Bought a car, sellor demanding its return

Owryan

Hopefully someone can help. Yesterday my ex agreed to buy a car from her sister, no cash changed hands but a payment plan was agreed and she signed and turned the log book over to my ex.

Today she is demanding that the car be returned as she has a new buyer . She has threatened to go and take back the car also.

Can she do this ? She agreed to the sale and the method of payment, she even signed the log book.

We contacted the gardai but they cannot get involved unless there is a criminal act.

MarkR

Two sisters fighting over a car, and you're not involved with either? Stay well away from it. It won't end well.

For your ex, is it worth the hassle? There are a million cars out there, if her sister wants to be awkward about it, let her. But remember this if she's looking to mix business and family again later.

Owryan

MarkR wrote: »

Two sisters fighting over a car, and you're not involved with either? Stay well away from it. It won't end well.

For your ex, is it worth the hassle? There are a million cars out there, if her sister wants to be awkward about it, let her. But remember this if she's looking to mix business and family again later.

My ex sold her car for scrappage after buying the sisters one. If she has to give back the car she will be the one at a loss of a car .

ResearchWill

Is it really worth it to fall out with family.

Owryan

I think its more the fact that her sister sold her the car , knowing she was going to scrap the one she had and then when a better offer comes in decides to demand the car back.

Has threatened to report the car stolen/claim for a new log book/plain just turn up and take the car.

BornToKill

Yes, but why would you get involved in the situation? You want to be Kenny Rogers here - 'know when to walk away, know when to run'.

Owryan

Im just looking for some advice/guidance on her behalf rather than her opening an account is all. We have kids together so we are still involved so to speak.

Farcear

Ex could return the car; sister could split the difference for the higher sale price and ex can get another car. Everyone wins.

Rafa1977

Owryan wrote: »

Hopefully someone can help. Yesterday my ex agreed to buy a car from her sister, no cash changed hands but a payment plan was agreed and she signed and turned the log book over to my ex.

Today she is demanding that the car be returned as she has a new buyer . She has threatened to go and take back the car also.

Can she do this ? She agreed to the sale and the method of payment, she even signed the log book.

We contacted the gardai but they cannot get involved unless there is a criminal act.

Did they say they cant get involved with a straight face!! Seriously contacting the Gardai! Why are you involved, walk away, especially when family are concerned. It would have to be a great car for everyone to fall out.

Yawns

If you want to do the legal route. Ex sends of logbook if not done already. Sister either gets over it or tries to take car back. If she takes it without permission it's theft, plain and simple. If she lies and tries to get a new log book she'll be done for fraud as her signature will be on the logbook that arrives in Shannon. Family is split over a car.

I understand that the ex already sold the car for scrappage. It's up to your ex really. She can either give the car back and learn the lesson of never do business with family. Or she can hold onto the car and give the sister the money for it. The sister is prob stuck for cash so would prefer the car to be sold to the new seller who will pay up front.

Owryan

Take family out of this :

person A sells a car to person B , A agrees to a payment plan and signs over the logbook. person B drives away with car and logbook.

Who owns the car ?

Can person A demand the cars return ? just turn up and forcibly take the car ?

That is all im asking .

Garda opinion is that the car is possession of the buyer and if it is taken without permission then it is car theft

Jesus Shaves

Owryan wrote: »

Take family out of this :

person A sells a car to person B , A agrees to a payment plan and signs over the logbook. person B drives away with car and logbook.

Who owns the car ?

Can person A demand the cars return ? just turn up and forcibly take the car ?

That is all im asking .

Garda opinion is that the car is possession of the buyer and if it is taken without permission then it is car theft

Has the payment plan been written down on paper and signed?

Owryan

darokane wrote: »

Has the payment plan been written down on paper and signed?

Just in the form of a text saying " Ok €100 a month , when do you want to get it (ie the car)"

Zambia

OP the sister could still have a claim to the car. I doubt its theft.

tfitzgerald

Owryan wrote: »

Take family out of this :

person A sells a car to person B , A agrees to a payment plan and signs over the logbook. person B drives away with car and logbook.

Who owns the car ?

Can person A demand the cars return ? just turn up and forcibly take the car ?

That is all im asking .

Garda opinion is that the car is possession of the buyer and if it is taken without permission then it is car theft

Person b owns the car imho

Yawns

Zambia wrote: »

OP the sister could still have a claim to the car. I doubt its theft.

Not if she signed the logbook and handed over the keys. If the sister tries to take the car without permission it would be theft. Guards will be reluctant to get involved and so should the OP. I'd run a mile if I was in your shoes.

