Prev: Run-flat repairs?
Next: Trailer Electrics. Problems when unhooking
From: steve robinson on 27 May 2010 11:36
Andy Cap wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:17:46 +0100, Michael Hubert Kenyon
> <enemabandit(a)virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Why can't the original owner claim, on the grounds that he has
> had to recompense >> the purchaser, which he should do anyway
> because he sold him a pup?
> >
> > Because the car doesn't belong to him anymore. If I sell a car I
> > can't pass on a warrenty from the guy who owned it three owners
> > before me can I?
>
> I don't see why that is relevent. He has sustained a monetary loss
> due to someone else's negligence and it is up to the Court to
> decide is he is entitled to compensation. The whereabouts of the
> car make no difference to that fact.
>
> Andy C

Yes it does , the law is quite clear in this matter .

The op has no contract with the garage

This was a private not business transaction , further limiting any
scope of claim

The seller wasnt aware of any faults before he sold the car , the
purchaser never asked about recent repairworks or had the vehicle
inspected

The seller cant sue because he has suffered no financial loss and
further didnt own the vehicle when the problems arose.

The op could sue the seller however he would need to show the seller
was aware of the faults and that he failed to disclose such faults
when asked

From: Peter Parry on 27 May 2010 11:43
On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:21:37 +0100, Andy Cap <Andy_Cap(a)nosuch.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>The original owner will have had to compensate the purchaser for the essential
>work and will thus be out of pocket due to the garage's negligence.

I doubt if a case against the original owner would succeed. There are
no implied terms as to quality in a private sale so the fact the car
failed shortly after sale does not create a breach of contract.

>I can't see
>how that is not the case and he must therefore have a claim against the garage.
>It is not a warranty issue but purely a monetary one.

If the original owner had to recompense the new purchaser they would
indeed be able to sue the garage.
From: steve robinson on 27 May 2010 11:43
Andy Cap wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:13:03 +0100, Miffed <verymiffed(a)tiscali.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> > He has not! He has no more contract with the fitter than he has
> > with the petrol filling station the previous owner used. His
> > contract is with the previous owner who as a private person he
> > will have no comeback on whatsoever. Any legal action would be
> > doomed to fail.
>
> The original owner will have had to compensate the purchaser for
> the essential work and will thus be out of pocket due to the
> garage's negligence. I can't see how that is not the case and he
> must therefore have a claim against the garage. It is not a
> warranty issue but purely a monetary one.


The seller doesnt have to compensate the buyer , he may choose to
however this wouldnt automatically mean the garage has to meet this
liability as the sellers actions were far beyond his legal
obligations .



From: steve robinson on 27 May 2010 11:46
Peter Parry wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:18:48 -0700 (PDT), "Robert D."
> <robertdale(a)guerillamail.org> wrote:
>
>
> > My question is: as they incorrectly fitted the new clutch, as
> > confirmed by 2 independent garages who know the work would not be
> > carried out by them even before they found the problem, are the
> > original fitting garage liable in any way for some/all costs?
>
> They might be - but not to you.
>
> No contract exists between you and the original garage so you cannot
> demand money from them.
>
> The only route would be for you to sue the person who sold you the
> car and then for them in turn to sue the garage that did the work.
> However, it was a private sale. As such there are no "implied
> terms" about quality which you would get in a consumer contract.
> Therefore the chances of successfully suing the previous owner are
> low.
>
> Basically, you have little chance of getting anything back from the
> person from whom you bought the car and none whatsoever of getting
> anything directly from the original garage .

Even if the seller offered to reimburse the purchaser as a matter of
princible , the garage wouldnt have to reimburse the seller as the
sellers actions were beyond what the law requires
From: steve robinson on 27 May 2010 11:48
Peter Parry wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:21:37 +0100, Andy Cap <Andy_Cap(a)nosuch.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The original owner will have had to compensate the purchaser for
> > the essential work and will thus be out of pocket due to the
> > garage's negligence.
>
> I doubt if a case against the original owner would succeed. There
> are no implied terms as to quality in a private sale so the fact
> the car failed shortly after sale does not create a breach of
> contract.
>
> > I can't see
> > how that is not the case and he must therefore have a claim
> > against the garage. It is not a warranty issue but purely a
> > monetary one.
>
> If the original owner had to recompense the new purchaser they would
> indeed be able to sue the garage.

Only if the original owner was legally obliged to recompense the
purchaser not as a matter of princible
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Run-flat repairs?
Next: Trailer Electrics. Problems when unhooking