Scum Bag Trying To Scam Me

[ClutchBurndout-:(]

i sold my VL commodore about a month ago to a fellow in bendigo (i live in berwick) and a month later (today) he contacts me saying that the car isnt working, dosent even start, he drove it home and its sitting in his yard ever since. is this guy for real? the car was in perfect condition apart from some cosmetic stuff, and my father used it to get to work days before the buyer picked it up.

what are my rights here? this scumbag is threatening to call the authorities to come down with the car with him to get a refund.

i was going to suggest giving him my mechanics number who did the rwc on it only 2 months before i sold it, but would this be putting my mechanics license in jeopardy?

i know for certain there was nothing wrong with the car when it left my house, i even watched him drive off with no issues, now hes freakin me out with all this legal talk.

any suggestions?

[Munkyb0y]

it's not your problem. unless you provided some kind of magic mushroom private sale warranty. the authorities are not going to care about his story.

he bought it a month ago. end of story.

[itsme]

Yeh mate, not your problem - if you are really worried just have a read of the contract you signed and it should be pretty clear that once he agrees to the purchase the car and all its associated problems are his whether you were at fault or his poor inspection.

In all of this I would have no legal worry my only worry would be that this guy doesnt sound like a mental giant and is already dishonest from the way your story reads I would be more concerned that somebody this retarded knows where you live and whilst he might be threatening with legal action as soon as he finds out he doesnt have a leg to stand on he may take out his frustration on your house.

Any threats he makes I would keep record of and just keep a close eye on your place and your car and hopefully he will stop being a douche, grow some nuts and just fix the car himself and deal with it.

all the best.

[SECURITY]

once the car is transferred out of your name and into his, it is now his property regardless of whats wrong with it.

same goes for people who buy cars with money still owing on it - the loan becomes their problem, not the previous owner's.

its not your problem, dont do him any favours because he sounds like a cock. anything he says is a scare tactic and holds no weight.

[dan_the_man]

i sold my VL commodore about a month ago to a fellow in bendigo (i live in berwick) and a month later (today) he contacts me saying that the car isnt working, dosent even start, he drove it home and its sitting in his yard ever since. is this guy for real? the car was in perfect condition apart from some cosmetic stuff, and my father used it to get to work days before the buyer picked it up.

what are my rights here? this scumbag is threatening to call the authorities to come down with the car with him to get a refund.

i was going to suggest giving him my mechanics number who did the rwc on it only 2 months before i sold it, but would this be putting my mechanics license in jeopardy?

i know for certain there was nothing wrong with the car when it left my house, i even watched him drive off with no issues, now hes freakin me out with all this legal talk.

any suggestions?

buyer beware. he bought the car privately on a "as is" condition.

If he wanted a warranty/fall back he should have bought from a dealer.

Unfortunate for him though.

[Mr Eps]

tell him over the phone to check the VL's ECU for a user initiated ID - ten - T issue...

from what you've told me it sounds like that's the problem

if he's very clever - he'll work it out..

...ID... 10... T

user initiated ID10T.

=)

[KezR33]

Barlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd

Facts:

Prior to buying a secondhand motor car from the defendants, the plaintiff took the car for a trial run with the defendants' salesman, during which the plaintiff was told by the defendants' salesman that there was something wrong with the clutch and with the oil pressure gauge. He suggested that either the clutch needed bleeding or there was a leak between the principal and the slave cylinders. Neither of these would be serious matters. The plaintiff, trading in his own car, was offered the car at £575, if it were first attended to by the defendants, or £550 if he had the repairs to the clutch done himself. He agreed to have the clutch repaired at his own expense and bought the car for £550. There was a written contract. It included “Oil pressure and filter circuit to be checked. Clutch to be bled at client's expense.” Having bought the car, the plaintiff drove it for four weeks and travelled about three hundred miles without trouble. The car was then taken to a garage for repair, where it was found that the defect in the clutch was far more serious than either the plaintiff or the defendants' salesman had imagined. It cost £45 to put right. Bartlett sued for breach of the implied conditions of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose.

Decision:

The English Court of Appeal rejected the buyer's claims. son of rajab Denning MR said that a used car was fit for its purposes if 'it is in a roadworthy condition, fit to be driven along the road in safety, even though not as perfect as a new car'.

[dan_the_man]

same goes for people who buy cars with money still owing on it - the loan becomes their problem, not the previous owner's.

Well no. That is incorrect. The loan is still in the original purchasers name. If the original purchaser fails to pay it back, then the car can be repossessed from the new owner as the finance company still holds the ownership of the vehicle for the loans security.

The new owner's credit rating would not be tainted.

[defari]

probably been said but whats to say he didnt break something on his way home..

i wouldnt worry about him.

^^ dan is right too about encumbered cars, i deal with this crap on a daily basis

Edited September 7, 2010 by defari

[ClutchBurndout-:(]

thanks for the info guys, i think hes chilled down now, he kept going on about me selling him a lemon and the transmission was rooted yet he couldnt start it after he got it home, dont know why he was saying that, so i think hes busted something on the way home and cant get the roady on it or whatever.

thanks again guys, i nearly popped a vein stressing since i cant afford to give him a refund.