Caseywhale

If you want to solve it peacefully you just have to step in and give the ex sister in law the difference between what the new buyer is ofering and what your ex paid.
Eiher that or intercept he new buyer and convince him he doesnt want to be buying a car off someone who has already sold it.

Owryan

Yawns wrote: »

Not if she signed the logbook and handed over the keys. If the sister tries to take the car without permission it would be theft. Guards will be reluctant to get involved and so should the OP. I'd run a mile if I was in your shoes.

Thats what the gardai said , only contacted them for their opinion due to the abusive calls my ex has been getting.

Farcear

There is no easy answer.

To be enforceable, contracts over a certain value need to have a written note which contains the terms of the contract.

There are some exceptions, e.g. when one party just starts doing whatever he or she was supposed to do under the terms of an oral agreement.

Ultimately, as it's not obvious in the circumstances, only a court could decide the status of the agreement.

IMO, I'd say Person B has the better claim if he just drove off with the signed log book.

Owryan

Caseywhale wrote: »

If you want to solve it peacefully you just have to step in and give the ex sister in law the difference between what the new buyer is ofering and what your ex paid.
Eiher that or intercept he new buyer and convince him he doesnt want to be buying a car off someone who has already sold it.

My only involvement other than looking for some guidance here is that myself and my ex have 3 kids, she bought the car as her own was on its last legs and p dealer, if she has to return the car then she will be without one .

As far as i am concerned the sale was made in good faith and the seller has agreed to sell a car she no longer owns to another person.

ResearchWill

Farcear wrote: »

There is no easy answer.

To be enforceable, contracts over a certain value need to have a written note which contains the terms of the contract.

There are some exceptions, e.g. when one party just starts doing whatever he or she was supposed to do under the terms of an oral agreement.

Ultimately, as it's not obvious in the circumstances, only a court could decide the status of the agreement.

IMO, I'd say Person B has the better claim if he just drove off with the signed log book.

The only contract that needs to be evidenced in writing is for the sale of land in all other cases a verbal contract is enough.

In this case there was offer acceptence and consideration, there is a valid contract. The question is does the OP's ex really want to fall out with her sister.

Yawns

It's a fairly open and shut case. If it were 2 strangers, and the seller came back to take the car because he got a better offer, he would be told to jog on. It's complicated because business between family always gets complicated.

The same **** also happens in reverse. If a buyer bought a car from a stranger and the next day it broke down, he would be told to jog on and tough luck. With family they would expect to return the car and get their money back. Never ever deal with family for this types of reasons alone.

As far as the law would be concerned, your ex has the text message agreeing to payment plan, also has the logbook, has the car and has the keys. She is the owner now.

Your ex should take pictures of the logbook and because of the threats being made I would send it by registered post first thing in the morning. It would be worth paying for the registered post and knowing it arrived safely than to risk that it might become lost in the post even tho that rarely happens.

jblack

ResearchWill wrote: »

The only contract that needs to be evidenced in writing is for the sale of land in all other cases a verbal contract is enough.

Contracts of guarantee, contracts for future employment etc etc all are required to be evidenced in writing.

ResearchWill

jblack wrote: »

Contracts of guarantee, contracts for future employment etc etc all are required to be evidenced in writing.

Ok to be clearer the only contract for the sale of something that needs to be evidenced in writing is a contract for the sale of land.

coylemj

Person A made an offer and it was accepted, she signed the vehicle cert. and handed it over which is as close to a contract of sale as you're likely to get in a private sale.

Unless B defaults on the payment schedule I can't see that A has any claim on the car, the deal is done. For sure B owes money to A but B is in legal possession of the car and by any standard she is the legal owner just as much as if she had borrowed money from a third party to fund the purchase.

OP, I can see you're trying to be an honest broker in this situation but if two sisters are that disjointed that one is threatening to falsely report the other of stealing her car, I'd stand well back and let them at it..

Farcear

ResearchWill wrote: »

The only contract that needs to be evidenced in writing is for the sale of land in all other cases a verbal contract is enough.

No. See, e.g. section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893.

Contracts for the sale of goods over £10 must be evidenced in writing (subject to the usual part-performance exceptions).

Farcear

coylemj wrote: »

Person A made an offer and it was accepted, she signed the vehicle cert. and handed it over which is as close to a contract of sale as you're likely to get in a private sale.

Unless B defaults on the payment schedule I can't see that A has any claim on the car, the deal is done. For sure B owes money to A but B is in legal possession of the car and by any standard she is the legal owner just as much as if she had borrowed money from a third party to fund the purchase.

There is an agreement.

The issue is whether there is the required evidence to actually enforce the agreement.

coylemj

Farcear wrote: »

There is an agreement.

