Bring the garage to court

Dmtiling

Ok here is the story - sorry if its a bit long but i'll try my best to keep it as short as possible.

Recently bought a second hand van (AS IS) without waranty. When I was in the garage the van had trouble starting and they had a mechanic look at it. After this It was said that it was just a loose wire or something. The van started and I drove it away thinking that the problem had been solved. I only got two days driving out of the van before it would not start for me. Because I bought it without waranty and I thought it was only a small problem I got it towed to a main dealer of the van. It was not the same Dealer which I bought the van off as they don't deal in this sort of van as new. I have now discovered that van will cost me nearlly 1700 Euro to get back on the road again. I am considering taking the garage to court to claim for that amount since I was told that the van was in working order when I bought it.

Here are some legall facts and consumer rights I have found on the subject.

Responsibility on the seller:

A motor vehicle must be in
roadworthy condition when sold to a
consumer. This means that it must be
safe for the user, and for other road
users. It is an offence under the Sale
of Goods & Supply of Services Act,
1980 to sell a car to a consumer which
is not roadworthy. It is also an offence
under Road Traffic legislation which is
enforced by the Gardaí.

Sale of Goods Act:

The Sale of Goods Act also requires
that all goods sold should be:
✽ Of merchantable quality
(reasonable, acceptable quality
given what was said about them
and taking into account the age
and history of the vehicle).
✽ Fit for the purpose they are
intended to be used for.
✽ As described.


Do you think I would have a case against the garage on this. All thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

The only downfalls I could see are.

I brought the vehicle to another garage to be looked at.

The fact that I bought the van AS IS dosn't seem to me like a valid point for the garage to use. Since I was told that van was in working order when I bought it. Even though I bought it AS IS I still expected to get more than two days driving from it.

10-10-20

As per the Sale of Goods Act, yes you have a valid reason to go for it. But, you must give the supplier an opportunity to rectify the matter first. If you don't, any costs that you might incur cannot be recovered from him.

Hagar

When a vehicle is sold "as is" there is a clear implication that it is not mechanically sound and will require work to get it legally roadworthy.

Did you pay a knockdown price for the van compared to another being sold with a guarantee?
That in itself is a clear indication of its condition.

I suspect you fully understood the term "as is" and knew that some work would be needed but grossly under-estimated the scale of work required and are now looking for a legal let out.

I think you're on your own my friend.

Dmtiling

Yes i understood the term as is and did pay less than if it had a guarantee.

But I was told the van was in good condition.

Henry Ford III

If it started when you bought it, as you say, I reckon you could have trouble winning on this.

Dealer could say "it was ok when it left here".

Without any warranty and sold "as seen" suggest you've no comeback at all.

Good luck with it btw.

Hal1

OP you should have got a mechanic to go with you, the AA provide a service like that. It seems that you dont have any grounds for any legal proceedings. You agreed with the dealer to make the purchase while knowing it needed work, it just unfortunate that you didnt know the extent of the work needed on the van

gyppo

Hagar wrote:

When a vehicle is sold "as is" there is a clear implication that it is not mechanically sound and will require work to get it legally roadworthy.

Did you pay a knockdown price for the van compared to another being sold with a guarantee?
That in itself is a clear indication of its condition.

I suspect you fully understood the term "as is" and knew that some work would be needed but grossly under-estimated the scale of work required and are now looking for a legal let out.

I think you're on your own my friend.

What the man said.
Basically, when you buy an item "as is", you essentially waive all lyour legal consumer rights.

Dmtiling

Well replies don't seem to positive anyway

Will have to think about what i'll do first. Its a though situation.

Mhmm...weetabix

Having the same issue as the thread starter. I bought a 97 mitsubishi colt 2 months ago. The car was running grand until last weekend when the electrics started to cut out while I was driving and the car battery had gone flat without any explanation. First of all I was thinking battery or altenator so I got a new battery to see if that would fix the problem. Brought it down to my local mechaninc less than 2k away today, with the car barely making it. He took one look at it and told me the car had being in a flood and to get my money back. The dealer who told me that "everything was above board and working fine" is telling me they knew nothing about it and are refusing to act, the car was sold to me under false pretenses but from what you guys are saying it seems I dont have a leg to stand on, hope my solicitor will say different like my mechaninc...

Stephen

Did you buy your Colt "as seen" or anything like that?

maidhc

gyppo wrote:

What the man said.
Basically, when you buy an item "as is", you essentially waive all lyour legal consumer rights.

A consumer cannot waive all their legal rights. This is a fact, and not up for discussion. This is why "trade" cars are sold on the trade normally.

