Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:57 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But it was an obvious mistake. It was an obvious mistake by the other dealer who has the car listed as a 2l when it is only a 1.6l.

The dealership where the OP was buying the car made a good faith attempt to find him the car he wanted. He seemed to have found the car. The OP like the sound of it, agreed to buy it and put down a deposit.

The OP then did some research into the car and found the clear error. He called the dealer, who after looking into it agreed that the OP was correct and obviously all interest in that car disappeared.

The dealership has his 200 deposit. That should be refunded.

But trying to hold that dealership responsible for the other dealers error is ridiculous.

I would side with FA and argue breach of contact. The OP fulfilled his side of the contract but the supplier did not fulfil theirs, notwithstanding the OPs clear requirements and negotiations to that effect. With the correct level of confidence I am sure the OP could obtain a remedy. Whether that's a 2.OL car or set aside of the contract with full refund (plus I would argue inconvenience costs).

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:01 pm  

SirBlighty wrote:

I get what you are saying but the dealership they sourced the car from is the same one just another branch.
The website show all cars from around the country but it's all one franchise. Funnily enough just been on auto trader and they are still advertising 1.6 cars as 2.0 although they must know after I kicked up a fuss.

Take a copy and if its a sizeable dealership go in and rant when they are full of customers and say to the other customers "I wouldn't buy anything here because....." You'd be surprised how that can hone minds.

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:31 pm  

Dally wrote:

Take a copy and if its a sizeable dealership go in and rant when they are full of customers and say to the other customers "I wouldn't buy anything here because....." You'd be surprised how that can hone minds.

To be honest, whenever I've seen a scene like that, I always tend to side with the shopkeeper/salesman and tend to think the person ranting is just a big-mouthed cock, who also happens to have been a bit dim that they have resorted to making a scene in a public place.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to buy from there, especially if the salesman has handled the situation with the ranting imbecile, in a mature and admirable way.

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:21 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But it was an obvious mistake. It was an obvious mistake by the other dealer who has the car listed as a 2l when it is only a 1.6l.

No, you are thinking about the wrong thing. We need to decide whether it should have been obvious to a would-be purchaser that there must have been a mistake for the reason that a 2.0 could never reasonably be for sale at that price. And it doesn't seem we have that situation here.

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:32 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

To be honest, whenever I've seen a scene like that, I always tend to side with the shopkeeper/salesman and tend to think the person ranting is just a big-mouthed cock, who also happens to have been a bit dim that they have resorted to making a scene in a public place.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to buy from there, especially if the salesman has handled the situation with the ranting imbecile, in a mature and admirable way.

My friend, a solicitor, does it with great success!

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:47 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

...
3. Initial cost - There is a claim fee and a hearing fee (£200 approx)

... but you get those back if you win

Ajw71 wrote:

...4. You may need to instruct a solicitor at further cost unless you know how to conduct litigation;

Not at all, the small claims track is specifically designed to discourage legal representation, and even if you turn up with a lawyer, he or she may find the judge gives them short shrift and just takes the case over.

Ajw71 wrote:

...6.You are highly unlikely to be awarded the car at the lower price - you have a duty to mitigate your loss which means you can't sit on your hands for six months bemoaning the fact they didn't sell you the car. You need to actively source another car and your claim would then be for the difference in price, not £1300.

But there isn't "a car" that exists which could "be awarded". By the date of any hearing the dealers will probably have turned over their stock many times. There's no chance that they would somehow "keep" the more expensive model and see what happens!

I actually think it is a case where specific performance could actually be the best remedy. The judgment would be I think that the defendants do provide the claimant with a 2.0L model within the spec at the contract price or alternatively pay him compo based on their own calculation of the loss: it is THEY who have conveniently taken a position that a 2.0L equivalent bought from them costs £X. If that is the case, and if the OP is happy to accept their assessment, then the value of his loss is simply the difference. That is based on the likelihood that being such a big dealership they would very likely have, or be able to easily get, another of the model he wanted.

If the OP did actually mitigate his loss as you say, then wouldn't he have achieved something which the dealer says is impossible, i.e. buying a 2.0L equivalent at a lower price than that quoted? It would make them look even more stupid.

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:09 pm  

Dally wrote:

My friend, a solicitor, does it with great success!

By emphasising your friend is a solicitor, you seem to assume that a solicitor can't be a cock?

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:33 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

... but you get those back if you win

...and if you don't win you don't get it back. It's a risk.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I actually think it is a case where specific performance could actually be the best remedy. The judgment would be I think that the defendants do provide the claimant with a 2.0L model within the spec at the contract price or alternatively pay him compo based on their own calculation of the loss: it is THEY who have conveniently taken a position that a 2.0L equivalent bought from them costs £X. If that is the case, and if the OP is happy to accept their assessment, then the value of his loss is simply the difference. That is based on the likelihood that being such a big dealership they would very likely have, or be able to easily get, another of the model he wanted.

Yes specific performance would be the best remedy for the Claimant. Very unlikely however.

The OP is hardly going to wait around 6 months in case the highly unlikely event occurs that 1) Judgment is entered for him and 2) Specific performance is ordered. He will just go out and buy another car and his claim will be for damages.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If the OP did actually mitigate his loss as you say, then wouldn't he have achieved something which the dealer says is impossible, i.e. buying a 2.0L equivalent at a lower price than that quoted? It would make them look even more stupid.

He has a duty to mitigate his loss as you well know. Whether it makes people look stupid is irrelevant.

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:41 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

By emphasising your friend is a solicitor, you seem to assume that a solicitor can't be a cock?

Not at all. It's a matter of what you say and your rationale rather than having a big mouth that counts. Maybe you should try it sometime?

Re: car salesman : Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:03 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

By emphasising your friend is a solicitor, you seem to assume that a solicitor can't be a cock?

In my experience, people are quite happy to bad mouth solicitors, until they are sat in a police station going 5p 50p because someone has accused them of a criminal offence.

At which point the first thing they do is ask the police to get them a solicitor.