The issue is whether there is the required evidence to actually enforce the agreement.

If there was only a handshake and a verbally agreed price that might be the case but the fact that A signed the cert and handed it to B would surely stand up in any court as proof that terms had been agreed and a sale executed? You don't sign and hand over the cert. if you intended to entertain more offers.

The cert is the evidence. Like I said, in a private sale that's usually the only paperwork.

Farcear

Sale of Goods Act, 1893 wrote:

Contract of sale for ten pounds and upwards.

4.—(1) A contract for the sale of any goods of the value of ten pounds or upwards
shall not be enforceable by action unless the buyer shall accept part of the goods so
sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the contract,
or in part payment, or unless some note or memorandum in writing of the contract
be made and signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf.

(2) The provisions of this section apply to every such contract, notwithstanding that
the goods may be intended to be delivered at some future time, or may not at the
time of such contract be actually made, procured, or provided, or fit or ready for
delivery, or some act may be requisite for the making or completing thereof, or
rendering the same fit for delivery.

(3) There is an acceptance of goods within the meaning of this section when the
buyer does any act in relation to the goods which recognises a pre-existing contract
of the sale whether there be an acceptance in performance of the contract or not.

(4) The provisions of this section do not apply to Scotland.

You needed to fall into one of the categories in section 4(1).

Acceptance and receipt of the goods would likely suffice in your Person B scenario.

jblack

From the info given, all requirements appear to be very clear and satisfied, I doubt ITCLR could be raised given the payment plan.

There's no formation issue nor an evidential one.

ResearchWill

Farcear wrote: »

No. See, e.g. section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893.

Contracts for the sale of goods over £10 must be evidenced in writing (subject to the usual part-performance exceptions).

Unless the buyer has received the goods Or given something in Ernest for payment. So getting possesion of the car does away with the requirement.

Cicero

OP
Claiming the car was stolen, when it wasnt, would be considered a criminal offence so I doubt that course of action will be followed. I assume that the log book is signed over to the person who purchased the car?

I think the agreement was naive in that getting someone to commit to a payment plan after you sign the car over is just looking for headaches further down the road.

There is probably a legal stance on this but it would be better to go for a common sense solution. I.e. the person who purchased the car keeps the car until she finds another car or 2 months from today- whichever is sooner. She then signs back the car and just pays the 100 per month in the meantime
It will not end well if she continues to hold on to the car as there's still the repayment plan that isn't documented properly. Let both sides give in a little and move on.

coylemj

If sister A is such a greedy and vindictive cow that she's prepared to make a false accusation to the Gardai (maybe a bluff but she made the threat) about her sister then I don't see why B should make any attempt to accommodate her.

Provided B meets the agreed (on paper or otherwise) payment schedule, I say there is nothing A can legally do about it, the deal is done.

Yawns

Cicero wrote: »

Let both sides give in a little and move on.

This I agree with. For the sake of stupid arguments. OP can your ex offer to pay a little extra for the car in an effort to make the peace so to speak. Or is it a case that the sister wants all the money up front for it.

coylemj

Yawns wrote: »

This I agree with. For the sake of stupid arguments. OP can your ex offer to pay a little extra for the car in an effort to make the peace so to speak. Or is it a case that the sister wants all the money up front for it.

If 'Peace' has to be paid for in hard cash, it won't last very long.

Delancey

OP , walk away and don't get involved - this will end badly and I think you may find yourself the ' meat in the sandwich '.

Owryan

The sister who sold the cow is "money mad" . I posted somewhere before that she married a pakistani national for cash so he could stay in the country. Without being cruel she has less brains than a bag of spanners.

She reported the car as stolen, gardai contacted the buyer who produced the logbook, gardai have decided that they will step in and charge the seller with making a false statement "IF NO SETTLEMENT IS REACHED".

jblack

You've just effectively implicated both your sister in law and her husband for fraud.

Well done.

Owryan

jblack wrote: »

You've just effectively implicated both your sister in law and her husband for fraud.

Well done.

What ll the gardai do ??? charge her twice ??

Yawns

You're best off not mentioning anything to do with that unless you have some serious evidence.

Stick with what you have for now.

deadwood

Have you tried Friendzone, I er, mean Carzone for advice?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Owryan wrote: »

The sister who sold the cow is "money mad" . I posted somewhere before that she married a pakistani national for cash so he could stay in the country. Without being cruel she has less brains than a bag of spanners.

She reported the car as stolen, gardai contacted the buyer who produced the logbook, gardai have decided that they will step in and charge the seller with making a false statement "IF NO SETTLEMENT IS REACHED".

Well looks like you know what the situation is. If its up to your ex's sister to build a bridge or just move on.