Dispute with second hand car dealer over consumer rights

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466041#Comment_121466041

why else

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466021#Comment_121466021

nothing magic about them

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466053#Comment_121466053

There's nothing anything about them, its just a meaningless soundbite. You literally just said that he would be liable because of "law".

Padre_Pio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466005#Comment_121466005

If a dealer isn't confident with the car would hold up then why would he buy it?

The dealer must have thought the car was sound. It wasn't.

The issue is whether the fault was in the car when the dealer sold it. It's only been 2 months and 5000km, so the fault must have been already there. therefor the dealer unknowingly sold a lemon, and as a professional business he is liable.

In my opinion, which is a useless as everyone elses here :)

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466068#Comment_121466068

read the law, someone quoted it above for you

you saying they would be liable for some unknown reason or not

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466191#Comment_121466191

Which law? Which statute in Irish law applies to this case?

Actually, don't even bother, been here before with this conversation, you lads can never, ever back up what you are saying. All you will do is the usual circular logic where you keep pointing at the sale of goods act and claiming consumer law applies. Its boring.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466173#Comment_121466173

Nobody can say the fault was there or not until they can say what the fault actually is.

For example, take a low mileage car, let it sit in a yard for months waiting sale, then ramp up high mileage on it immediately after buying. I could see those driving conditions resulting in a fault that wasn't in the vehicle at the time of sale.

Just a hypothetical, but its why nobody can claim anything with certainty until the causal part is known.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466173#Comment_121466173

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466191#Comment_121466191

It would probably depend on what would be reasonably expected of a 12 year old car with high mileage and significant discount on new.

If you buy a 12 yr old car, with no optional dealer warranty, can you reasonably expect to get years of trouble free motoring? Highly unlikely.

From my perspective, I would have to think some sort of a conversation was had between the op and the seller when the op was told there was no warranty on the car. The fact is, this is an old car by modern standards, and stuff breaks on old cars. It would be unreasonable to expect an old car, which probably has had a number of owners, to perform, and be as reliable as a newer car, that is the risk you take when buying an old car, and reflected in the lower price paid for it in comparison to a newer version.

So far no one has posted any conclusive legislation that entitles the op to a warranty, or anything than what would be expected of a car of that age. The op had 3k kms of trouble free driving so it can hardly be claimed that the fault existed at time of sale.

Op, you bought an old car, cheap compared to a newer one and unfortunately old cars break down, it would have been good of the dealer to sort you out, and you can ask a judge for help, but if someone here tells you that you are entitled to redress, they are bluffing. You are entitled to ask the SCC to rule on your claim, beyond that, it depends on whether the judge sides with you or the dealer.

flatty

In a nutshell.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466257#Comment_121466257

this is why it needs to be decided by the courts, what is fair, I don't think 7 weeks is an unfair amount of time to expect the gearbox to hold up

1 year no

you know this

its the same if you buy something new or old, if someone decides to not give you a refund on something you bought where will you end up

The statues are laborious and often updated by this that and the other

The facts remain that a dealer is not a private seller and the law is different in this regard

are people disagreeing on this being the case?

The problem with court is often this is beyond the small claims court and well then it can cost you money and you may not win

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465418#Comment_121465418

Correct. A bit of advice for the Op. Go on solocheck or such website and determine who is the beneficial owner of the garage. Try taking a case against him personally rather than against the company. Small claims court can only issue a judgement against the garage. Garage refuses or ignores and it is handed to the County sheriff.

Before this happens the garage can cease trading overnight and open under a new name , keep their "trading" name, and the judgement is unenforceable.

These are known as albatross companies for obvious reasons.

If a judgement is issued against the individual a lien can be placed against any assets he may possess. That should get him negotiating with op.

Best of luck.

waterwelly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465953#Comment_121465953

Not really. If I paid €1000 for a car and the engine blows, the dealer is hardly going to pay €3000 to fix it.

Realistically when you buy a second hand car for say €5000, that was €40000 new, you are getting it at a massive discount as you know full well there has been a lot of wear and tear and breakdowns will happen.

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465598#Comment_121465598

Sorry that's false information.

What you are referring to is known as a trade sale. Ie a sale between two individuals of equal knowledge. Ie if the purchaser was another garage or a mechanic. I don't imagine the op is either.

Sale of Goods supply of services Act is firmly on the purchasers side. He bought a motor vehicle whose primary function is to transport individuals from a to b in an efficient and safe manner. Not carry out its function for 3 months , cue merchantable quality.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466327#Comment_121466327

You understand what a limited company is, don’t you?

You are making a mighty leap that a garage will close down at the same time the op makes a claim over a 12 yr old car.

The interweb really is full of crackpots.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466331#Comment_121466331

no they offer you a refund of 1k

Padre_Pio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466331#Comment_121466331

I agree with your example.

In that case the dealer should refund most or all of the purchase price.

If you bought a car for €1000, and the dealer told you it was in good shape, how long would you expect trouble-free motoring?

1 month? 3, maybe 6?

waterwelly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466313#Comment_121466313

"The facts remain that a dealer is not a private seller and the law is different in this regard"

Yes a dealer has certain obligations, but underwriting every possible fault on a 12 year old car is not one of them.

The OP was given the option of paying €1500 for enhanced comeback in the event of a scenario like this occuring.

He choose the discounted "no comeback" route and it has backfired.

We bought a vehicle a couple of years back with 3 month warranty, we could have picked a 1 month warranty and paid a bit less.

ebbsy

Being a purchaser of second hand Mercs over the years, the only thing I can be sure of is that I will be putting cash into them.

