Car sold illegally. What is my position?

[The Chippy]

I purchased a car earlier this year, paid the deposit, then the balance on the day prior to picking it up, yet when I went to pick it, the garage told me they were not willing to sell me the car.
They returned my money but I refused to accept it all back as I'm sure the car is legally mine.

It is now in the hands of the solicitors as I have a signed sales receipt. I upheld my side of the contract yet they failed to deliver.

The car has since been sold for a considerable amount more as it was a special edition and the car sale accompany obviously didn't realise it when they sold me the car but obviously got notified before I managed to pick it up.

As I say, I am taking them to court and wish to pursue specific performance as it is a very rare and expensive car that I have not seen for sale for many years.

I just wanted your opinions on how the car would need to be repossessed from the current keeper as I am the owner of the car and the garage sold it illegally without my permission?

Thanks in advance for any opinions and/or lawful information.

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Hi and welcome.

I'm sorry to say you might not recover this vehicle.
I believe that when a seller retains possession of a vehicle and then goes on to sell it to a different buyer, the last buyer gains good title to the vehicle. Somewhere I am sure I saw case law on this, I'll have to try and find it.

I think your best action would be to sue the dealer as bailee for tort of conversion. In the event you are successful he would have to reimburse you the value of the vehicle, not just your purchase price

What does your solicitor advise?

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

It wasn't case law but statute: Sale of goods act 1979:
Sec 24. Where a person having sold goods continues or is in possession of the goods, or of the document s of title to the goods,the delivery or transfer by that person, or by a mercantile agentacting for him, of the goods or documents of title under any sale,pledge, or other disposition thereof, to any person receiving thesame in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, hasthe same effect as if the person making the delivery or transferwere expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to makethe same.

[Amethyst]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

lol, got to love the plain english clarity of the law. I think the bold underliney bits make sense, but the red bit loses me completely ??

Where a person having sold goods continues or is in possession of the goods, or of the document s of title to the goods,the delivery or transfer by that person, or by a mercantile agentacting for him, of the goods or documents of title under any sale,pledge, or other disposition thereof, to any person receiving thesame in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, has the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transferwere expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same.

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

It means the second sale is as valid as if the seller was acting as agent of the first purchaser, i.e. the last purchaser gains good title to the goods.

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

just to note

[The Chippy]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Thanks everyone. As someone says, it's very confusing with the way it's written!

I am the owner of the vehicle as I purchased it and paid in full.

How can they sell the vehicle to someone else legally?

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

How can they sell the vehicle to someone else legally?

Because that's what the statute states.
I can understand your feelings, but if you were to gain possession of the vehicle the second purchaser, having bought in good faith, would then be aggrieved.
The law has therefore been written, and unfortunately in this instance to your detriment.
However the seller has to refund you the VALUE of the vehicle, not what you paid.

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

[MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION], the case your looking for I think is Pacific Motor Auctions Pty v Motor Credits Ltd 1965 as per Lord Pearce, this is the paragraph your after.

The point under section 28(1) turns on the construction of the words "where a person having sold the goods continues or is in possession of the goods .... it applies to a purchase from any kind of seller made in good faith and without notice of the previous sale.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

I purchased a car earlier this year, paid the deposit, then the balance on the day prior to picking it up, yet when I went to pick it, the garage told me they were not willing to sell me the car.
They returned my money but I refused to accept it all back as I'm sure the car is legally mine.

It is now in the hands of the solicitors as I have a signed sales receipt. I upheld my side of the contract yet they failed to deliver.

The car has since been sold for a considerable amount more as it was a special edition and the car sale accompany obviously didn't realise it when they sold me the car but obviously got notified before I managed to pick it up.

As I say, I am taking them to court and wish to pursue specific performance as it is a very rare and expensive car that I have not seen for sale for many years.

I just wanted your opinions on how the car would need to be repossessed from the current keeper as I am the owner of the car and the garage sold it illegally without my permission?

Thanks in advance for any opinions and/or lawful information.