Your case depends on how your facts fit into s10 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, and as well possible misrepresentation on the part of the garage. I would say going on the facts you have given you have a reasonable case!

For €1700 you have the small claims court at your disposal, so that is one avenue you can consider. It only costs €10 or something trivial like that.

golden

Even though it sold as is, I would have automatically thought that as it was not a private sale it would fall under the Sales of goods act. You should really talk to your solicitor on this to clarify the situation.

Hagar

Are there any remarks or notes on the bill of sale to indicate that it was "as is" or "trade"?

If not you might be lucky.

Dmtiling

Im interested to see how this pans out.

I have been looking around the net gettin consumer rights info. I think i will have to pay the other garage that examined the car but maybe i can claim from the seller for this cost? Will have to wait and see what happens.

Dmtiling

If anyone can put the following into plain english for me it would be great. lol

Sale by description.

13.—(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description; and if the sale be by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

(2) A sale of goods shall not be prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale, they are selected by the buyer.

(3) A reference to goods on a label or other descriptive matter accompanying goods exposed for sale may constitute or form part of a description.

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness.

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—

( a ) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or

( b ) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

(4) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgement.

(5) An implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.

(6) The foregoing provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made.

Hagar

Dmtiling wrote:

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—

( a ) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or

( b ) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

In a "for sale as is" situation the buyer is invited to examine the goods for defects before purchase. If the buyer declines to examine the goods or the examination does not reveal the faults, provided that they have not been deliberately concealed by the seller, the buyer is deemed to be accepting any and all existing faults. That's how I understand it but I may be 100% wrong as I'm not a lawyer. Get professional advice.

maidhc

Hagar wrote:

In a "for sale as is" situation the buyer is invited to examine the goods for defects before purchase. If the buyer declines to examine the goods or the examination does not reveal the faults, provided that they have not been deliberately concealed by the seller, the buyer is deemed to be accepting any and all existing faults. That's how I understand it but I may be 100% wrong as I'm not a lawyer. Get professional advice.

... but if the buyer DOES NOT examine the goods then part b is not very useful to the seller.

You can argue this punishes due diligence, but it is meant to protect the "ignorant" buyer. The entire purpose of the section is to turn the principle of "caveat emptor" on its head in certain business to consumer transactions.

Hagar

How extensive does an examination have to be?

Kicking the tyres, sitting in the car, beeping the horn, turning on the radio, putting on the seat belt, turning on the lights/indicators... Is that legally an examination? I strongly suspect so. If the buyer does this and then goes ahead with the purchase hasn't he examined the car to his satisfaction?

I think the OP's only way out is if the sale documentation makes no reference to the fact that the van was sold as seen. Even at that the total lack of warranty is a bit of a giveaway.

How many people buy regular vehicles without at least some guarantee? The most restrictive guarantee I've heard of was 3 months limited to engine and gearbox.

mike65

"As is" should be treated like a private sale (you have no comeback from joe bloggs) and a so-called trade sale operates on the same principle. The presumption is that anyone who is confident enough to buy without any warranty is smart enough to know what to look for and then to be willing to make a judgement call.

In this case it was'nt a good call.

maidhc

mike65 wrote:

"As is" should be treated like a private sale (you have no comeback from joe bloggs) and a so-called trade sale operates on the same principle. The presumption is that anyone who is confident enough to buy without any warranty is smart enough to know what to look for and then to be willing to make a judgement call.

... but that isn't the law...

For a "gentlemans" point of view of course you are correct. I bought my car "as is" from a Toyota main dealer, but only because I was good friends with a salesman and he knew I wouldn't be back.

I didn't get a mechanic to look at the car either... because I took his word it was sound and because it had a good history... and because it was 4k cheaper than an identical one in a Ford main dealer

Mhmm...weetabix

Stephen wrote:

Did you buy your Colt "as seen" or anything like that?

I did buy the car as seen Stephen, thats what the dealer was trying to side track me with. I then told him he'd be hearing from my solicitor, he spoke to his boss and has changed his tune quite quickly.
I've also found the add on carzone.ie which I saved to me e-mail account and it states the car is in "Mint condition" http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=725686 It's the first car I bought so I was stupid enough to take their word, it's a learning curve at the least...

Churchy

Im speaking from experience up North.

We've got caught in the past when private punters try to buy cars at trade price without warranty. They went back on their word and complained about various problems - so company now never sells any trade car to a private punter.
It muddies the water for the honest bloke willing to take a chance but the messers arent worth the hassle.

