Sale of goods act Re:purchase of a boat

[teaboy2]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

Yes, and just to clafiy. The statement "In the course of business" on the website you linked to is a direct link to specific statement in section 14 of "Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business". The only time the act refers specifically to "in the course of business". So implied terms such as under section 14 do not apply to private sales. But section 12 does as it does not differentiate between seller selling in the course of buisness or seller in terms of a private seller. Just that the discription of the goods must be accurate and in england and wales 1a of section 12 make such implied term an actual condition of the sales contract itself. So the accuracy of the discription is an actual term of the contact and not an implied term.

[martyn1457]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

Thanks to everyone for the great advice.

I have covered all the free advice line CAB etc and found them helpful in the most part although the specific of some of the law seems to be a bit far, but great advice over all. consumer helpline on 08454040506 were great as were the money claim helpline

thanks for the specfics on the which section of the sale of goods act applies all very help full
thanks for pointing out the fraud act 2006 this is some thing that i have completly overlooked

just to answer a few things raised first the ebay paypal issue. although i saw the item advertised on ebay i agreed a price after which he removed the listing so ebay did not handle the transaction, paypal i have contacted and they have stated that as i used them for a deposit rather than the total amount i wasnt cover under thier buyer protection policys.

the seller is a private individual and not a trader although the consumer helpline i dealt with passed his details on to traing standards!!
i have had confirmed that the sale of goods act covers private as well as traders although in different amounts from what i can gather the trader would be liable for faulty good and misdescriptions whereas the private seller is liable for just the misdescriptions although they amount to pretty much the same thing it just seems as though it is different part of the act applies to different people.

i have processed the claim though the money claim online and wondered what to expect next ie how long to get to court what paper work might need to be done

cheers for everyones advice

[teaboy2]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

Thanks to everyone for the great advice.

I have covered all the free advice line CAB etc and found them helpful in the most part although the specific of some of the law seems to be a bit far, but great advice over all. consumer helpline on 08454040506 were great as were the money claim helpline

thanks for the specfics on the which section of the sale of goods act applies all very help full
thanks for pointing out the fraud act 2006 this is some thing that i have completly overlooked

just to answer a few things raised first the ebay paypal issue. although i saw the item advertised on ebay i agreed a price after which he removed the listing so ebay did not handle the transaction, paypal i have contacted and they have stated that as i used them for a deposit rather than the total amount i wasnt cover under thier buyer protection policys.

the seller is a private individual and not a trader although the consumer helpline i dealt with passed his details on to traing standards!!
i have had confirmed that the sale of goods act covers private as well as traders although in different amounts from what i can gather the trader would be liable for faulty good and misdescriptions whereas the private seller is liable for just the misdescriptions although they amount to pretty much the same thing it just seems as though it is different part of the act applies to different people.

i have processed the claim though the money claim online and wondered what to expect next ie how long to get to court what paper work might need to be done

cheers for everyones advice

You need to send a letter before action to the seller, detailing his/her breaches of the law.

[Guest]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

Thanks to everyone for the great advice.

I have covered all the free advice line CAB etc and found them helpful in the most part although the specific of some of the law seems to be a bit far, but great advice over all. consumer helpline on 08454040506 were great as were the money claim helpline

thanks for the specfics on the which section of the sale of goods act applies all very help full
thanks for pointing out the fraud act 2006 this is some thing that i have completly overlooked

just to answer a few things raised first the ebay paypal issue. although i saw the item advertised on ebay i agreed a price after which he removed the listing so ebay did not handle the transaction, paypal i have contacted and they have stated that as i used them for a deposit rather than the total amount i wasnt cover under thier buyer protection policys.

the seller is a private individual and not a trader although the consumer helpline i dealt with passed his details on to traing standards!!
i have had confirmed that the sale of goods act covers private as well as traders although in different amounts from what i can gather the trader would be liable for faulty good and misdescriptions whereas the private seller is liable for just the misdescriptions although they amount to pretty much the same thing it just seems as though it is different part of the act applies to different people.

i have processed the claim though the money claim online and wondered what to expect next ie how long to get to court what paper work might need to be done

cheers for everyones advice

HI
Yes glad you found CAB helpful, it depends very much on where you are and which one you use but they are usually very clued up on this kind of thing and as we know they are no the first stop to trading standards.

