Unjust enrichment case - Online auction - Cause to submit strike out?

[dylan2408]

The full story and thread is on one of my previous posts...

Long (almost 2 year) story short, I bid on a salvage vehicle for £44,000 from copart at a time when they blocked in person viewing of the vehicles due to covid, I lost the bid.

A week later the vehicle reappeared online with a buy it now price of £23,000. In the time since I last bid and it reappearing because it had gone through I was able to see the bid history and repair estimate from Copart themselves was £70,000 on a car worth only £60,000. Probably why the previous winner did not accept the vehicle.

Anyway, I bought what I thought was a much more fairly priced car. Paid for the transportation and began ordering parts for what would be a hugely costly and time consuming build. A week later a claim letter came through the door demanding an extra £20,000 (the difference between what I paid and what I bid on the previous auction). Stating there had been a system error only noticed after I had paid for the vehicle, assigned a transportation firm and the vehicle being physically collected signed out of their yard and return to me. I argued my case as they had offered no compensation of time and money already into the thousands spent moving the vehicle, insuring it and the first parts order to which they were incredibly hard headed and basically did not care about merits of my case only that they wanted more money.

Skip to now I'm approaching the end and almost at hearing for this case of "unjust enrichment" and only now they have replied to my part 18 request for more information. Amazing that they now openly admit they have only acted in a capacity of sales agent for the online auction platform and never owned the vehicle.

Having already read up lots about unjust enrichment claims and having the suspicion they never owned the vehicle anyway is this a clear case of having it thrown out?

1. the defendant has been enriched - No, I had never entered into a previous contract to pay for the vehicle and have bought a salvage vehicle with an estimated repair of £10,000 more then retail price before the title.
2. this enrichment is at the claimant's expense; - No, the claimant never stood to receive the money from the final sale, the named insurance company are the only party that stood to receive the money from the purchase.
3. this enrichment at the claimant's expense is unjust; and
4. there is no applicable bar or defence. No - Perfectly reasonable defence, Copart advertised a vehicle and I bought it. They had plenty of time to notify me of an error and only did so after realising I had previously bid more, Again without to opportunity to view in person until I had won.

From my somewhat bias opinion it would seem they fall over at every step of the definition "unjust enrichment", The court would also be unable to award Copart the £20,000 as they were not the owner of the vehicle.

Looking for opinions and some advice about how to go for having this case thrown out if its the best approach, I have never got this far into a claim before so am struggling a little with the next steps to take, I don't yet have a hearing but assume that this will be assigned within the next couple of weeks so want to get the application in asap, again if this is the correct approach.

[des8]

Here's a link to previous thread:
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...-before-action

R0b & atticus were main contributors

[atticus]

Are you able to post your Defence? I don't think we saw it in your earlier thread.

[dylan2408]

Uploaded my original defence atticus

[atticus]

That is a very detailed Defence, a robust response to the claim. In your previous thread you indicated that you were thinking of engaging a barrister to draft your defence, and this document certainly looks like a barrister's work*. If so, did that barrister give any advice about the further conduct of the case?

Can you please provide your Part 18 request and the replies.


* I have never before seen the word "jejune" in a pleading!

[R0b]

Are you still arguing that you were a consumer in relation to the transaction or has that position changed? I agree with Atticus, a robust defence but I was surprised that there was no reference to the right to cancel unilaterally before and after the transaction has been completed being an unfair contract term although that could be what is being alluded to at paragraph 10 given its inclusion.

Think you may be misunderstanding unjust enrichment to some extent as it's not as straightforward as you are interpreting. I will try and follow up with my response to that point specifically.

When is the hearing date?

[dylan2408]

Part 18 request and answers attached, Yeah I assigned a barrister to write up the defence and part 18 request.

To answer directly about arguing I am a consumer I feel as though this was the less important part of the defence as there seemed to be other factors, the unfair contract clause I is still part of the defence, at least maybe not as prominent as I would have thought.


While I do understand what you are saying about unjust enrichment not being that straight forward, I don't think it could ever apply when the claimant has not lost out on any money.

By comparison this is exactly similar to eBay claiming against a bidder for a higher sale price on behalf of one of their sellers. The online platform stands only to obtain a fee from both parties as opposed to the sale price, the fee has been collected by Copart and therefore they have not lost out. Or am I missing something?

[atticus]

Some of those replies seem almost to be deliberately obfuscating. They say the vehicle was assigned to Copart, which might mean sale to Copart, but then add the ungrammatical sentence "Copart, acting in its capacity as agent for sale only", which suggests otherwise. You might press them on what they mean by "assigned to Copart".

It is interesting to see that the claim is based on the fact that in the earlier auction, where you were not the highest bidder, you had bid a larger amount than the re-listed "buy it now" price. What makes them assume that you would have bid that sum again? Was the vehicle described in exactly the same way on both occasions? I can envisage good reasons why on a second listing someone who had bid previously might put in lower bids.

Would you please repost the Particulars of Claim here, so we have all the statements of case in one thread.

[R0b]

Here's the POC

[R0b]

I agree with Atticus, particularly the point around ownership. Assignment would imply that the vehicle has been transferred to them by way of sale or gift whereas acting as an agent means they are not the seller nor the owner of the vehicle in question. In my view the two are mutually exclusive and you cannot be assigned a vehicle which you own but then claim to be an agent of the seller, being AXA in this case.