Legally the OP is on solid ground (goods must be fit for purpose to a retail customer), morally I believe hes not sticking to his word buying "as is". Was given the opportunity of paying more for the reasurance of warranty and service.
Some facts are missing from the post , how much did the vehicle cost and how old was it?

unkel

Dmtiling wrote:

will cost me nearlly 1700 Euro to get back on the road again

What exactly is the main dealer offering to do for €1,700? Did you get a quote from an independent garage / mechanic? Did you go back to the garage that sold you the car to see what (if anything) they would do for you?

And indeed, what car / year / mileage etc. and what did you pay for it?

Keep us updated on this on, Dmtiling. Plenty of people here (myself included) would be interested in the outcome

Henry Ford III

I was thinking about this overnight for some odd reason.

IIRC the op said the van started and he drove it away on the date of purchase. That being the case the seller has no further obligation in a "as seen" sale. The van was "fit for purpose" at that time. Beyond that no warranty existed.

p.s. I hope I'm wrong but that's how it looks to me.

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

A consumer cannot waive all their legal rights. This is a fact, and not up for discussion. This is why "trade" cars are sold on the trade normally.

Your case depends on how your facts fit into s10 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, and as well possible misrepresentation on the part of the garage. I would say going on the facts you have given you have a reasonable case!

For €1700 you have the small claims court at your disposal, so that is one avenue you can consider. It only costs €10 or something trivial like that.

It's not be open to the OP to take this problem to the Small Claims Court. The SCC will only hear a case between a private consumer plaintiff and a business/commercial defendant. The fact that the OP in this case appears to have bought a van and also as he bought it "as is", suggests that this was a transaction between two business entities which I'm almost certain will put the case outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

Also, when a car is "sold as seen", you have absolutely no comeback contractually or at common law, should you have a problem with the vehicle. You really should have had a mechanic look at this van before you committed yourself.

Unfortunately I think you haven't a leg to stand on OP, but best of luck with it anyway.

Darragh29

Dmtiling wrote:

Yes i understood the term as is and did pay less than if it had a guarantee.

But I was told the van was in good condition.

This statement is kind of incompatible with the term "sold as seen". If it was in good condition, why was it being sold on a "sold as seen" basis??? What exactly is wrong with the van anyway that requires 1700 Euro to be spent on fixing it???

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

It's not be open to the OP to take this problem to the Small Claims Court. The SCC will only hear a case between a private consumer plaintiff and a business/commercial defendant. The fact that the OP in this case appears to have bought a van and also as he bought it "as is", suggests that this was a transaction between two business entities which I'm almost certain will put the case outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

I wouldn't agree that this falls outside of the SCC. It may do, but certainly on the facts here we have a punter buying a van from a garage. Order 53 does require the "goods or a service of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption", and you may argue a van is not this, but again I don't think it is obvious.

I don't see how you can state:

Darragh29 wrote:

when a car is "sold as seen", you have absolutely no comeback contractually or at common law

to put it mildly, this is plain wrong.

bazz26

I have no legal knowledge so cannot really advise the OP on what he/she can do but I am very interested to see what the final outcome of this with regards to "sold as seen" or "drive away as is" will be.

OP keep us posted.

Hagar

maidhc wrote:

Order 53 does require the "goods or a service of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption", and you may argue a van is not this, but again I don't think it is obvious.

I'm guessing that the OP's username suggests he is associated with a tiling firm and that therefore vehicle was paid for with a company cheque. If so it probably takes the purchase out of the realms of "private use".

maidhc

Hagar wrote:

I'm guessing that the OP's username suggests he is associated with a tiling firm and that therefore vehicle was paid for with a company cheque. If so it probably takes the purchase out of the realms of "private use".

The case law on that particular point is much and varied... to the degree that the Courts in Ireland and the UK have very different interpretations and judge upon judge has contradicted each other.

But certainly if it can be shown the OP was acting in the course of a business then not only will the small claims court not be available, but he will have less rights under the legislation.

As you said though, if he is a tiler, and if he bought the van for his business (i.e. not a car-van or commerical jeep for personal use) then the Sale of Goods act is less useful.

You can still argue the point about misrepresentation by the garage. E.g. the problem was apparent to both, but the garage represented it was a small problem, and on foot of that he bought the van. Saying something is "sold as seen" would not necessarily get the garage of the hook in this regard.

We won't resolve the matter right here, but I will say again, those who say the OP has no potential remedies are incorrect.

Hagar

Agreed, my sympathies are with the OP but I think we are helping him by playing devil's advocate and possibly forewarning him of obstacles he will might face. Personally I could not afford to be at the loss of €1,700 and would not like to see anyone else in that position.