Dispute with second hand car dealer over consumer rights

Why would you buy a car from a dealer that they said there is no warranty on? Red flag there straightaway.

I thought the op said 3000km put up on it.

OP did you inform the seller when offered the warranty at a price that you knew the consumer rights? Just wondering if you had would he have advised against buying that particular car presuming he knew more about its condition.

So what do you mean by warranty? You say you have warranty, but what exactly does that mean, what does it cover, what does it entitle you to? Did the dealer limit liability by making clear that this vehicle was not warrantable? (Yes, they can do that to an extent, and often have to with ball of **** trade-ins that they might have).

Its a constant problem with people talking about consumer rights, it is always very sparse on details about what the terms actually mean in a court of law. I'm not being smart here or trying to defend the dealer but you may need to answer that question if you want to bring them to court. Judges don't want to hear "Consumer rights says they have to" as if those are magic words, they want to know the legal and logical reasoning why.

You will also need to clarify what exactly happened that required a gearbox replacement, nobody can answer who is liable until they establish what it is they were liable for. I don't mean the repair cost, I mean the reason there is a repair needed in the first place. What failed that caused the bigger issue? A sensor? A synchro? An oil seal? Because when you know the answer to that then you can answer the question of who's fault it was that the part failed.

Consider this for example, if it is a known issue with the model then why isn't Mercedes paying for it? And if Mercedes can wash their hands of it, why does a dealer 12 years later become liable for Mercedes known manufacturing defect? Thats the sort of thing that I would be arguing to the court if I were the dealer.

This isn't a new car, it is a 12 year old with undetermined mileage that clocked up another 3000miles in 2 months. So what was the root cause of the fault? Does it even need a gearbox at all? Is there anything the dealer can point at that will muddy the waters and leave you holding the baby?

It sounds as if the seller has no interest in engaging with you, he knows it is all bad news for him, he sold a 12 year old car for probably a few hundred profit and now might be lumbered with a bill of thousands so he will want to dodge it if he can. If I were in your shoes I would want to clarify exactly why the vehicle needs a gearbox, confirm exactly why the dealer is liable for that cause of fault, then go straight to an actual solicitor and request they aggressively pursue a refund. Just make sure to ignore SIMI or any consumer rights hotlines, as they have no actual power or authority.

Absolutely zero chance OP, sorry.

Actually less than zero.

"Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, a car must be in roadworthy condition when sold and has to be fit for purpose. If it's not, the buyer has comeback, irrespective of any get- out clauses the dealers may think they have."

Even though some dealers state "sold without warranty" the O.P.is correct

A buisnes do not have the same rights as a private seller even if they say sold without warranty that holds no weight

In Ireland the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, superceeds everything else,provided the person You bought it of is registered as a Sole Trader or a LTD Company

If the person who sold the vehicle does not repair or refund (refund time has passed i.i.r.c it is 30 days for that) remedy will be with the smalls claims court to the value of a maximum of 2k

It is 25 euro to apply for a smallls claim with the courts

Yes but with in 3 months I would guess "not know" that engine and gearbox are covered there hence why You always get 3 months on both of them

Maybe someone actually knows the exact ins and outs of that part

Be very very careful what some person on the phone says to you about "rights". It has been shown many times that they give out basic information that in many situations do not reflect the actual issue.

A car dealer or any person selling a used item can sell "without warranty" if they make it clear before purchase. (seems they did that here) There are some caveats in that any fault they know of cannot be hidden or information kept from the buyer.

You have driven 3,000miles / 5,000km. That's a fair bit of driving and therefore the fault that has appeared is highly unlikely to have been known by the seller and therefore you do not seem to have a case.

Most laws will have an "except where" type clause. EG, you cannot stop on the hard shoulder of a motorway - except where it is an emergency.

Buying used goods is where there are exceptions and buying used goods where it has been stated clearly to you that there is no warranty, gives even more exceptions. So in this particular case and from the information you have provided, I can't see where the seller is at fault.

Don't just quote the name of the sale of goods act, everybody already knows the name of it. Instead, tell the OP exactly why the dealer should have to pay for this repair in this specific situation?

Is a 12 year old car considered exactly the same as a brand new car? Because if it is not, then just stating "Sale of goods act" is meaningless. The OP will need to argue their case based on the facts of what actually happened.

This statement is both factually true and at the same time utterly meaningless to your case.

You are still going on about laws and protection and none of it means anything until you start demonstrating why they apply in this specific incident.

Please let us know how you get on, especially if it goes to no claims.

remember, its 2nd hand, its 12 years old and an additional 3,000 miles / 5,000km has been added.

To be able to drive 5,000 km would show that the car was perfectly drivable when sold. You will need to show that the defect should have been known about when sold. That is going to be very difficult.

Its annoying, but this is a risk with 2nd hand goods and unless you can show the dealer did know or should have known about the issue or that the issue was there when you bought it, you have very little chance of success

Why would the seller need to know there was a problem? Surely it would be unethical and maybe illegal to sell a product with a known fault without informing the buyer.

I would side with the OP here and push the garage to cover the cost of repair. Failing that, small claims.

The problem for the OP is that losing in small claims court would cost the dealer less than the cost of the repair. Financially they would be advised to go to court, especially since they will be able to present a defence and possibly reduce their liability further.

The most likely thing is that the dealer didn't know there was a problem. Gearboxes wear out, some slowly, some quickly. The issue on the consumer goods act angle seems to turn on whether the car was roadworthy at the time of sale. The gearbox unknowingly only having 3000 miles left in it would strike me as irrelevant.

I'd bet anything mind, that had the OP paid for the extra cover, the insurance company would have ruled it as normal wear and tear, and excluded the claim.

how much do you think the replacement of the gearbox will set you back?

120k (assuming miles) based on the other thread.

But that's not what numerous sources say.

The dealer has a responsibility to ensure his goods are fit for sale. He can't wash his hands as soon as a car successfully drives down the road and around the corner "it was good enough to drive out of here".

If the car developed a gearbox fault after 5000km then it's a lemon, and the dealer should sort it out.