bought a car saturday afternoon no tax supplyed are you able to drive it around?

[JonCris]

If a dealer (any dealer) supplies a vehicle to a customer who then drives it on a public highway when is either unroadworthy, untaxed or uninsured they are as guilty of commiting that offence as the purchaser/driver.

[JonCris]

Buyer Beware!...

 

A car dealer cannot hide behind Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) no matter what they might claim or as they sometimes say 'as seen' unless they are selling it for parts/spares which must be made clear at the time of sale.

 

In which case they must not allow the purchaser to drive off in the said vehicle after sale

[JonCris]

In general, a car must be fit for purpose (whether a private or dealer sale).

 

However, if a dealer is selling a car stipulated as unroadworthy, there is no requirement for the dealer to physically prevent the motorist from leaving their premises in whatever way they choose - do you people actually live in the real world?

 

Yes fraid you don't

 

If a dealer allows a buyer to drive on the public highway with an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle that he has sold he commits the offence of conspiracy

 

If the buyer is in an accident caused by that unroadworhyness or is indeed uninsured at the time of leaving the dealer and collides with another they are also guilty of not only the criminal offence of conspiracy but are also liable in civil law for any loss or damage caused by that buyer.

 

Also a private seller does not have the same responsibilities as a trade dealer unless they are specificaly asked "is this car roadworthy and fit for purpose" they have no obligation for it to be so hence the term 'caveat emptor'

 

The purchaser in a private sale would have to prove they were considerably mislead for their claim to succeed

[JonCris]

Look conspiracy up in the dictionary.

 

The fact of allowing the buyer to drive off knowing that the vehicle is either unroadworthy or unlicenced is sufficient to establish an offence on the part of the dealer.

 

A private seller may, in so many words claim the vehicle is 'fit for purpose' but if it isn't glaringly obvious at the time of purchase that it isn't then there is no liability on the private seller whatsoever.

 

For a claim to succeed the onus would be on the private buyer to prove the private seller knew of the fault.

 

If the buyer is a dealer then they are stuffed no matter what is wrong with the vehicle as they are classed by the Courts as having 'special knowledge' & should have spotted the fault at the time of purchase

[JonCris]

Statutory conspiracy is defined by section 1 of the criminal law act 1977

Under section 1(1) if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their

intentions, either -

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

He is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

Accordingly, it is an offence to agree to commit any criminal offence even one which is tryable only summarily. However, by section 4 a conspiracy to commit a summary only offence can only be prosecuted by or with the consent of the director of public prosecutions.

 

We have car dealers on here admitting that they would allow a purchaser to 'knowingly' drive off in an unroadworthy or unlicenced vehicle.

[JonCris]

So, if a customer of mine himself chooses to break the law by driving an untaxed vehicle, my cars must be rubbish? I am at fault, not him? I give up.

 

You may not in so many words be saying that you sell unroadworthy vehicles but you have implied you will as you state that once the money is taken the vehicle is the buyers responsibility to do with what they which.

 

Also any insurer will class an unlicenced vehicle as unroadworthy even if there are no actual mechanical defaults & as a consquence will only pay for 3rd party damage

 

If you don't think you have a 'duty of care' after releasing a sold vehicle, you know at the time, is unlicened or uninsured then I'm afraid one day your in for a shock when things go wrong for your recent purchaser who has an accident not long after leaving your premises

 

Or worse gets his very recent purchase snatched & crushed by the police.

 

If in doubt and intend to continue to act as you have indicated I strongly suggest your consult your solicitor

[JonCris]

Despite what some dealers might claim there is a duty on them to ensure that a vehicle sold by them & then at the outset taken onto the public highway complies with the law.

 

Reputable dealers will insist on sight of a valid insurance certificate & that the car is taxed before allowing it's removal by the purchaser

 

They cannot claim "it ain't my problem" after selling it & those dealers who think they can, without possible repercussions, should consult a competent solicitor before doing it again.

 

We all have general 'duty of care' when we go about our daily activities & that is why firms have public liability insurance & to allow an unlicenced or uninsured vehicle to be driven on a public road is a breach of that duty

[JonCris]

Well, normally the customer has only left a deposit, so should something happen to the car in the meantime, for instance be stolen, I would return the deposit and either try and sell them something else or if nothing took their fancy I would accept that I have lost them. I would then make a claim on my own insurance. If the car has been paid for outright, and it was stolen from my premises, morally morally has nothing to do with it. If it's in your care you ARE responsible no matter what any displayed signs might claim I would still feel liable and give them a complete refund and make a claim. Obviously when making a claim on a trader's policy you would only normally get a "trade value" on the car.

Remember, when buying a car or for that matter anything at auction the item becomes your responsibility as soon as the hammer falls. The auction will take no responsibility after the hammer comes down. Wrong, even auctions have a duty under the SAGO to ensure the vehicle is as described. Most allow a period of 24 hours during which time you can return it of found not to be the case. So if say you buy a house at auction at 1pm and it gets burgled or vandalised at 1.15pm it is down to you.

Irrelevant comparison

 

As for you having no responsibility for a vehicle stolen from your premises, even one you don't own, I strongly suggest you seek legal advice.

