SoGA Going round in circles !

[mowerman]

A used car dealer endorses his sales invoice by hand “No warranty given or implied and not sold as fit for any purpose whatsoever”. The consumer buyer initials this statement.
Defects are discovered day after sale.
The buyer cites the relevant sections of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 - specifically Section 14 (2B) (a) ‘fit for purpose’ - to support his claim for repair.
The seller declines repair citing the SoGA Section 14 (4) “An implied term about quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.” saying that as he stated ‘not fit for any purpose’ on his invoice that absolves him of responsibility under the implied term in section 14 (2B) (a)
Given that Section 14 (2B) (a) is an implied term, ie as if it appeared on the sales invoice, coupled with the sellers ‘not fit for any purpose’ statement there appears to be two contradictory terms on the same document. Who’s right ?

 

[Posilan]

Not sure who is legally right or wrong, but I know I wouldn't buy anything off any trader that was so blatantly trying to shirk his legal obligations at the point of sale!

Steve

 

[MrCloser]

“No warranty given or implied and not sold as fit for any purpose whatsoever”.

Why sign it if they didn't buy under those terms? I wouldn't

Sounds like buyers remorse to me. Isn't the real story that he bought a cheap 'trade' px from a dealer, something a bit too old for the forecourt. He then finds although he saved a grand on his 8 year old car needs some tidying up and work for the next MOT.

If genuinely bought off a forecourt from a dealer then he has responsibilites without a doubt. A lot of problems occour when concerned new owner brings car into local garage for a check up and they sometimes 'find' work.

Not such a high standard, but would the car pass an MOT tommorrow? Are we talking significant faults ie expensive repairs to engine or transmission?

Was the car HPI checked?

 

[deniser]

If the car was sold as not fit for any purpose whatsoever, then presumably it was not sold as a car to be driven, but possibly just for spare parts. It sounds as though it was correctly described and that the proviso overrides the implied term.

Discussions about warranties etc. should have taken place long before the point of sale.

 

[Cylon]

A used car dealer endorses his sales invoice by hand “No warranty given or implied and not sold as fit for any purpose whatsoever”. The consumer buyer initials this statement.
Defects are discovered day after sale.

First off is this a real life situation or an exam question??
Common sense would dictate that the buyer was aware he/she just a bought a box of spare parts. But the seller just writing by hand on the invoice leaves me to question whether this writing was added after the contract was completed and just a scribbled initial is not enough.

The seller should have separate paperwork for situations like this so as to remove all doubt that a vehicle sold for spares or repair is not fit for any purpose at the point of sale.

Does the buyer deny initialing the statement and does he have a copy of the sales invoice with the same wording on it..

 

[internetspaceships]

If it's a real statment and not an exam question then the buyer is a twit.

A special term is noted on the sale contract in plain English. He's initialled it specifically as an acceptance of those terms. Then he wants to cry off a day later - when he finds faults (quelle surprise!) An item not fit for any purpose and with no warranty with faults! Noes!

Words cannot describe the guy's stupidity, no matter which way you look at it.

 

[Dbennett006]

Not sure if this applies, but could the way the "dealer" promoted the car affect this contract?

For example if it was in an auto trader advert and said things like: "Tax'd and MOT'd till Jan 2013" or "good little run around" or "perfect as a first car" or even "low tax and insurance group" then surely this dealer is implying that this is a car and would be fit for that purpose?

 

[deniser]

Not sure if this applies, but could the way the "dealer" promoted the car affect this contract?

For example if it was in an auto trader advert and said things like: "Tax'd and MOT'd till Jan 2013" or "good little run around" or "perfect as a first car" or even "low tax and insurance group" then surely this dealer is implying that this is a car and would be fit for that purpose?

Yes, that's right but then why did the buyer initial the receipt?

 

[Dbennett006]

Yes, that's right but then why did the buyer initial the receipt?

The mind boggles as to why...

 

[MrCloser]

The mind boggles as to why...

Quick's Car supermarket ?

 

Not sure who is legally right or wrong, but I know I wouldn't buy anything off any trader that was so blatantly trying to shirk his legal obligations at the point of sale!

Steve

Oh contrare I think he stated in plain english that the car was not fit for use.

I.E a scrapper.

So whoever bought it was .

A ) an idiot.

B ) a gambler.

C ) a scrap dealer.

 

[MrCloser]

d) a motor trader

e) collector / enthusiast / diy grease monkey who fixes cars


- i.e not the general public, therefore buyers who can inspect and take a risk.

Often buyers want it both ways: a sold as seen trade deal until it goes wrong, then they become a member of the general public again screaming SOGA.

 

[arcon5]

It's worth print fit for purpose means for for its intended purpose, not fit for the purpose the buyer intended... Unless of course the intended purpose was discussed with the seller and agreed it would be sufficient for such purpose.

For example... If you buy a mug with the intention of using it as a mallet, you cannot claim its not fit for purpose as its purpose was to hold liquids. In this case if the car was sold as faulty or unroadworthy then it's purpose was clearly not to be used without repair or work so you cannot play this not fit for purpose card and the item is in fact as described.

 

[TurricanII]

Not sure if this applies, but could the way the "dealer" promoted the car affect this contract?

For example if it was in an auto trader advert and said things like: "Tax'd and MOT'd till Jan 2013" or "good little run around" or "perfect as a first car" or even "low tax and insurance group" then surely this dealer is implying that this is a car and would be fit for that purpose?

As well as the 'fit for purpose' bit, the SoGA does include a 'Not As Described' term. If you have a copy of the advert and it could be said that the item was not as described (incorrect number of previous owners/mileage/condition), then I would ask to cancel the sale on that basis:

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...econd-hand-cars/second-hand-cars-your-rights/

If you get any resistance and threaten Moneyclaim Online/Small Claims then they might work with you just to get you off their case.

That said, I have to agree with others that a banger was bought and that your friend is in fact a 'customer from hell'!

How much money was involved?

Edited to add - I am not a lawyer, have not used the above advice myself - it is just something for you to think about!