NCTs etc do not matter a shite.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466381#Comment_121466381

and they aren't doing this

you seem to focus on the absurd scenario rather than the common sense one

the warranty wont even cover every fault possible on a 12 year old car

there is no 'no comeback' route to choose here for the garage

you take the warranty as insurance against the pain in the hole sorting it out yourself will be

waterwelly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466376#Comment_121466376

If I was paying €1000 I'd take it for a long test drive. If nothing showed up then I'd buy it expecting no comeback.

It would depend a bit on the NCT, if it was valid for 6+ months having passed recently then I'd be happy to chance it.

If it was out of NCT then I wouldnt buy it.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466400#Comment_121466400

sure the NCT is pointless, the engine would fall out of it the next day as you only paid 1k for it

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466351#Comment_121466351

Sorry , incorrect again. Internet is full of individuals that think they hold more knowledge than others.

I am probably more aware than you think you are of the structure and liability of a Limited Company , hence why I suggested it may be more productive to chase the director / directors.

I never said that the business would close down. I said the parent company can cease trading overnight , name stays the same over the premises , trading name , and carry on. The judgement against the registered business is worthless.

My point was trying to help the op based on past experience, not educate people out of their limited intellect.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466581#Comment_121466581

https://www.cro.ie/en-ie/Registration/Company

Being aware, and understanding, are not always the same thing though.

“A company is a legal form of business organisation. It is a separate legal entity and, therefore, is separate and distinct from those who run it. The company (and not the individual shareholders) is the appropriate person to be sued in the event that debts are incurred by the company which remain unpaid, despite demand. Once incorporated, the company will be required to file an annual return.”

PGE1970

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466581#Comment_121466581

If the OP purchased the car from a limited company, the invoice or receipt will show this, then they can only pursue that company if they secure a judgment. A director is protected by the veil of incorporation. The over 100 year old precedent in Salomon v Salomon still applies.

The veil can be lifted in certain circumstances but it wouldn't apply here. If they tried to sue a director personally (s)he would object and be awarded their costs.

Sending out the sheriff can also have limited effect as they cannot simply go in and take stock from a forecourt.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465455#Comment_121465455

You're correct, in general, on your first point.

However, nowhere in the SoGaS Act does it specify that this applies ONLY to brand new products. The Act still applies if you are a merchant selling a second hand car.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465632#Comment_121465632

"Is a twelve year old car considered exactly the same as a brand new car?"

In the Act mentioned, with regard to the selling of a product by a merchant, specifically the part about merchantable quality, yes, it is the same.

@Designator

Notwithstanding the above, you are on shaky ground. Yes you are entitled to a repair/refund/replacement at the vendor's discretion if a fault appears within a reasonable time after purchase. The words "reasonable time" are doing a lot of heavy lifting here, though. In your case, it is open to interpretation/debate/argument about what exactly constitutes a reasonable time. Ultimately, nobody's opinion matters a jot, bar the judge's. It could go either way, I suspect 5,000Km in three months is pushing it, but you might get a sympathetic ear.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466818#Comment_121466818

We will have to agree to disagree.

If the product is new and fails soon after purchase, the fault is assumed to have been there when bought. A 12 yr old car could be merchantable quality for a 12 yr old car, that would not be the same as a new car. Old cars break down, it doesn’t necessarily mean there was anything wrong with it, or it wasn’t merchantable quality when sold. The op was obviously aware that this is a used, old motor, realistically, the price reflects that. If you buy an old TV for €50, I suspect any judge would be inclined to say you knew what you were buying.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying the op hasn’t got a chance of a successful claim, I am disagreeing with those who say he/she has a right to redress from the dealer.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466818#Comment_121466818

I agree with this to be honest. You're using the car more than average.

Average amount driven in Ireland is about 17000km a year so you seem well over that.

I'd say 5000km is a reasonable time to show the fault wasn't there when you bought it. Especially considering driving style can affect the gearbox.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466909#Comment_121466909

Old cars do indeed break down. There is a reasonable expectation, however, that it won't break down within a minimum time period, or else it is deemed as defective and the vendor is liable. It's nothing to do with there necessarily being anything wrong with it at the time of sale, it's to do with the vendor's obligations as a vendor. He shouldn't be selling pieces of sh1t that are about to fall apart, there is an onus on him that he only sells goods, the quality of which he should stand over should the unthinkable happen.

He has to do some due diligence before selling it. According to the law, if the clutch looks dodgy, he should replace it or mark it down accordingly while also letting the buyer know the clutch is hanging on by a thread. I'd bet good money that 90% of smaller dealers barely even give most cars more than a wash and an oil change, most of the time. They don't give a monkeys, especially the way the 2nd hand car market is these days. If the inspected clutch goes bang within a reasonable amount of time, he is still on the hook for it, even though he inspected it and missed it. It's his fault that he sold it/missed it, whatever way you want to look at it.

The only reason laws like this ever came about, remember, is because of cowboys preying on unsuspecting people in exactly this manner. Put a new fuse in a faulty plug, sell the faulty telly, tell the customer to eff off when he comes back etc. This stuff was going on for years and it's only recently that the pendulum has swung the other direction.

Anyway, it all boils down to personal interpretation.

If the clutch went after 6 days, you'd expect a new one.

If it went after 6 years, you'd never dream of asking for a refund.

There's a line somewhere in the middle of 6 days and 6 years where your expectations shift and for everyone, that line is in a different spot. It all depends on where the judge's line is on the day.

con___manx1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464990#Comment_121464990

Would the same law work if you had bought the car privately?

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121467077#Comment_121467077

Caveat emptor.