Buying a vehicle - is my seller a dealer/private seller

[manaquin]

Hi all,

 

In short, Im buying a 2007 reg scooter. Now the seller I think is trading as a business, has a web site etc, but he runs it from home?

 

Not that a person cant be registered as a business and trade from home, but my question is if things go wrong, how am I covered or what cover do I have as I believe its different it the seller is private or is a dealer?

 

Thanks!

[Kraken1]

it is.

 

http://www.hegarty.co.uk/consumerlaw_goods.htm

 

You may run into problems if he is a dealer pretending to be a consumer. Is he a ltd co? What does his website say?

[Dragons Dennis]

Trader running from home is in many ways better than a trader running from rented garage or yard lock up. The dealer is less likely to run away!

 

Makes no difference as far as your protection and rights, though home operated businesses often do not know, understand or agree with the law. They have no choice, but it often has to be forced upon them. You are protected under the SOGA.

 

If things go very wrong, you can sue the dealer. If that is a sole trader, then you sue the person you bought it from./ If it is a Ltd company you sue them. Ltd companies have a habit of folding once sued.

 

Personally, buying a bike? I would pay extra and buy from a main agent. They don't like a bad name and will usually cave in when the law is pout to them correctly.

[perplexity]

... my question is if things go wrong, how am I covered or what cover do I have as I believe its different it the seller is private or is a dealer?

 

 

 

A business includes—

 

(a) a professional practice;

(b) any other undertaking carried on for gain or reward;

© any undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge.

 

Enterprise Act, Section 210 (Enforcement of certain consumer legislation)

 

[Kraken1]

woo! purpled!

 

I think we have most of them with this one, an irrelevant statement in answer to a question that wasn't asked and incorrectly citing statute. All we are missing is a reference to the DSRs...

 

To the OP - ignore perpy. He's a bit daft.

[perplexity]

.. my question is if things go wrong, how am I covered or what cover do I have as I believe its different it the seller is private or is a dealer?

 

---------

 

The rights of a consumer and the obligations of a supplier are covered above all else by Community (European Union) directives which in turn are implemented by the relevant UK statutes.

 

Part 8 of the Enterprise Act. therefore relates by way of section 212(4) which provides that "References to a listed Directive [or to a listed Regulation] must be construed in accordance with section 210".

 

Schedule 13 of the Act lists the relevant EU legislation.

 

The Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Community Infringements Specified UK Laws) Order 2003 lists the UK legislation that the definition provided by section 210 thus applies to.

 

Part 8 of the Act binds the Crown.

 

Enforcement officers and the civil courts alike are therefore bound to construe in accordance, like it or not.

 

8-)

[Dragons Dennis]

Oh dear. Every site has one doesn't it?

 

Let me explain for the OP in simple terms then. If a private seller, you have no protection at all. if a business you have full SOGA protection whether they are a Ltd company or not and whether they trade from business premises, lock up yard, their home or a pub car park. Private= bad news, Trader = good nes as far as your rights are concerned.

[Kraken1]

yeah.... we have perpy. He's a lot daft. We're never really sure what he's talking about.

[perplexity]

Let me explain for the OP in simple terms then. ......

 

 

As a matter of fact, the terms of The Sale of Goods Act [section 1] are simple enough as they stand, for all to see for themselves if so they please:

 

1 Contracts to which Act applies

 

(1) This Act applies to contracts of sale of goods made on or after (but not to those made before) 1 January 1894.

 

 

The only part of the Act where "business" appears is Section 14 on the "Implied terms about quality or fitness", which refers to the "course of a business".

 

The Act in general applies to any legitimate contract of sale, business private or otherwise, so long as the deal is legal; the parties own the right to contract.

 

8-)

[labrat]

does anyone else wonder if perpys keyboard has any other keys than CTRL, V and C?

[Kraken1]

I think it has a 'paste bull****' button. Perhaps some sort of keyboard shortcut?

 

The point above about 'business' only appearing in s14, perhaps proves this point...

[Dragons Dennis]

Just for our friend Perplexity. This has nothing to do with the OPs question either. Just as useful as your contribution and probably more amusing.

 

62

 

Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

 

[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

[perplexity]

Experience is the proof.

 

If you rather intend to contest a legal action on the strength of the myth that the law does not apply to a "private" contract you are going to lose (so long as there's a proof of the contract), nor is an online sale private (with a seller's terms to apply to all transactions), nor is this a new idea.

 

The ruse was already tried, over and over again since the Sale of Goods Act came to force and always to the same effect. The cause got as far as the Court of Appeal in 1999 for instance and they threw it out, recommending a broader approach to the term "in the course of business". [Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613]

 

From there on, the more you resort to personal abuse the more the point is proved: If you happened to know of a legal precedent or statutory provision to a different effect it should rather be a simple task to declare the evidence.

 

You don't because you don't. A statutory provision or precedent to such an effect does not exist.

 

Judges are not so keen to be put out of business by dodgy individuals of the opinion that the law should not apply. The law of the United Kingdom is common to all, believe it or not.

 

[labrat]

remember that the statutory entitlement of quality and fitness for purpose only applies when buying from someone who is ‘acting in the course of a business’ i.e a second-hand car dealer. You do not have any legal recourse as regards quality where you are buying through an individual who is selling an item as a one-off private sale (although they must have legal title and it must be as described in the advert).

