue. It's not a question of damages for breach. It's the availability of rescission for misrepresentation. The particular misrepresentation being the number or times and times at which the car was serviced.

Whether this is sufficient for rescission is another question and one that I won't attempt to answer as it would be legal advice and there isn't enough info. But this isn't just a caveat emptor situation.

Well it is a Caveat Emptor situation in that it would appear unlikely that someone in the OP's situation would be able to rely on any legislative consumer protections.

With regards to misrepresentation there are several issues to be considered not least the level of inducement and reliance. I any such hypothetical matter I would imagine any court would look at the situation and ask, what induced the buyer more, the representations of the seller or the opinion of the qualified mechanic he brought with him? That would obviously depend on the facts of any given situation.

234

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Guess I should have thrown in a smiley. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Thank god!

234

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I've bought and sold several cars privately and never had an issue. Its a case of you pays your money and you takes your chance but if you go about it sensibly and carefully it can work out.



Well it is a Caveat Emptor situation in that it would appear unlikely that someone in the OP's situation would be able to rely on any legislative consumer protections.

With regards to misrepresentation there are several issues to be considered not least the level of inducement and reliance. I any such hypothetical matter I would imagine any court would look at the situation and ask, what induced the buyer more, the representations of the seller or the opinion of the qualified mechanic he brought with him? That would obviously depend on the facts of any given situation.

Yes, but to what extent could a qualified mechanic, doing an inspection before sale, actually determine when the car was last serviced in the way that a subsequent mechanic seems to have been able to? If he could then I agree, but if that it no something to which he could speak, then there would seem to be a stronger argument for misrepresentation.

grodge

Thanks everyone for the replies.

The mechanic visually inspected the car and engine.
He took it on a test drive.
The seller is private and same person listed on the log book and on the bill of sale that was left in the service book from when he bought the car two years ago.
I checked his ID to ensure he was the owner.
He is not an auto trader or mechanic to my knowledge.

The last service in the service book is for February and states that work was done on the brakes as it failed the NCT for this reason. Since then there has been 2000 miles added to the odometer.

The garage that the car is at currently tells me that engine work has been done very recently. In his opinion the wear on the parts that were fitted is less that 2000 miles, and its obvious the work was done as they are non OEM and are different to the other parts.

The seller was asked directly what work has been carried out recently on the car. Has there been any problems with the engine. Seller stated that all the work he has done is in the service book. When phoned after the sale he said he did no work on the engine and only work that is in the service book has been done by him.

I don't think that someone else out of the goodness of their heart completed the work without the sellers knowledge.

I'm at a crossroads as a new engine fitted would cost me €1000. I meet the mean test for Legal Aid, and my contribution for representation is about the same as the repair. I need to decide if its worth the wait and hassle to go down the legal route and get the seller to take back the car and refund me the price. I have no doubt that he misrepresented the facts, whether a judge will is another thing. The mechanic that inspected the car is a good friend and said will go to court if needed. The garage the car is at now will provide a written report. The previous garages will give me a copy of their service work as its all recorded on their computer systems.


Would I be at risk of actually being worse off going to court because I understand the Legal Aid Board recoup costs? Has anyone experience of how long something like this would take?

Not looking for legal advice, just information. Thanks to all for pointing out the Sale of Goods act, I thought this only covers me if I'm dealing with a business and not a private person.

NoQuarter

s.13 of the Sale of Goods Act is the answer you need. You can almost ignore the rest of this thread.

arthur daly

Op what was the problem with the car that it faiked?

arthur daly

Op what was the problem with the car that it faiked?

Hellrazer

The garage that the car is at currently tells me that engine work has been done very recently. In his opinion the wear on the parts that were fitted is less that 2000 miles, and its obvious the work was done as they are non OEM and are different to the other parts.

Can I ask how the garage can confirm this especially with engine parts?it's impossible to tell when a part has been fitted.Regardless of whether they are non-genuine or OEM.

sounds a bit wishy washy to be completely honest.

grodge

arthur daly wrote: »

Op what was the problem with the car that it faiked?

Cylinder 3 was misfiring, engine running rough. Car was towed to the garage and when mechanic went to look immediately noticed that there was a new coil pack and lead on cylinder 3.

Tried to fix it, still ran rough. Put an endoscope into the cylinder and the piston rings are damages, piston head also and the cylinder wall. He reckons its from dodgy fuel down the country. He said the seller probably tried to fix it and it wouldn't go away so he offloaded it wasn't entirely truthful about all the work done.

EDIT: the damage cannot be repaired, economically anyway.

grodge

Hellrazer wrote: »

Can I ask how the garage can confirm this especially with engine parts?it's impossible to tell when a part has been fitted.Regardless of whether they are non-genuine or OEM.

sounds a bit wishy washy to be completely honest.

