Car sold illegally. What is my position?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Contract basics: offer and acceptance. Prior to acceptance the offer (25k for car) can be revoked by the seller up to the point of acceptance. Where there is no revocation by the seller before acceptance, without getting too deep, it's a contract. Ownership, ie papers sales receipt = transferred ownership to buyer 1. Seller will be panicking now, consulting his own solicitor and this lawyer will be looking for ways out of the contract. If the contract is sealed it is binding. OP's lawyer will be counter-arguing says any subsequent contracts by the seller for the same vehicle are in essence illegal and therefore void. Seller's lawyer will then quote s.25 and s.47 SGA 1979 saying the buyer is protected. The OPs lawyer will say those precedents are too stale for the modern age. OP therefore has a case whether he'll be successful.. watch this space. In contract 1, Op's best remedy is its current market value which is at least 25k more than the original purpose, so OP will benefit 25k...as well as other remedies to try and get the car back. This seems unlikely as any such claims would be made in equity and they're notoriously expensive.

[mariefab]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

It appears that the Privy Council's decision wasn't considered too stale 2 years ago. (Para. 45 below)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/3159.html

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

In contract 1, Op's best remedy is its current market value which is at least 25k more than the original purpose, so OP will benefit 25k...as well as other remedies to try and get the car back. This seems unlikely as any such claims would be made in equity and they're notoriously expensive.

As per posts 2 & 3 so why the journey round the houses?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Well to be fair I am not practicing commercial law or any law in fact, so I am bound to be somewhat rusty, whereas you guys have been here several years collectively. How often do issues of resale defences pertaining to commercial law actually crop up? Not many I would say. Contract law is hard enough but commercial is off the planet.. hard. The defences of s.25 & s.47 SGA are commercial defences. It is not so black and white matter of fact, it's actually very grey. The other problem is OP is not a commercial entity but likely a consumer so although commercial lawyers would argue it protects 2nd buyers, would it apply in the modern age is the question. You guys come on here and look for simple solutions, simple ideas, but law is anything but simple it is extremely complex and old precedents do not mean they withstand the test of time as then common law would not have democratic institutions as courts are in that they represent modern democratic remedies in free countries.

[The Chippy]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Thanks once again everyone and please do not bow out of the conversation, I need your help!!

I've been trying to read through and understand the SOGA and it seems that S21 and S24 seem to contradict each other somewhat?
S24 states that the goods can be sold twice in good faith but S21 states that it is illegal to sell something when it's not yours???

I don't understand this. I bought the car therefore it is mine. I paid in full. So it's mine. But which law is correct S21 or S24???

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Hi Chippy,

Normal contract law: ie illegal contracts are void: Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 225.

Commercial law:

s.48, SGA 1979 permits seller to re-sell (sub-sale) providing: buyer 1 given notice of resale; a reasonable period to make payment; seller is unpaid and goods are perishable; contract states rights to ownership where buyer 1 defaults. Where s.48 qualifications apply but must be a unpaid seller for defences to rely on s.24., SGA 1979. Chippy, you paid though so this defence is redundant for the seller. Commercial law: defence for 2nd buyer who 'innocently' purchases: s.25, s.47, SGA 1979. s.25/ s.47 is based on ancient precedent commercial law cases, but commercial lawyers will say it still applies: s.25/ s.47, Sales of Goods Act 1893 (the same words as s.25/ s.47, 1979 Act) was considered in Mordaunt Brothers v The British Oil and Cake Mills [1910] 2 KB 502.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

It appears that the Privy Council's decision wasn't considered too stale 2 years ago. (Para. 45 below)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/3159.html

The 2013 case which cited the Privy Council, 1965 was obiter dictum, ie said in passing without being any binding authority. Privy Council deal with territories outside the UK so where decisions are made by them they're not legally binding but possibly persuasive.

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Thanks once again everyone and please do not bow out of the conversation, I need your help!!

I've been trying to read through and understand the SOGA and it seems that S21 and S24 seem to contradict each other somewhat?
S24 states that the goods can be sold twice in good faith but S21 states that it is illegal to sell something when it's not yours???

I don't understand this. I bought the car therefore it is mine. I paid in full. So it's mine. But which law is correct S21 or S24???