 

click here

Edited October 5, 2010 by labrat
added link

[perplexity]

remember that the statutory entitlement of quality and fitness for purpose only applies when buying from someone who is ‘acting in the course of a business’ i.e a second-hand caccuffoccar dealer. You do not have any legal recourse as regards quality where you are buying through an individual who is selling an item as a one-off private sale (although they must have legal title and it must be as described in the advert).

 

click here

 

 

It would have been that much wiser to study the case I cited: Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613]

 

 

The sale in question was precisely a one-off private sale, of a fishing boat. The terms were arranged with the buyer in private on a one-off basis by a fisherman whose usual line of business was not to sell boats, nor anything else except for fish.

 

The seller therefore expected to win the argument but lost and could just as well have been the "private" seller of a car that was previously used for a business purpose.

 

Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act was especially held to apply. The boat that he sold should be fit for purpose.

 

[MrShed]

Perplex, hoisted by your own petard I feel.

 

On the basis of the approach taken in Stevenson v Rogers, as long as a sale is even incidental to the seller's business, and not a 'purely private sale', it should be in the course of a business for the purposes of s14(2), and that is in keeping with the legislative history of the subsection.

 

The case you have cited was where the sale was incidental to the sellers business.

 

Therefore your argument that SOGA applies to all private sales holds no water, as EXPLICITLY stated by the court in the case you have cited.

[MrShed]

Oh and I also see that the case made no reference to the "Enterprise Act" that you love to troll out every other post.

[perplexity]

Oh and I also see that the case made no reference to the "Enterprise Act" that you love to troll out every other post.

 

Really?

 

It should not be so much of a surprise that the High Court ruling of 1999 failed to mention The Enterprise Act 2002, which came into force on the 1st April 2004.

 

Part 8 of the Enterprise Act therefore followed from and supersedes the precedent of Stevenson v Rogers, to clarify the issue once and for all.

 

[MrShed]

Fair point on the dates - shame you missed the important point, that the case you have cited to back up your point is actually at loggerheads with your perspective.

[perplexity]

P.S.

 

Therefore your argument that SOGA applies to all private sales holds no water, as EXPLICITLY stated by the court in the case you have cited.

 

---

 

It was never an argument of mine that the Sale of Goods Act applies to all private sales. To the contrary, I had already pointed out that the Act in general applies to any legitimate contract of sale (since 1 January 1894) so long as the deal is legal.

 

Because of Section 3 of the Act the parties to a contract must own the capacity to buy and sell.

 

The Act confers no right for instance with regard to the purchase of stolen goods. If you therefore prefer to conclude a contract of sale in private, this is a risk you take.

 

8)

 

PPS:

 

It should also be pointed out that a sale need not so much as take place before the consumer protection legislation applies.

 

Some parts (e.g. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) may apply before a contract is concluded.

 

-----

Edited October 5, 2010 by perplexity

[MrShed]

It was never an argument of mine that the Sale of Goods Act applies to all private sales. To the contrary, I had already pointed out that the Act in general applies to any legitimate contract of sale (since 1 January 1894) so long as the deal is legal.

 

Perhaps not in this thread....you have in the past though.

 

You have obviously changed your opinion I see?

[perplexity]

Perhaps not in this thread....you have in the past though.

 

You have obviously changed your opinion I see?

 

 

Acts of Parliament are not my opinions. I am not the author of the legislation.

 

------------

 

Were it to be seen, at least, that 1999 preceded 2002 there could then be as much as that to discuss.

 

Otherwise, if a case goes to court, the argument of a buyer need not so much as hold water. In order to be excepted from the consumer protection legislation it falls to the seller to prove the claim, not to a buyer to prove a law.

 

8)

[MrShed]

Acts of Parliament are not my opinions. I am not the author of the legislation.

 

Agreed. So why DID you change your opinion?

 

Were it to be seen, at least, that 1999 preceded 2002 there could then be as much as that to discuss.

 

Otherwise, if a case goes to court, the argument of a buyer need not so much as hold water. In order to be excepted from the consumer protection legislation it falls to the seller to prove the claim, not to a buyer to prove a law.

 

Care to produce case law which references your standpoint then, since the "Enterprise Act"?

[MrShed]

Also, although an act of parliament isnt an opinion, interpretation of it certainly is. Otherwise, there would be no need for lawyers. This is especially the case in the slapdash way in which you refer to definitions in different acts of parliament as if they apply across the acts - this is not the case as you should well know.

[perplexity]

Agreed. So why DID you change your opinion?

 

Care to produce case law which references your standpoint then, since the "Enterprise Act"?

 

 

I see no reason to refer to a straw man argument instead of the law.

 

The Law requires that "References to a listed Directive or to a listed Regulation must be construed in accordance with section 210", a definition of a business thus provided, amending the consumer protection legislation in order to save a judge or an enforcement officer from the bother.

 

Every Act is a public Act to be judicially noticed as such, unless the contrary is expressly provided by the Act. The upshot is thus that a judge need not so much as oblige himself to hear an argument as to how to construe the terms, let alone the chance to appeal a point of law.

 

Part 8 of the Enterprise Act binds the Crown, which is to say that an opinion of the Monarch should so much as count, let alone the rest of us.

 

Those are the terms of the law. If you don't like it, take it up with your MP or MEP. It is their responsibility, not mine.