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

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by MilkTrayMan

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

[advisee]

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?

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by crash3903

Selling a car without a valid V5 is unlawful.
Mark

Nonsense.

Every time I change my car, I sell the old one without a V5. This is due to the time it takes to get the new V5 after retaining the VRM.

The V5 proves absolutely nothing about the vehicle's
ownership, only who is the registered keeper (who may not be the owner or the driver)

For the record it is not a criminal offence as it is not recordable

This is also nonsense. Just because the conviction is not recordable, does not remove the criminality.

Speeding is not recordable, but it is still a crime.

As a general rule, if the offence is dealt with (or would be if not FPN) in a Magistrates' Court, it is a criminal offence.

[crash3903]

The V5 proves absolutely nothing about the vehicle's
ownership, only who is the registered keeper (who may not be the owner or the driver)

Fair point - HPI checks would help when buying a car then would you recommend?

Every time I change my car, I sell the old one without a V5. This is due to the time it takes to get the new V5 after retaining the VRM.

not being able to get one in time is not relevant. How do you and your buyer fill out the tear off slips if you don't have one?

[gwc1000]

Originally Posted by crash3903

not being able to get one in time is not relevant. How do you and your buyer fill out the tear off slips if you don't have one?

You don't have to sign the tear off slips. It will not prevent the new owner getting a new reg doc. He takes the car and fills out a V62 and a new V5 comes to him in the post.

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by advisee

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

[crash3903]

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

define what a conspiracy is

"IF" there were to be any offences on the part of the dealer it would be use cause or permit - In this case permit. But then you would have to prove that the dealer permitted the new owner to drive on the public highway with an unlicenced/unroadworthy vehicle. I have never heard of such a prosecution but I am sure there will be

[advisee]

Originally Posted by JonCris

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.

Can you back this up with either legislation or case law? Conspiracy to do what exactly?

Originally Posted by JonCris

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

That is true to a point - buyer beware is always good advice however if something is being sold as "good runner just services 12 months T&T" then I would argue that is an implied term that the vehicle is fit for the purpose of being used as a motor vehicle on the queens highway!

[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

[crash3903]

Conspiracy

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

The relevant word here is secret -

• not open or public; kept private or not revealed; "a secret formula"; "secret ingredients"; "secret talks"
• clandestine: conducted with or marked by hidden aims or methods; "clandestine intelligence operations"; "cloak-and-dagger activities behind enemy lines"; "hole-and-corner intrigue"; "secret missions"; "a secret agent"; "secret sales of arms"; "surreptitious mobilization of troops"; "an ...
• unavowed: not openly made known; "a secret marriage"; "a secret bride"
• communicated covertly; "their secret signal was a wink"; "secret messages"
• not expressed; "secret (or private) thoughts"
• hidden: designed to elude detection; "a hidden room or place of concealment such as a priest hole"; "a secret passage"; "the secret compartment in the desk"
• privy: hidden from general view or use; "a privy place to rest and think"; "a secluded romantic spot"; "a secret garden"
• confidential: (of information) given in confidence or in secret; "this arrangement must be kept confidential"; "their secret communications"
• something that should remain hidden from others (especially information that is not to be passed on); "the combination to the safe was a secret"; "he tried to keep his drinking a secret"
• indulging only covertly; "a secret alcoholic"
• information known only to a special group; "the secret of Cajun cooking"
• mysterious: having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary understanding; "mysterious symbols"; "the mystical style of Blake"; "occult lore"; "the secret learning of the ancients"
• mystery: something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained; "how it got out is a mystery"; "it remains one of nature's secrets"
• the next to highest level of official classification for documents

As it is common knowledge that dealers do this, (argue all you like whether it is lawful or not), it cannot be held to be a secret act

I stand by my original suggestion of permit

[advisee]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Look conspiracy up in the dictionary.

I know what the word means, my point was that in English law all the offences I know of are conspiracy to do something "conspiracy to defraud" "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" etc.

What offence are you suggesting that such a trader could be guilty of?

Originally Posted by JonCris

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.

Again, can you suggest precisely what offence could have been committed, and how the dealer could have physically prevented the above happening? What if the seller assured the dealer that the car was going to be driven straight to an MOT centre? I can just imagine you trying to enforce this at your local Arthur Daly yard, or auction house for that matter!

Originally Posted by JonCris

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

Do you state all the above as a lawyer, or as an enthusiastic amateur? Assuming the latter, then this link has a bit about buying a car privately or from a dealer Car Buyers Guide - Advice : know your rights when buying a new car - The AA that should help other readers.

[gwc1000]

Originally Posted by JonCris

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.

Sorry, I disagree. Who is the trader conspiring with? Conspiracy is a very serious issue so please back up these comments with relevant case law.

When I sell vehicles there is no legal requirement on me to check whether the purchaser is insured or even has a driving licence. Remember, it is no longer my property and the owner is free to do what he likes with it. If you don't agree please quote relevant law.

[gwc1000]

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.

[MilkTrayMan]

Instead of 'conspiracy'......Try 'aid + abet'?!...