[dan_the_man]

your house will probably get egged in a month. sucks

[ClutchBurndout-:(]

your house will probably get egged in a month. sucks

ikr

[SECURITY]

Well no. That is incorrect. The loan is still in the original purchasers name. If the original purchaser fails to pay it back, then the car can be repossessed from the new owner as the finance company still holds the ownership of the vehicle for the loans security.

The new owner's credit rating would not be tainted.

you just explained my point. its technically no longer the previous owner's problem once the car has changed titles if they wanted to be dodgy. the new owner pays the price for the loan as their car gets repossessed.

[TUFF_350]

i sold my VL commodore about a month ago to a fellow in bendigo (i live in berwick) and a month later (today) he contacts me saying that the car isnt working, dosent even start, he drove it home and its sitting

f**king balls on this guy,

i thought everyone knew that private sales mean savings versus stealership but no added extras like warranty etc. Dont abuse him or anything or yes house, skyline may be in jeopardy

[elrodeo666]

tell him over the phone to check the VL's ECU for a user initiated ID - ten - T issue...

from what you've told me it sounds like that's the problem

if he's very clever - he'll work it out..

...ID... 10... T

user initiated ID10T.

=)

LOL

[HEKT1K]

he sounds like a cock.

this.

Barlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd

Facts:

Prior to buying a secondhand motor car from the defendants, the plaintiff took the car for a trial run with the defendants' salesman, during which the plaintiff was told by the defendants' salesman that there was something wrong with the clutch and with the oil pressure gauge. He suggested that either the clutch needed bleeding or there was a leak between the principal and the slave cylinders. Neither of these would be serious matters. The plaintiff, trading in his own car, was offered the car at £575, if it were first attended to by the defendants, or £550 if he had the repairs to the clutch done himself. He agreed to have the clutch repaired at his own expense and bought the car for £550. There was a written contract. It included "Oil pressure and filter circuit to be checked. Clutch to be bled at client's expense." Having bought the car, the plaintiff drove it for four weeks and travelled about three hundred miles without trouble. The car was then taken to a garage for repair, where it was found that the defect in the clutch was far more serious than either the plaintiff or the defendants' salesman had imagined. It cost £45 to put right. Bartlett sued for breach of the implied conditions of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose.

Decision:

The English Court of Appeal rejected the buyer's claims. son of rajab Denning MR said that a used car was fit for its purposes if 'it is in a roadworthy condition, fit to be driven along the road in safety, even though not as perfect as a new car'.

Not necessarily binding in Aus... as gorgeous as Denning's discourse is

basically it's caveat emptor as stated above.

[defari]

you just explained my point. its technically no longer the previous owner's problem once the car has changed titles if they wanted to be dodgy. the new owner pays the price for the loan as their car gets repossessed.

keep thinking that.. i deal with this on a daily basis..

if you buy an encumbered car - client i.e a bank - needs to be paid out usually within 48 hours to settle the account. If this does not happen - the bank usually will place the car at risk and will actively pursue any lead to locate the car i.e issue it to debt collectors etc. If the car cannot be located / loan has not been paid - usually it will be reported to police as a stolen vehicle.. (after all its the banks property and its at risk) chances are the new owner (who probably has no idea its encumbered unless he's paid for the revs check etc etc) police WILL take the car - the bank then gets notified the car has been recovered - usually it will just go to auction after they try recover funds from previous owner.

in the end, the person who buys an encumbered car loses out.. The car gets taken, no questions asked, its up to them to then persue the previous owner for his refund whether that be going to his house to demand the refund or going through the courts..

[syfon]

I know that in WA it's basically buyer beware. If you buy a lemon at a private sale, that's your problem, not the buyer's.

You only get the mandatory 3month warranty if you buy a 2nd hand car from a dealer.

[dan_the_man]

you just explained my point. its technically no longer the previous owner's problem once the car has changed titles if they wanted to be dodgy. the new owner pays the price for the loan as their car gets repossessed.

alright man. what ever you say

You only get the mandatory 3month warranty if you buy a 2nd hand car from a dealer.

Unless it is under $5k though yea? Then you have a warranty between when you sign the OTP and the front gate

[SECURITY]

keep thinking that.. i deal with this on a daily basis..

if you buy an encumbered car - client i.e a bank - needs to be paid out usually within 48 hours to settle the account. If this does not happen - the bank usually will place the car at risk and will actively pursue any lead to locate the car i.e issue it to debt collectors etc. If the car cannot be located / loan has not been paid - usually it will be reported to police as a stolen vehicle.. (after all its the banks property and its at risk) chances are the new owner (who probably has no idea its encumbered unless he's paid for the revs check etc etc) police WILL take the car - the bank then gets notified the car has been recovered - usually it will just go to auction after they try recover funds from previous owner.

in the end, the person who buys an encumbered car loses out.. The car gets taken, no questions asked, its up to them to then persue the previous owner for his refund whether that be going to his house to demand the refund or going through the courts..

keep thinking what?? we're (dan the man, you and i) thinking the same thing.

let me simplify it for the slow ones out there today...

person A wants to sell a car. The car has money owing on it.

person B buys car and changes title into their name, unaware of money owing on it.

bank has not been paid since person A did not pay the loan.

bank pursues the recovery of their assets (car).

person B is without car as it has been repossessed.

so who loses out? person B.

alright man. what ever you say

yeah there bro.