Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Trading in car with known issue - do I disclose?

2

Comments

  • #32
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    That's dependent on the procedures at that particular garage. Every garage is different, and still doesn't change the fact that lying about something like this is wrong, and if the OP signs a contract saying the car is okay, pretty illegal too.


  • #33
    leon8v
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭leon8v


    peasant wrote: »
    OP knows what's wrong ...little old lady doesn't and just says that the car isn't quite right because that's all she understands.

    OP tells you that the ECU need replacing ....you reduce his trade in by 500 euro
    Little old lady says the car chuggs sometimes ...you smile at her and give her the full book value

    You are assuming that the little old lady gets full book value though which is convenient for your argument and IMHO in reality wouldnt always happen if at all.
    If the dealer gives full book value to the old lady after her telling them the car "chuggs" a little then its their own fault. She knows there is a problem, doesnt know what it is but has disclosed it to them that there is a problem, she cant be expected to know what it is. I doubt a good sales person would do that though, they would test drive it and if need be get the service dept to check it.
    The OP also knows there is a problem, and again normally wouldnt be expected to know what it is but to disclose to the dealer that there is a problem be it intermittent or not. However in this case, he knows what the problem is, whether its from his own mechanical knowledge or by having it checked out by someone. In this case he would be deliberately misleading the dealer he is trading into by not saying what it is. A different scenario to the little old lady.

    It never fails to amazie me, Cars are one of very few items you can buy where the seller (ie dealer) will take a trade in of your old item yet at every opportunity they are slated about it, be it prices or building into the agreement a clause about problems to cover themselves.
    How many estate agents will take a trade in of your old house when you want to move?


  • #34
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    ned78 wrote: »
    Where'd you make that leap of faith? If 2 people tell you there's a problem with the running of their car, you check both cars, despite the technicalities of their descriptions.

    Check every car, problem solved :D
    You're jumping to very quick conclusions here Peasant, and condoning illegal motor trading - which is very surprising for a Mod of this forum.

    I'm condoning nothing here, merely pointing out flaws in the system which (surprise, surprise) work in favour of the dealer again


  • #35
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    ned78 wrote: »
    ... still doesn't change the fact that lying about something like this is wrong, and if the OP signs a contract saying the car is okay, pretty illegal too.

    I agree with you that lying is wrong ...legally as well as morally ...but I'm really not sure that it can be legally correct to have the seller sign such a contract. After all, the seller is not the expert.

    That's kind of like your doctor making you sign a statement saying that you're healthy before he agrees to examine you, just in case he gets his diagnosis wrong :D


  • #36
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    peasant wrote: »
    I agree with you that lying is wrong ...legally as well as morally ...but I'm really not sure that it can be legally correct to have the seller sign such a contract. After all, the seller is not the expert.

    The contract is legal, and making someone sign it is also legal. It doesn't matter that the seller is not the expert- ignorance is no defense in a court of law.
    peasant wrote: »
    That's kind of like your doctor making you sign a statement saying that you're healthy before he agrees to examine you, just in case he gets his diagnosis wrong :D

    Hardly.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    peasant wrote: »
    I'm condoning nothing here ...
    peasant wrote: »
    if you're trading in a duffer, just play dumb

    Right!


  • #38
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    As I've said before ...in my opinion dealers should change the way they work this.

    A good dealership will have to examine the car anyway and fix any issues before they sell it on.
    So why not exame it at the time of trade in (give the customer a courtesy car for the day) and come back with a detailed evaluation, listing all faults, if any.

    This way both parties know what they're getting.

    It would also quickly sort good dealers from the shady ones and enable customers to build up a relationship of trust with "their" dealer which in the long run can only be good for business.


  • #39
    Drummerboy08
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    Its just interesting to see how many people are actually condoning breaking the law here.

    What makes it even more interesting is the fact that, had someone here actually bought a car from a dealer, and later found that the car has a serious problem that should have been fixed by the dealer, they would have been straight on here to complain about it "those pesky car dealers foolin me again" etc etc.

    The law is the law people, it is as much wrong for a dealer to sell you a dodgy car, as it is for you to sell a dodgy car to a dealer.

    If you know you have a problem with your car, either fix it, tell the person (dealer, private individual, whoever) about the problem and take the hit on it, or scrap it.


  • #40
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    ned78 wrote: »
    Right!

    tsk ...as a fellow moderator you should also know not to deliberately quote out of context and distort the meaning


  • #41
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    peasant wrote: »
    tsk ...as a fellow moderator you should also know not to deliberately quote out of context and distort the meaning

    tsk my arse. You've had a very clear opinion about the subject the whole way through this thread. And as a fellow moderator, you should know that condoning breaking the law by you, or any other boardsie in a forum such as this should be infraction central.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    For all the late comers and those who don't read all posts I probably had better clarify:

    I do not condone or advise lying about the condition of your car on a trade in. That is not only immoral, but as it stands also illegal.