[JonCris]

What is SAGO?

 

It's a food - Sorry meant SOGA

[JonCris]

Can you give an example of such a dealer, and also advise whether they are on planet earth or planet JC?

 

Please tell us what happened the last time you (or your parents) bought a car, specifically in terms of all these documents you showed to the dealer!

 

 

The last time (& at least 2 times previously) I purchased a vehicle from a reputable franchised dealer I had to produce an insurance cover note (a copy of which my broker 1st faxed, then delivered) & they said they couldn't release the vehicle until it was taxed as it was illegal to drive a vehicle on the public road whilst not displaying a valid excise licence which of course is correct.

 

Like I said if any dealers here have any doubt as to my statements then consult a competent solicitor

[JonCris]

An exempt vehicle does not require VED

 

 

No one & certainly not me has claimed any different.

 

Of course those vehicles which are to be tested can be driven to the nearest testing station, provided they have an appointment but they still have to have valid insurance & should be driven on trade plates if untaxed

[JonCris]

Which is utter nonsense.

 

The requirement does not apply to exempt vehicles. A vehicle travelling to/from a written MoT test appointment is one of the most common exemptions - and it applies whether or not the MoT test is legally required. In theory, you could book a test for a brand new vehicle and it would be an exempt vehicle - daft, but true.

 

 

I don't understand where your coming from when you introduce this argument. Everyone knows or should that a vehicle is exempt from having an MOT can be driven to it's appointed garage.

 

Anyway in my case the need for an MOT didn't apply as the vehicles I refer to where new

[JonCris]

Wrong, even auctions have a duty under the SAGO to ensure the vehicle is as described. Most allow a period of 24 hours during which time you can return it of found not to be the case.

 

JonCris, I am afraid you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Yes, the Sale of Goods Act applies when a vehicle is sold through auction. But, PLEASE read up on law that governs auctioneers of any description. Auctions are NOT required to ensure descriptions offered by vendors are accurate. A description offered by an auctioneer (not the seller) IS NOT legally binding i.e. if an auctioneer declares, for example, at the point of sale that a clock is in working order and it turns out it isn't you are NOT entitled to a refund.

The 24 hours you are talking about is actually normally ONE hour after the sale ends, and this only applies in the case of a vehicle where the vendor has chosen to sell it "with a trial". You have the chance to drive it and if there is a MAJOR fault i.e. engine, gearbox or axle you can possibly have a refund or negotiate a reduced price with the seller. But if the vehicle is Sold as Seen and you buy it and the vehicle has faults which are not dangerous then you own a vehicle with faults.

Please get in touch with BCA and request a copy of their terms and conditions.

 

Wrong & heres why: I've underlined the really relevant bits

 

Conditions of Sale 14(1)

OFT

1(b) Exclusion/restriction of liability for breaches of cont :

1(b) Term excluded the auctioneer's liability for mis described lots. Reg 7 Buyers are unlikely to understand the statement "all conditions and warranties, express implied or statutory are hereby excluded"

Scope of the term narrowed so that auctioneer's opinion of the lot will be honestly and reasonably held and liability is accepted for any opinion about a lot given negligently or fraudulently. "conditions and warranties" - meaning expressed in plainer language

 

High Court

London's High Court in 1990: the catalogue entry read 'J.M.W.Turner RA. A watercolour of moorland, stream, bridge and people; unframed 6" x 9'". Sold at £400, it subsequently turned out to be worthless. Despite a lengthy disclaimer at the front of the catalogue (ie Terms & Conditions), the auctioneers were found guilty.

Sellers, buyers, and auctioneers, beware.

[JonCris]

JC what you have quoted with the high court is case law. You have not quoted statutory regulation or a statutory instrument

 

Case law is there for the Judge or Magistrate to refer to if they consider it to be relevant. It is not there to determine the final judgment. Suggest you read it a again as its not all case law some of it relates to Unfair Contract Terms legislation & anyway it's quite clear that in a civil action then the auctioneer can be held liable

 

Case law can be and very often is reversed on its head, where the circumstances of the case are so individual case law is worthless

Case law can be, and very often is, either excluded or not used.

 

What I am saying is that case law is a reference for the decision makers but they cannot change the statutes Clearly you have had little to do with the County Courts. Using their very wide discretion they ignore statute all the time. Hence appeal courts.

 

To your credit your research excels you, have you thought about becoming qualified?

What you mean like you are?

[JonCris]

Then you will know that, contrary to popular opinion, the law is a moving feast & doesn't stand still.

 

So are you saying you are on the Roll

[JonCris]

Others have pointed out the errors of your ways, but can I politely suggest that you don't post unless you are sure of your facts first - or at least include the words "i think" or "i'm not sure".

 

If a dealer tried to get me (as a consumer) to mess around like that, I'd tell them I was going to take my business elsewhere.

 

I don't have to 'think' about it.........what I say is a fact.........It's what happened on more than one occassion

[JonCris]

Sounds very likely Pat

 

Is it possible they are not the legal owners.........yet ....... because to date they have not completed the agreed transaction with the previous owner & are stalling