This area of law is very complex, controversial and relates to resale and title. SGA for resale (seller's remedies) is drafted extremely bad but the essence of it is for unpaid sellers/ their third party commercial agents. Technically when they accepted the terms for you to purchase that unique car and deposit (which is not a nominal amount, ie not a £1 for legal purposes) they breached their contract and normally your remedy would be damages, including the balance between what you originally paid for the car and its current value. However, you seek specific performance of the contract albeit it's not possible for that to happen from the original seller, as the car has been sold on to the new buyer. One question, why did the seller change their mind and how much was the car resold for? You had legal ownership once you had fulfilled your side of the contract, where the garage was then in possession of your car until you could arrange delivery, either by yourself or the garage. If you had legal ownership ie title but not possession, the question then we have to ask is it illegal? You were offered your money back but you would not accept it.

NB: if this were property (ie land) and the property was sold fraudulently, you could claim the property back. If you were given a receipt for a sale - this should be confirmation of title, ie ownership. If the seller told the 2nd buyer (with you being the first) that the car was theirs to sell this is a misrepresentation, so is potentially fraud. If this car was sold fraudulently, you should be able to claim it back based on the equitable rules of property. I cannot see why there should be special treatment for homes fraudulently sold and not cars.

Problem: expensive solution. How much is the car worth versus what would it cost to get it back - the remedies are in contract or tort but contract seems to be adequate, losses including current value of the car

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

lol, got to love the plain english clarity of the law. I think the bold underliney bits make sense, but the red bit loses me completely ??

Where a person having sold goods continues or is in possession of the goods, or of the document s of title to the goods,the delivery or transfer by that person, or by a mercantile agentacting for him, of the goods or documents of title under any sale,pledge, or other disposition thereof, to any person receiving thesame in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, has the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transferwere expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same.

resale is s.25, SGA 1979 - ie buyer in possession.. whereas s.24 is seller in possession.

- - - Updated - - -

@des8, the case your looking for I think is Pacific Motor Auctions Pty v Motor Credits Ltd 1965 as per Lord Pearce, this is the paragraph your after.

This relates to s.24, SGA - seller in possession. On the facts seller is not in possession.

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

@Openlaw15

Please can you confirm from the original posters first post that the seller was not in possession of the vehicle when he sold it? If you can then I'll agree with you that s24 does not apply but im certain you can't so I'm afraid I have to disagree and say that it does apply. Might be another case of not/mis-reading the facts?

p.s. there is no fraud or misrepresentation here because that would be the remedies for the third party. This is simply breach of contract and conversion/wrongful interference with goods are most applicable.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

@Openlaw15

"Please can you confirm from the original posters first post that the seller was not in possession of the vehicle when he sold it? If you can then I'll agree with you that s24 does not apply but im certain you can't so I'm afraid I have to disagree and say that it does apply. Might be another case of not/mis-reading the facts?"

This is academic really as the seller no longer has possession. .The second buyer has possession and ownership.

p.s. there is no fraud or misrepresentation here because that would be the remedies for the third party. This is simply breach of contract and conversion/wrongful interference with goods are most applicable.

There is potentially fraud by the seller but not the 2nd buyer. No there are no issues of fraud with the third party (2nd buyer). However it may be possible for OP to trace the fraudulent goods (ie car) to the second buyer and claim it under the law of equity. As I say although it is possible it very likely to be expensive, which makes it un-economically viable.

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

There is potentially fraud by the seller but not the 2nd buyer. No there are no issues of fraud with the third party (2nd buyer). However it may be possible for OP to trace the fraudulent goods (ie car) to the second buyer and claim it under the law of equity. As I say although it is possible it very likely to be expensive, which makes it un-economically viable.

But how can the 1st buyer claim fraud when there was no element of fraud when the sale for the car was made? buyer agrees to pay X, seller accepts and that is that. There is no false rep, abuse of position or failure to disclose when the contract was made between the two parties. Am I missing something?

This is academic really as the seller no longer has possession. .The second buyer has possession and ownership.

Can you explain this, I don't understand this point either. You said that s24 doesn't apply because the seller wasn't in possession of the goods but the above doesn't explain your reason why?

s24 states

where the person having sold the goods continues or is in possession of the goods ... the delivery or transfer by that person ... to another receiving the same in good faith and without notice of the previous sale ... has the same effect as if the person ... were expressly authorised by the owner to make the same

So, the seller refuses to hand the goods over (breach of contract but still in possession after sale as payment already made) but then goes on to sell the goods to a third party, presumably without the third party being told that it had already sold and therefore s24 applies.

[Amethyst]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

The seller - the garage - had the car in his possession when he sold it to the second buyer as the OP ( the first buyer) hadn't taken possession yet.

Would there be any claim on loss of chance ref the breach of contract ?