Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

used car deposit question


bdkelly72
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4167 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I put a deposit on a car £500, non-returnable option to buy.

 

My circumstances have changed and while I do not wish for it back require to be transfered to another cheaper car than i can afford.

 

I am now being told that the deposit is Non-Transferable. Is this a new express term that voids the agreement or is this allowed. There was no mention of non-transferable on the receipt

 

Anymore detail i will happily oblige, he told me today it was non-transferable.

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had alot of views and respect them all. If you cannot advise of certainty, its a grey area i admit, can you speculate :D ... i have some contract law experience 20 years drafting construction contracts. And in my terms added an express term late had to be agreed, or else it wasnt or would allow renegotiation.

 

I always see most contracts ie plane tickets etc state expressly non-transferable. Is it implied deposits are therefore transferable unless expressly stated otherwise

 

I woudl like opinion , but would love case law.

 

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing with myself now.. is there a defined term for what is transferable.. i do not want to transfer the deposit to another person , just the understanding that the car company will allow the deposit to transfer on another car.

 

As there are no implied terms for used car sale, maybe I assume changes outside of consumer law have to be expressed.

 

The contract has no defined terms. Its a A4 piece of paper

 

I need a solicitor to confirm if deposits are implied non-transferable and what the transfer permits to

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would of thought a deposit on a car would be non transferable. At the point you ordered the car and left the deposit, the trader had to remove that car from sale thus losing potential sales on it. He also has to prepare the car for retail eg service, MOT and valet. Personally, If it were me I'd of tried to find a car to suit you at your new budget, just for the sake of customer service. But in these days of small margins and difficult trading I can understand the traders stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for comment. Why would you think a deposit is non-transferable. Thats why I am wondering why the biggest and best have to express the term. Its obviously not or they would not waste their ink. just wondering what case law made them express it. It is there some where.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And he did not valet or any-such, and he car was unsold for 6 months he local like me. if he did that would be a cost and not a penalty, penalties not allowed under contract law. Again maybe deposits differ still waiting on a solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, the purpose of a deposit is to show the seller that the customer wants to buy, the purpose is that in paying the deposit the customer then loses the deposit money if they change their mind.

 

you may have cancellation rights but only if the car dealership has given you the rights.

 

a deposit is non transferable because the car dealership can not be expected to lose money caused by customers changing their mind about what car they are going to purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear some dealers talking and not any solicitors, As a contract law specialist i will take my chances in small claims and let you know. If i was to tell a subbie i negotiated with that there were new conditions he would ask for a change request. A new condition/term was added outside of our agreement this make it up to me to accept or not. I choose not to.

 

You have the same right in any contract you go into when fundamental terms change. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They wont lose the money ... i didnt ask for a refund. Non-transferable is an express and should be expressed accordingly

 

i dont understand - it is an express and should be expressed accordingly?

 

the car dealers will lose money as described above!

 

when you gave them the deposit, you both entered into a contract. as you are now not buying, then the car dealership can pursue you and make a legal claim for their loss of profit from you, because you did not commit to your side of the contract. but i guess they would not bother doing this as that is what the deposit is used for...

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont understand - it is an express and should be expressed accordingly?

 

the car dealers will lose money as described above!

 

when you gave them the deposit, you both entered into a contract. as you are now not buying, then the car dealership can pursue you and make a legal claim for their loss of profit from you, because you did not commit to your side of the contract. but i guess they would not bother doing this as that is what the deposit is used for...

 

thanks for answer

 

1/ what loss of profit.. it has to be demonstrable.. loss of opportunity is a hard one to prove, very hard

2/ i did not sign a penalty clause

3/ he stated after the contract a new term , non-transferable.

 

why will they lose money, you are a dealer ?

 

what did they lose?

 

i want to buy he wont let me ..... he dint say i could not transfer

Link to post
Share on other sites

1/ already - the loss of profit is demonstrated by you paying the deposit. when you paid the deposit, you entered a legal contract with the car dealer.

2/ there is no penalty here. why do you need to sign a penalty clause?

3/ i can not see any car dealership that would allow transferable deposits on their cars

 

no i am not a car dealer.

 

they lost the ability to sell the car as you have broken your contract, other financial losses are getting the car ready for you etc... and this is represented in the deposit that you paid.

 

you say he wont let you buy?!?! he will let you buy the car you paid a deposit on but will not let you transfer the deposit to another car, he is not not letting you buy...