A new coil pack was fitted and they have an alloy on them that starts to lose its shine, and then corrode over time. The coil on number 3 was gleaming, and there was a new oxygen sensor and leads to the coil with zero wear or dirt on them.

grodge

NoQuarter wrote: »

s.13 of the Sale of Goods Act is the answer you need. You can almost ignore the rest of this thread.

That act still stands from 1893? Im impressed. Just goes to show if something is well defined then it will stand the test of time.

davo10

NoQuarter wrote: »

s.13 of the Sale of Goods Act is the answer you need. You can almost ignore the rest of this thread.

S.14(2):

(2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality; provided that if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed:

Op brought his own mechanic (a qualified mechanic one would hope) who test drove it and examined the car.

coylemj

davo10 wrote: »

S.14(2):

(2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality; provided that if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed:

That provision clearly covers a purchase from a retailer (in the case of motors, a dealer) only, not a private seller. The OP clearly believes that the seller was not a dealer masquerading as a private seller.

Which is why the underlying principle of caveat emptor applies.

Uno my Uno.

he is referring to S13 of the sale of goods and supply of services Act 1980 which refers to an implied term that when sold motor cars do not have a defect that would cause a danger to the public. Whether the defect described could fall within that I don't know.

Hellrazer

grodge wrote: »

A new coil pack was fitted and they have an alloy on them that starts to lose its shine, and then corrode over time. The coil on number 3 was gleaming, and there was a new oxygen sensor and leads to the coil with zero wear or dirt on them.

Honestly that means nothing.Coil packs regularly fail.And leads and oxygen sensors.If it is fuel contamination it can be fixed economically.Does it run when hot??

grodge

Hellrazer wrote: »

Honestly that means nothing.Coil packs regularly fail.And leads and oxygen sensors.If it is fuel contamination it can be fixed economically.Does it run when hot??

all I know is what my mechanic has told me. He said that the cylinder wall and piston rings and piston head are all damaged from suspected fuel stretching (adding kerosene to petrol). There is no seal and oil is getting into the ignition chamber causing a misfire. He said he plugged in his computer and then when he went to inspect where the computer said there was an issue he seen all the work that was done. In his opinion its very recent. He took a look at the service book and milage and told me that he is certain that it was done after the last service recorded.

I might add that he's not just a mechanic, he is a motorsport engineer that builds engines for a number of pro racing teams and has engines shipped to him from around the world. Its his bread and butter so I trust his diagnosis on this one.

All I know is that he said the engine ticks over but its just going to get worse and worse and the only option for a fix is new engine. The car will go at a steady constant speed but if you drive it around town or in a city then forget about it. The engine will have such a rough idle that it will feel like the car will shake apart and will drink oil. He said thats how I was able to drive it home on the motorway but as soon as I got into Dublin and the driving changed to stop start all the issues started.

EDIT: coils are not a wear item, the usually only fail if the engine runs hot

davo10

coylemj wrote: »

That provision clearly covers a purchase from a retailer (in the case of motors, a dealer) only, not a private seller. The OP clearly believes that the seller was not a dealer masquerading as a private seller.

Which is why the underlying principle of caveat emptor applies.

My post was in response to No quarters post the S13 is the only relevant reply and other advice should be ignored.

The second part of the section is pertinent (... provided that if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed) even with an official seller, if the item has been examined before purchase, the act may not apply. Op brought his own mechanic so it is as I posted earlier, caveat emptor.

Hellrazer

Is this the same mechanic that inspected the car and gave it the all clear and you bought it on his advice???
He really should have spotted that damage at idle if it's that bad.If oil is leaking past the rings there would have been clouds of blue smoke out the back of it.
I'd be Asking him to pay for the repair if it is the same lad.

grodge

Hellrazer wrote: »

Is this the same mechanic that inspected the car and gave it the all clear and you bought it on his advice???
He really should have spotted that damage at idle if it's that bad.If oil is leaking past the rings there would have been clouds of blue smoke out the back of it.
I'd be Asking him to pay for the repair if it is the same lad.

Different mechanic. There was no rough I dle during the test drive.

Hellrazer

To be completely honest you have very little comeback here.You had the car inspected,mechanic gave it the all clear.You said yourself that there was no rough idle at the test drive.That leaves you no recourse really.How does the seller know that you didn't drive the balls out of it down the motorway on the way home and do in a piston ring?

The seller may have had a misfire in the piston and not known that it was fuel related.A new coil will mask the symptoms for a few weeks or months..the seller in my opinion hasn't done anything wrong here.Weve had so many car owners throw in a coil to try fix this issue only for it to reoccur a few weeks later and then after further inspection find out they have been victims of this fuel stretching.

