Motorhome buyer backed out of a sale, am I entitled to expenses?

[johnlk]

So, a long story short.....
Advertised my motorhome, potential buyer texted me making a (low) offer.
I texted back saying too low, up it a little.
2 or 3 days later had a slightly improved offer, again by text, which I was willing to accept.
Rather than texting, I called him and my first question was "are you a dealer?" as I didn't want someone to turn it around and make a quick profit.
He replied "no", and proceeded to tell me it was for him and his wife.
The price was then agreed while on the phone, and he said he would take it "as is", referring to the fact it did not have an MOT. He said he would come to me, pay, and then take it directly for an MOT where he lives, some 200 miles away, obviously at his own risk.

Some back and forth phone calls whilst he was arranging a train ticket, and a £100 deposit paid directly into my bank.

The day before he was due to come, he phoned and said he'd had a chat with his MOT garage, and a relative who was in the police force, and it resulted in him fearing driving it so far without the MOT. The law does seem to be a bit patchy in that regard, but he had proposed it himself in the first instance.
He then asked if I could arrange the MOT prior to him coming, but it meant that same day if he was to keep to his initial timeframe and arrive the next day.
I said I would try, but that this would change the terms of the agreed sale - I would now be selling with an MOT, which should have made the price higher, let alone the cost of the MOT, and a day's insurance as it was uninsured.
He said he would foot the price of the extra costs, so I went ahead and paid for the insurance and MOT at a cost of around £74.
All arranged that same day, and the van went straight through and passed.
I called him as soon as I got home and he said he would check train times again and get back to me.

About 10-20 minutes later I receive a text stating he was pulling out as the van was unsafe or some other excuse.

So shocked I didn't respond for a few days, but then wondered if he should be liable for the extra expense.

I know I have his £100 which was really a holding deposit, based on him buying a van without an MOT, but that agreement changed when he requested the MOT.

Opinions may differ on this, but legally should he be liable for that extra expense?

[johnlk]

Yes, I forgot to say, somewhen between our dealings I did google his phone number and found out he is a dealer. I am a private seller.
And, the van was advertised stating that it would be sold with an MOT. The reason the low price was agreed upon was because he said he didn't need one.

[des8]

Seeing that your original agreement , altho' verbal, was a legally enforceable contract, the amendment probably follows.
Your agreement contained the essentials necessary for a contract:

1. Offer and Acceptance: an offer is made which is accepted by another party;
2. Consideration: there must be something of value exchanged for a promise
3. Intention: there must be an intention by the parties to make a legally binding agreement

However as your vehicle now has an MOT and is more sellable at a higher price, at no cost to you (actually you are £26 to the good) why worry.

Just seen your 2nd post: and I think (but need to check) as he was untruthful about his position you could have voided the contract, altho' he could not

[johnlk]

Seeing that your original agreement , altho' verbal, was a legally enforceable contract, the amendment probably follows.
Your agreement contained the essentials necessary for a contract:

1. Offer and Acceptance: an offer is made which is accepted by another party;
2. Consideration: there must be something of value exchanged for a promise
3. Intention: there must be an intention by the parties to make a legally binding agreement

It was certainly an agreement, I even offered a "virtual handshake" whilst on the phone.

However as your vehicle now has an MOT and is more sellable at a higher price, at no cost to you (actually you are £26 to the good) why worry.

Actually it's because I've been trying to sell the van a while now. Having an MOT just means it's now shortening with every day that the van goes unsold. The purchase price won't increase because of it.


Surely the deposit is there to secure the vehicle based on the initial agreement, deductable from the purchase price on completion. If the deal is not completed, the deposit is forfeited.

I know I'm "to the good" if you like, but it just makes me wonder if someone went and secured a vehicle with say, a £500 deposit, and then asked the seller to re-upholster the seats, or put on 4 new tyres, or anything up to the value of the deposit. If the seller agrees to this it would be coming off his intial purchase price, unless of course an extra, or amended agreement was made.
And if the buyer pulls out, the seller would have a more sale-able vehicle? Whether he liked it or not?

[des8]

It was certainly an agreement, I even offered a "virtual handshake" whilst on the phone.



Actually it's because I've been trying to sell the van a while now. Having an MOT just means it's now shortening with every day that the van goes unsold. The purchase price won't increase because of it.


Surely the deposit is there to secure the vehicle based on the initial agreement, deductable from the purchase price on completion.YES If the deal is not completed, the deposit is forfeited.Probably

I know I'm "to the good" if you like, but it just makes me wonder if someone went and secured a vehicle with say, a £500 deposit, and then asked the seller to re-upholster the seats, or put on 4 new tyres, or anything up to the value of the deposit. If the seller agrees to this it would be coming off his intial purchase price, unless of course an extra, or amended agreement was made.
And if the buyer pulls out, the seller would have a more sale-able vehicle? Whether he liked it or not?
Avoid this by specifying the purchaser pays for extra costs when paying balance of purchase price.
If purchaser pulls out of deal, seller can enforce specific performance through court, if he deems it worth the effort!

Comments in red

[johnlk]

Thanks again DES8, I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

The buyer did agree (verbally) to "take care" of the extra cost, so that's why part of me thinks morally he should.
"Morally" I suppose doesn't really count for much in courts.
Legally though, would the outcome of this depend on whether it was still the original agreement (modified), or a whole new agreement?

[james_law]

Personally as much as you could have a case against the purchaser, I just don't see the point in pursuing it.

You have a free MOT for 12 months and irrespective of it diminishing each day you are in a better position to sell the vehicle. Whether you can keep the £26 overlay is another matter.

If you say its a holding deposit and thats what you both intended it to be etc then its very likely you'll be able to keep the £26.

[des8]

In practice in your situation it doesn't matter, so I assume this is a hypothetical question
If it is a new separate agreement, would you bother to go through the stress of a court case for the £50 you think you are down (altho' in exchange you have the MOT)
If you are contemplating action to enforce specific performance, just act as if it was a varied agreement

[johnlk]

Thanks for the answers.
I won't be going to the bother of chasing it any further, just part of me was interested in the legal side and wondering whether it was actionable.

I do have the words "No dealers" at the bottom of my ad for a reason, shame on this particular one for his whole new approach.

Lesson learned, and moving on now....
Thanks again for the help.