 

i really dont think you have much chance of getting your £500 back, especially as the car dealer said they wont let you transfer. as the car dealer wont do this to you, if you took this to court then i would guess that the car dealer would then make a counter claim for their financial losses... as well as there not being any chance of you winning this in court. hopefully someone else can magic something up for you, but the law seems to be with the car dealer on this one

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will allow them to make their assessment of loss the car is worth 1800 pounds, they added a new term to our agreement, i am dont disputing an obligation just the new term. Lots and lots and lots of dealerships transfer deposits. Google it.

 

I will take my chances. New terms need to be agreed by both parties. This is common law. I know law alot, but basic construction law, just wondering is their a statutory one with regards to transferable deposits. If there is not its a new term, why do you see non-transferable on most other agreements then ? i am curious why they bother.

 

If you are a solicitor please confirm, if offering opion thats great too.. but clarify as you may mislead like i might be other people. I am not a solicitor

Link to post
Share on other sites

im not a car dealer and am not a solicitor. just offering my opinion.

 

you say you will take your chances? this means you are prepared to take this to court? seriously i wish you all the best with that but its just my opinion that the court wont allow your case, - it would be struck out as you have no argument... or no case. and the the cardealer could make their counter claim against you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be generally held that deposits are non-transferable in the same way the general rule is that they're non-refundabe. This makes sense if you consider that in the majority of cases a contract for the supply of an item would only apply to that item. You are not making a contract for the supply of any car - you made a contract for the supply of a specific car that they will have incurred costs in preparing for sale and now re-listing for sale (whether or not these costs reflect the amount of deposit they're keeping is another matter).You mention deposits for plane tickets being expressly non-transferable and that is probably because they are providing a service and not a product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be generally held that deposits are non-transferable in the same way the general rule is that they're non-refundabe. This makes sense if you consider that in the majority of cases a contract for the supply of an item would only apply to that item. You are not making a contract for the supply of any car - you made a contract for the supply of a specific car that they will have incurred costs in preparing for sale and now re-listing for sale (whether or not these costs reflect the amount of deposit they're keeping is another matter).You mention deposits for plane tickets being expressly non-transferable and that is probably because they are providing a service and not a product.

 

not excactly correct, deposits become non refundable or non transferable if the T & C's specificallt state if or a contract states it. Airlines have it in their T & C's. If it wasnt mentioned in the contract or any T & C's then the OP can legitemately claim his deposit back less an agreed fee to recompense the seller for any demonstratable losses

Link to post
Share on other sites

not excactly correct, deposits become non refundable or non transferable if the T & C's specificallt state if or a contract states it. Airlines have it in their T & C's. If it wasnt mentioned in the contract or any T & C's then the OP can legitemately claim his deposit back less an agreed fee to recompense the seller for any demonstratable losses

 

So if there's no contract terms to the contrary then a deposit is automatically refundable? I don't think so. What about consequential loss? (which is what a deposit covers the vendor for in the event of a breach of contract). It's not me that's not exactly correct I'm afraid to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

im not a car dealer and am not a solicitor. just offering my opinion.

 

you say you will take your chances? this means you are prepared to take this to court? seriously i wish you all the best with that but its just my opinion that the court wont allow your case, - it would be struck out as you have no argument... or no case. and the the cardealer could make their counter claim against you.

 

counter claim against me for what ? for keeping my deposit. This is what the small claims are for, for people who believe they have a legitimate claim against a bigger opponent to test it in court. I have heard nothing clear unfortunately either way. It is all revolving around my request to use a term that is generally excluded from deposits so my I would argue not expressing the deposit is non-transferable implies that the deposit is transferable remember (just my opinion) as it is normal to include non-transferable ie "the man on the clapham bus" (sic) test. If they did not wish it to be non-transferable as some deposits state they should have said it.

 

I will let you now what happens. Be curious what I will be counter sued for.

 

Thanks for replies, and take care. Sorry for double post by the way

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if there's no contract terms to the contrary then a deposit is automatically refundable? I don't think so. What about consequential loss? (which is what a deposit covers the vendor for in the event of a breach of contract). It's not me that's not exactly correct I'm afraid to say.

 

and yes if the deposit states non-refundable the deposit is refundable less as you said costs, but that is basic law. I didnt ask I may add for a refund just transfer, I was happy to buy a car off him. He was unreasonable (maybe. maybe not) in not trying to negotiate less any costs he incurred preparing the vehicle, which he didnt. Moved it 3 feet. To offer nothing and rely on a term that was not expressed in the terms and conditions is a bit unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...