    However, in this thread I'm playing devils advocate, saying that the system as it stands isn't right, has flaws (which I pointed out) and that it is strongly favoured towards the dealer and current dealership practices.

    A change in the system could be made for everybodies benefit.


  • #43
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    There are no flaws in the system, it's very very clear. If you have a car, which has a significant issue and you trade it in to a garage as a perfect car, without telling them, whether or not you know about the issue, as it is your property - you're liable.


  • #44
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    wow.. this is a can of worms.....

    I am of the opinion if there is a problem with your car disclose it, doesn't matter who you are selling too.....

    I do have an issue with dealers, who then tell you stupid prices for repairs on trade in's, dealer repair prices on trade in's, should be at cost, not full retail price..... that part is scandelous....

    it is a bit amazing how many people here are happy to lie and be dishonest when trading a car in....
    if you thought to yourself reading this, no I wouldn't tell the dealer and let him suck it up, would be happy if they bought a car of a dealer and then found a problem, an expensive problem, to sit back and say ahh welll I got shafted, no way, everyone would be back on the phone to the dealer screaming and shouting to get it fixed.....
    so why should be any different for a dealer.....


  • #45
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    ned78 wrote: »
    There are no flaws in the system, it's very very clear. If you have a car, which has a significant issue and you trade it in to a garage as a perfect car, without telling them, whether or not you know about the issue, as it is your property - you're liable.

    ....whether or not you know about the issue,.... - you're liable


    And you don't call that a flaw?


    Customer is not aware of a problem with the car

    Some spotty young kid from sales gives the car a once over, doesn't find anything wrong with it, offers a trade in value, deal is sealed.

    Customer drives off with his new car, two days later the dealership rings him, points at the contract and asks for a thousand euro because they discovered an expensive fault.

    Not a flaw?


    Seriously? :D


  • #46
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    OP - quick question for you...

    If you keep this issue to yourself and you trade the car in and the dealer doesn't spot the issue until you have your new car, you'll feel like you've got one up on the dealer and saved yourself some money.
    They will spot the defect later as they prep the car for sale, but you'll know that it's impossible to prove that you knew about the defect anyway.


    What if the new car you bought from them then subsequently malfunctions (let's say the ECU goes :P), it might be a pre-existing fault in the car or it might be fresh.
    Maybe they knew about the fault in the car, maybe they didn't, it's hard to prove.


    What level of support would you demand from the dealer to repair the car they sold you? What rights would you feel you had?
    Why do you feel the dealer doesn't have similar rights?


  • #47
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,287 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    AudiChris wrote: »
    OP - quick question for you...

    If you keep this issue to yourself and you trade the car in and the dealer doesn't spot the issue until you have your new car, you'll feel like you've got one up on the dealer and saved yourself some money.
    They will spot the defect later as they prep the car for sale, but you'll know that it's impossible to prove that you knew about the defect anyway.


    What if the new car you bought from them then subsequently malfunctions (let's say the ECU goes :P), it might be a pre-existing fault in the car or it might be fresh.
    Maybe they knew about the fault in the car, maybe they didn't, it's hard to prove.


    What level of support would you demand from the dealer to repair the car they sold you? What rights would you feel you had?
    Why do you feel the dealer doesn't have similar rights?

    Is it not up to the garage to fully inspect the car before purchase/trade in

    If they sell on a car that they have taken in that's faulty is it not the responsibility of the garage again to make sure the car is tip top before they sell it to the next customer?


  • #48
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    peasant wrote: »
    ....whether or not you know about the issue,.... - you're liable


    And you don't call that a flaw?



    Some spotty young kid from sales gives the car a once over, doesn't find anything wrong with it, offers a trade in value, deal is sealed.

    Customer drives off with his new car, two days later the dealership rings him, points at the contract and asks for a thousand euro because they discovered an expensive fault.

    Not a flaw?


    Seriously? :D

    likewise then
    If you buy a car of a dealer and two days later find a thousand euro problem, you shouldn't go back to the dealer for it....

    if you sell something that at the time of sale is damaged or not as per description, you are in the wrong, just cause the buyer is a dealer doesn't make it right...


  • #49
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    peasant wrote: »
    ....whether or not you know about the issue,.... - you're liable

    And you don't call that a flaw?

    If you're an estate agent, and I sell you a house that has subsided, and I didn't know about it, you'd make damn sure your contract included a clause about that, wouldn't you? You'd go after the original owner of the house about the subsidence and the cost to rectify it, wouldn't you? But I'm not a builder, and how should I be expected to know if my house has subsided or not? And because I didn't know if it had subsided, then I shouldn't have to pay for the repairs, despite my telling you it was in perfect condition and you buying it as such?