There is a difference in that Sec 21 refers to a sale where the seller is not the owner etc, but Sec 24 refers to a sale where the seller is not the owner etc, but remains in possession of the goods following an earlier sale..
In other words sec 21 is referring to cases where the seller has eg come into possession of the goods by theft, whereas sec 24 would refer to incidents like yours where the seller had previously good title, but having sold the goods retains possession of them.

[des8]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

. You guys come on here and look for simple solutions, simple ideas, but law is anything but simple it is extremely complex.

I cannot disagree with that statement.
However in practice, for the levels at which we are dealing, and with the people we try to assist, it is better generally to keep things simple.
Mostly small claims, the persons involved are not solicitors, and it is expedient not to overcomplicate the position.
On occasions we do encounter solicitors advising the other side.
They tend to go in deep, but it is to the LiP's advantage to keep things simple, and not enter into legalistic arguments.
We recently helped a poster on here succeed against solicitors and a barrister in a small claim case.
The advice was to keep it simple and not get drawn into legalistic arguments and red herrings.( http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ighlight=uncle)

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

The only way I can see you reclaiming possession of the car is if you can find any proof that the third party was aware that the car had already been sold. Then the third party would not be able to rely on s25, otherwise the only other option will be monetary damages. Unfortunately the most recent purchase takes precedence over any earlier sale.

[The Chippy]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Not sure whether it makes any difference but it was sold via auction?

The new buyer would not have been aware of my purchase as it was sold in this auction.

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

No difference, the point still stands and you are very much not likely to recover the car, I can only see a monetary value for this.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

Hi Chippy,

Normal contract law: ie illegal contracts are void: Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 225.

Commercial law:

s.48, SGA 1979 permits seller to re-sell (sub-sale) providing: buyer 1 given notice of resale; a reasonable period to make payment; seller is unpaid and goods are perishable; contract states rights to ownership where buyer 1 defaults. Where s.48 qualifications apply but must be a unpaid seller for defences to rely on s.24., SGA 1979. Chippy, you paid though so this defence is redundant for the seller. Commercial law: defence for 2nd buyer who 'innocently' purchases: s.25, s.47, SGA 1979. s.25/ s.47 is based on ancient precedent commercial law cases, but commercial lawyers will say it still applies: s.25/ s.47, Sales of Goods Act 1893 (the same words as s.25/ s.47, 1979 Act) was considered in Mordaunt Brothers v The British Oil and Cake Mills [1910] 2 KB 502.

This is the law that commercial lawyers base it off - I don't think there is any more to be said and if any other legislation were cited for seller remedies, and buyer 2 remedies, well to be frank I have not come across them and I studied commercial transactions. This is the way law works it's not up for debate except to speculate erroneously. Material facts -seller was paid so s.48 was not adhered to so cannot rely on s.24 defence. Buyer 2's defence is based on s.25 and 47 read together, if Op's solicitor were to try and claim the car based on law. This does not affect his right to remedies in equity however costly. I have said what I have said, have concluded what I have concluded with the above summary, so I think i'll too leave this thread. To sum up: Op has contract claim for at least 25k losses; a potential claim in equity to the car for fraudulent transactions, unlikely however owing to costs.

[wales01man]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

I think we all would like to know what car this is?
If I may ask a question? what are the chances this claim would succeed in Court if the garage was minded to it could fight dirty with some load of bull as a defence even claiming the car was not theirs to sell where would the OP stand then

[R0b]

Re: Car sold illegally. What is my position?

The claim would succeed in court, as there is a clear offer, acceptance and consideration in paying a deposit and then the final balance. The question would be how much damages is the court willing to give. Whilst the third party has a defence, the seller certainly does not.

The tort of conversion is a strict liability so need only show that the goods were deprived from the OP. The damages would be the market value of the car at the time including special losses such as litigation costs, loss of profits etc.

The other claim in addition could be loss of chance, lets say the car would would be worth £200,000 in the next 10 years damages would be assessed by way of the chances of success of it being sold at that price and/or auction. There has to be a real or substantial chance of the car being sold at that price.
The calculation is as follows: Damages = chance % x expected profits.

As well as the above, breach of contract will also apply.