The problem with fuel stretching isn't that it does damage to the engine.it leaves a tar like substance on the top of the piston.When cold the car will run really rough.When it heats up and this "tar" gets soft the car will run normally.Theres a couple of things you could try (btw Im assuming its a small engine 3 or 4 cylinder petrol??)
You can pull the piston out and replace the rings..job done.Or you can try clean the tar off with additives.Redex poured on to the top oif the cylinder is the one Ive had most success with.Pour it down the plug hole and leave it sit for a day or so in the hope that it will leak past the offending cylinder and clean the tar off it.You may need to do this a few times.Ive saved engines this way-especially ones that have been a victim of fuel stretching.Its a cheap fix if it works.
Suggest it to the mechanic that has the car and see what he thinks...if hes an engineer he may want to do it properly and pull the engine out costing you the 1k to get it fixed.


Edit--Despite what your mechanic is saying it does NOT need a new engine.It needs the offending piston sorted out.At most it needs a new piston and rings,at the least it just needs new rings.

ComfortKid

If the mechanic said the car was good, You didn't notice anything wrong on test drive then what "irreversible damage" is done to the engine? Something as bad as needing a new engine would be noticed.

ohnonotgmail

how come your mechanic didnt spot the problem on the test drive? If it didnt even make it home it must have been rough on the test drive.

ComfortKid

You need a new mechanic! Did it not sound rough on test drive?

ice.cube

Facts aren't that similar but it might be worth a read. Sorry for the long post, I cannot post links.

Limerick Leader wrote:

Judge’s ‘buyer beware’ to Limerick student who bought car on Done Deal
A JUDGE has dismissed a case taken by the mother of a student who ran into difficulty while driving her first car for the first time, stating “caveat emptor - let the buyer beware”.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/judge-s-buyer-beware-to-limerick-student-who-bought-car-on-done-deal-1-5966927

Moderator: please do not copy and paste full articles because Seán Sherlock. That's why.

robman60

Did you pay your mechanic friend who gave the advice OP?

The circumstances here are pretty close to a well known Canadian case of Chaudhry v. Prabhakar where the advising friend was guilty for negligent misstatement. Courts are less willing to award in such circumstances now (the aforementioned case is from 1988) and in a practical sense you're unlikely to sue your friend but I wonder do the more experienced members here see any merit in that argument?

NoQuarter

davo10 wrote: »

My post was in response to No quarters post the S13 is the only relevant reply and other advice should be ignored.

The second part of the section is pertinent (... provided that if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed) even with an official seller, if the item has been examined before purchase, the act may not apply. Op brought his own mechanic so it is as I posted earlier, caveat emptor.

This section applies to a dealer. Why are you ignoring the first part of the sentence?

davo10

NoQuarter wrote: »

This section applies to a dealer. Why are you ignoring the first part of the sentence?

Because the second part clearly states that if you inspect the item even if it was a car dealership and still elect to buy it, caveat emptor applies. Op brought a (presumably) qualified mechanic so he ought to have identified the fault.

grodge

robman60 wrote: »

Did you pay your mechanic friend who gave the advice OP?

The circumstances here are pretty close to a well known Canadian case of Chaudhry v. Prabhakar where the advising friend was guilty for negligent misstatement. Courts are less willing to award in such circumstances now (the aforementioned case is from 1988) and in a practical sense you're unlikely to sue your friend but I wonder do the more experienced members here see any merit in that argument?

He's a good friend. He's fairly sick himself about the whole ordeal, although that's not gonna pay any bills

I found an engine for the car anyway for €500 and someone else to fit it for €300.

Got the original at a good price so I'll keep it for a little while and then sell it on in working order and I should break even.

I'll put this one down in the life lessons and experience column.

Going to court will add unnecessary cost and delay to everything, and even though I think my case is strong I won't make the ultimate decision on any legal matter. I will however ship the dodgy engine back to the sellers house and have the delivery people leave it in his driveway.

davo10

grodge wrote: »

He's a good friend. He's fairly sick himself about the whole ordeal, although that's not gonna pay any bills

I found an engine for the car anyway for €500 and someone else to fit it for €300.

Got the original at a good price so I'll keep it for a little while and then sell it on in working order and I should break even.

I'll put this one down in the life lessons and experience column.

Going to court will add unnecessary cost and delay to everything, and even though I think my case is strong I won't make the ultimate decision on any legal matter. I will however ship the dodgy engine back to the sellers house and have the delivery people leave it in his driveway.

Not so sure about your case but you will either be done for illegal dumping or leave yourself open to a huge charge by the delivery company if the seller doesn't accept delivery. Two bad decisions don't make one good one.

grodge

davo10 wrote: »

Not so sure about your case but you will either be done for illegal dumping or leave yourself open to a huge charge by the delivery company if the seller doesn't accept delivery. Two bad decisions don't make one good one.

Good point. I'll send it bit by bit