Having said that, it appears that by responding to to question 2 as "N/A" one could infer that the vehicle was not purchased and is not owned by Copart but they were acting as agent on behalf of AXA to sell the vehicle. If you are not happy with some of these responses, you could make an application to the court for an order to clarify the information, though you could write to them first and see if they would be willing to confirm the information without the need to incur further costs.

On the unjust enrichment point, I would be inclined to agree that it is at least arguable that the claim for unjust enrichment due to mistake of fact for one or the following reasons:

1. The parties entered into an agreement based upon Copart's standard written terms online. The terms provided for payment as the successful bidder and in return the vehicle would transfer to you on receipt of that payment. In the event that Copart exercise the right to cancel the concluded contract, there is an obligation to return the vehicle. Failure to do so would amount to a breach of contract and the remedy would be damages being the market value of the vehicle at the time of the breach or the return of it.

Unjust enrichment cannot be used to override the legal obligations and rights already covered under a contract. It appears that Copart are trying to circumvent the legally binding terms and conditions to seeking a higher sum of money they missed out on based on a historical bid. In Dargamo Holdings, the Court of Appeal reviewed the interplay between unjust enrichment claims and contractual agreements (at paragraph 65 onwards). The court confirmed wit reference to another case that:

It is fundamental that a payment cannot amount to an enrichment if it was made for full consideration; and that it cannot be unjust to receive or retain it if it was made in satisfaction of a legal right… The proposition is supported by more than a century and a half of authority

The principle argument here is that the contract set out how payment would be made and when transfer of the vehicle would apply. You paid the consideration at the time as required and therefore Copart cannot now argue that you have been unjustly enriched despite the full consideration being paid. If the issue is that you failed to return the vehicle, that's a breach of contract claim for damages not unjust enrichment which again, I would argue is the market value of the vehicle. There are other relevant points made in that case that you could refer to also but that's one I plucked out.

2. Assuming that Copart are not the legal owners of the vehicle, I'd have to question whether they have any legal right to bring the claim in the first place. As I alluded to earlier, their terms and conditions make it clear that they are not a party to the contract of sale. Therefore, how can you say they have been unjustly enriched if they weren't party to that contract of sale? Similarly, as an agent of the sale, they would presumably be entitled only to the agents fees of the sale, whatever that percentage may be but it's definitely not the £20k that they seem to be claiming.

[dylan2408]

I drew the same conclusion immediately after they confirmed to have not owned the vehicle, In your opinion whilst the unjust enrichment case may not have been as clear cut as I alluded to they still have no general grounds for submitting the case as you stated they collect a set fee on the sale price and that is all.

The difference is probably around £500 between the fee I paid and the fee they would have taken on a 44k sale.

Where did you find this clause I don't recall reading this has been a while?
1. The parties entered into an agreement based upon Copart's standard written terms online. The terms provided for payment as the successful bidder and in return the vehicle would transfer to you on receipt of that payment. In the event that Copart exercise the right to cancel the concluded contract, there is an obligation to return the vehicle. Failure to do so would amount to a breach of contract and the remedy would be damages being the market value of the vehicle at the time of the breach or the return of it.

I have not heard back from the original barrister that wrote my defence and part 18 questions to reengage, if you recommend an application to strike out and know anyone that can write one up this week let me know. I'd rather not go to court if possible, I may have a strong defence but i don't have anyone at the moment to represent me.

[dylan2408]

To be clear I keep referring to "striking out", I think what I am referring to is a summary judgement due to the fact the claimant has no real prospect of winning.

[atticus]

Contact barristers' chambers in your area and see if anyone with commercial case experience would be willing to assist on a direct access basis.

I would take care about applying for summary judgement. It is good if your application succeeds, but if you do not you will have to make an immediate payment of costs. Only do it if the barrister advises that you have a strong chance of success.

[Pezza54]

I have just PoC, Defence and all posts. I have great difficulty in understanding how the claimant believes he has a case that will stand up in court. To ask the buyer to return the car at his own time and expense is incredible. Surely the contract was rubber stamped when Dylan paid in full and drove the car off the claimant's premises. Any term about unilateral cancellation of the contract after this point in time should be regarded as unfair and you would hope the judge would agree with this.
I am trying to understand the £s. Using approximate figures, correct me if I'm wrong.

Estimated pre accident value £60k. Estimated cost to repair £70k
Had Dylan bought the car at auction for £40k and spent approaching £70k to repair it, his total cost would have been £110k
As the car will always be a class S, it will be more difficult to insure, more difficult to sell on as many if not most buyers will not contemplate purchasing a car that has been structurally damaged however well it has been repaired.
Therefore the value of the car after repair will be significantly less than £60k.

Personally I would let the case proceed and prepare a witness statement including figure work that showed the defendant paid more than a fair price for the car. Let the barrister argue the legal points -it is all beyond me.

[Pezza54]

Dylan
keep a record of the legal tasks you are carrying out yourself and make a note of the approximate time for each task.
Should you win the case you will be able to claim your time at £19/hour plus reasonable expenses plus your lawyer's fees.
There is a chance that the salvage company will abort their claim before they have to pay more court fees or the judge after reading the PoC and Defence decides the claim has no real chance of success