    Silly silly argument Peasant. As drummerboy said, the law is the law, if you sign a contract of sale stating the car is perfect and it's not, you're still liable!


  • #50
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    ned78 wrote: »
    Silly silly argument Peasant. As drummerboy said, the law is the law, if you sign a contract of sale stating the car is perfect and it's not, you're still liable!


    The whole point is that as the consumer, the non-expert, you are in no position to make such a statement.

    In your mind and to your knowledge the car may well be perfect.

    Knowingly lying about an issue that you are well aware of is quite another matter.


    But with this general get-out of jail clause the dealers are making it too easy for themselves in my opinion.


  • #51
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    This clause is implemented in about 1-3% of sales Peasant, the majority of the time most Dealers say oops, put it down to bad judgment and pay for costs themselves.

    So it is quite fair indeed to say yes, the Dealers are indeed covering their asses, because it's their trade, their business, and they need some form of insurance when it comes to that 1-3% of people who are shady enough to try something like this. For the other 97-99% of people, they won't be affected by it, or care about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    ned78 wrote: »
    This clause is implemented in about 1-3% of sales Peasant, the majority of the time most Dealers say oops, put it down to bad judgment and pay for costs themselves.

    So it is quite fair indeed to say yes, the Dealers are indeed covering their asses, because it's their trade, their business, and they need some form of insurance when it comes to that 1-3% of people who are shady enough to try something like this. For the other 97-99% of people, they won't be affected by it, or care about it.

    Playing devils' advocate here again, ok?

    If you look at this the other way round it could be viewed quite differently.

    The dealer (for whatever reason) can't be bothered to do a proper check on the car before finalising the deal.
    They make enough profit to repair any small faults that may be there or they just deal them through, hoping that nobody will notice when the car gets sold.

    But for the real hummdingers (1-3% of cars that have something seriously wrong) they have this contractual insurance policy that lets them go after the seller for cost, whether the seller knew about it or not.

    How is that fair or equitable?


    Now granted, not all dealers work like this, but this system gives the shadyer element the chance to do so.

    Same as it gives the shadyer sellers a chance to be economical with the truth about small faults they are aware of as they will just be swallowed by the system anyway.


    Check all cars before the deal is sealed ...end of the problem


  • #53
    Drummerboy08
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    I do believe this clause is only used, in say a serious case where the issue has gone to court. It is then up to a barrister, solicitor or whoever to discover whether or not the owner of the vehicle knew about the existing problem when he traded it in.

    It will be looked at like this - If the car was say, down on power, even slightly, it is possible that a driver would notice it. Now the judge would look at the driver themselves, for instance, if the driver was a keen motoring enthusiast, it would be reasonable to assume that he would notice this. If however, the driver was say, and old woman, it might not be as reasonable to assume this.

    So, if the keen motoring enthusiast decides not to fix it or get it looked at as he is trading the vehicle in, i think it is reasonable for Him to held responsible. He knew there was a problem (however slight) but didnt know what it was, so didnt say anything to the dealer.

    One of the few things i learned in college was the reasonably foreseeable rule. Is is reasonably foreseeable that you realise there is a problem with your car that you are due to trade in, say nothing, trade it in, a month later recieve a call looking for money to fix a problem that was not declared to the dealer at the time? Yes, i think that is reasonably forseeable on the part of the owner, that if he doesnt tell someone about the problem, it will come back and bite him in the ass.

    Sorry if this is a little confusing, welcome to the world of motoring!


  • #54
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    peasant wrote: »
    Check all cars before the deal is sealed ...end of the problem

    That's just not possible from a Dealerships point of view. They don't have the time, or the money to inspect every car prior to a sale, even if they only take the cars that the think are close to closing a deal. It would cripple businesses even further.

    For example, you come with your Micra, I tell you it's a ballpark value of 5k, subject to inspection. Then we inspect it, and there's 1k of work, so I offer you 4k. Straight away, you're feeling negative, you're being offered less money for your car, and the Dealership has left a subconscious aftertaste in your mouth. End of deal, no closed sale.

    Then multiply this by the amount of people coming in. You'd need 2 full time technicians and 2 ramps occupied to thoroughly inspect prospective incoming vehicles from tip to toe. That adds up to around 80k a year (conservatively), and makes no profit for the garage where they could be doing lucrative service work instead. Where does that cost of 80k go? On to each and every deal, forcing people out the door - because the average closing ratio of a garage is 10%, so 1 person will have to pay on average for 9 inspections.

    So you end up in a vicious circle of either getting people's hopes up and dashing them with reconstruction costs, or upsetting them with the wait to inspect their car, and the bill for doing it added on to the overall deal, along with 9 others that you weren't so lucky in closing.

    There's nothing wrong with the current system, and for the record, it's the same system that's in place in the UK, and in the states, and they do just fine.


  • #55
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Drummerboy08 wrote: »
    I do believe this clause is only used, in say a serious case where the issue has gone to court. It is then up to a barrister, solicitor or whoever to discover whether or not the owner of the vehicle knew about the existing problem when he traded it in.

    It will be looked at like this - If the car was say, down on power, even slightly, it is possible that a driver would notice it. Now the judge would look at the driver themselves, for instance, if the driver was a keen motoring enthusiast, it would be reasonable to assume that he would notice this. If however, the driver was say, and old woman, it might not be as reasonable to assume this.

    So, if the keen motoring enthusiast decides not to fix it or get it looked at as he is trading the vehicle in, i think it is reasonable for Him to held responsible. He knew there was a problem (however slight) but didnt know what it was, so didnt say anything to the dealer.

    One of the few things i learned in college was the reasonably foreseeable rule. Is is reasonably foreseeable that you realise there is a problem with your car that you are due to trade in, say nothing, trade it in, a month later recieve a call looking for money to fix a problem that was not declared to the dealer at the time? Yes, i think that is reasonably forseeable on the part of the owner, that if he doesnt tell someone about the problem, it will come back and bite him in the ass.

    Sorry if this is a little confusing, welcome to the world of motoring!
    peasant wrote: »
    So basically you're f*cked if you know a little about cars?

    If you're some nice old lady, trading in your snookered shopping trolley with the words "it doesn't run quite as well as it used to" you're off the hook ?

    Q.E.D.

    I rest my case :D


  • #56
    Drummerboy08
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    peasant wrote: »
    Q.E.D.

    I rest my case :D


    But that dont mean the little old lady would be off the hook!

    She has just said "it doesnt run as well as it used to", so she's admitted there is a problem somewhere with the car, but she just doesnt know what it is.

    There's a big difference between knowing there is a problem, and knowing what the problem is.


  • #57
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Drummerboy08 wrote: »
    But that dont mean the little old lady would be off the hook!

    She has just said "it doesnt run as well as it used to", so she's admitted there is a problem somewhere with the car, but she just doesnt know what it is.

    There's a big difference between knowing there is a problem, and knowing what the problem is.

    But because she's mentioned the symptom to the dealer, she's discharged herself of all responsibility by bringing the problem to their attention for their expert diagnosis.


  • #58
    DublinDilbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,429 ✭✭✭DublinDilbert


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    To be honest, this should be purely academic because there is no way a salesperson should take this car in without copping an issue like this. In the current times, if someone took a car in that needed this type of work and didn't factor it into the transaction, they'd likely be out of a job.

    I could be wrong here, but from my understanding of the previous post, the only way someone would know the modification was done would be to examine the fuel pump relay & associated wiring...

    To be honest very few people would be able to spot this, as the car would drive & run perfectly normal...


  • #59
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    The_Edge wrote: »
    Hi lads,
    My current car needs a new ECU (See thread here...Cheers Kev!) but is somewhat drivable. Do u think I should disclose this issue to the unsuspecting dealer?
    ned78 wrote: »
    Most sales people aren't mechanics, and I've seen a few times when ECUs had major faults, but no ECU warning light was on the dash. Sales person drives the car which could perhaps have an intermittent fault, it drives okay, no ECU light, and he appraises it as such, but the customer is aware that the ECU needs replacing, and keeps that to himself.

    Somethings are not black and white.

    Well you can see from above that a car that is described as "somewhat drivable" with this particular defect is something that even the shortest of test drives should reveal. The only excuse for this not being copped is if the salesperson doesn't bother test driving the car, and if this happens, then proper procedure isn't being followed and you can expect to have to deal with this type of hardship and stress.


  • #60
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Well you can see from above that a car that is described as "somewhat drivable" with this particular defect is something that even the shortest of test drives should reveal.

    There is no way that you can deduce that from his post. 'Somewhat driveable' might mean that the car is fine up to 30mph, and labours after that. Salesperson takes it for a drive, and doesn't exceed 30mph, hence no problem is discovered. And many other similar scenarios also happen.

    I think BTW that users in this thread condoning that the OP behave in an illegal manner should edit their posts, because god forbid if this ever went to court, the OP could easily say 'Sure I was told to do it on boards.ie', and we'd be in the height of trouble even though we didn't do anything :( (Not a threat to boards.ie on my part obviously, but just a casual eye thrown to caution)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Drummerboy08
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,102 ✭✭✭✭Drummerboy08


    AudiChris wrote: »
    But because she's mentioned the symptom to the dealer, she's discharged herself of all responsibility by bringing the problem to their attention for their expert diagnosis.

    Sorry, I see my mistake there. She has told the dealer there is a problem with the car, so she is away, happy days.

    My point was, if you say to yourself "hold on, something isnt right here", but say nothing to the dealer, then your in the wrong.


Advertisement