Yes a small claim is probably the best way to go, a claim for refund of as the goods were not as advertised, no statute involved just ordinary law.

D

[martyn1457]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

update:

so i have sent the letter before action and recieved a reply of "do whatever" have issued the claim online through money claim and recieved his defense which was "sold as seen no warranty"
have not recieved the allocation questionaire from the court completed and sent back so now waiting on a court date

is there any thing else i need to do?? and any one have an idea of how long it will take to get a court date???

thanks

[teaboy2]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

Warranty is not what your claiming, its misrespresentation off the goods under the sales discription under part 13 of the sales of goods act 1979. Also 48A and 48B make it clear that if the goods do not confirm to the contract of sale (in this case confirm to discription) then they seller is obliged to repair or replace the goods with ones that do confirm to contract of sale. The discription is a core term of the contract, in one sense.

As for the time it takes to get a court date, well it depends, it could be less than a month or it could be longer depending on the courts schedule and amount of cases to be heard.

You may want to start preparing your legal arguements and evidence ready for the court case, to counter the sellers defence. Which given what i put above in this post, should be pretty easy if they think that no warranty applies and they are not responsible for repair or replacement, when the goods were sold via discription that they did not confirm with and maywell even be fraud by false representation under section 2 of the fraud act 2006.

Can you post up a copy of his defence minus court name, claim number and yours and the sellers personal details so we can advice more accurately?

[martyn1457]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

thanks for all the great advice
the defense i recieved was hand written on a form so i have typed it below exactly as it is in the form

"i dispute all the claims made against me the claimant has also tried to claim £200 back through paypal but his claim was rejected the boat i sold to him was sticktley sold as seen with no warrenty however it was sold as useable as at the time of sale it was i had previously used the boat around 8 times with no problems at all. when the claimant came to collect the boat he viewed it, saw it working and was happy with it. there was no pressure at all on him to but it. if he had not been happy at the time of sale i would of refunded his deposit. this was a private sale not trade and as such no guarentee was given but like i say the description on ebay was accurate at the time of sale"


this is the entire defence from the form which was sent through to me. the deposit which was £200 i tried to claim back trough paypal before really understanding what the correct course of action was and it was declined by paypal but i have recieved an email from them staing it was because the transaction did not meet thier requirements to be eligible for paypal buyer protection basicly because i payed a deposit through paypal not the whole amount they dont want to know, thier terms say it must be the whole transaction.
i did see the engine working as stated however the faults do not occur until there is water pressure around the drive shaft and propeller.

i would be interested to know what any one thinks about the defence and my correct responses when in court??

[Guest]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

I think the result will depend on the judge you get and who makes the best impression in court.

The item does not have to be fit for purpose as i understand it, so you will be depending on the interpretation of the importance of the written description, and if the judge considers that this would be overridden by the fact that you had the chance to examine the boat before you bought it.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

But the defect would not have been spotted until it was already in the water, as its impossible to see if a seal to prevent water coming in is working until its tried in the water, given the short amount of time it was in the water then its likely the seal was broken and the seller had previous knowledge of this and the cost of the repair hence why he sold it, rather than pay for it to be repaired. The marine engineers statement as an expert witness statement would likely confirm this. Seals don't just break like that they rot and wear down over a fairly long period of time. The overall damage to the engine/bearings/prop shaft as a result of water getting in would suggest that the seal was broken prior to sale and water damage was caused prior to sale, therefore proving it is likely the seller had the same issues and knew about it prior to sale. Dry dock ticking over of the engine would not reveal such fault as water would not be getting in to cause the engine to cut out.

Martyn, did you take a screen shot of the item discription on ebay?

[Guest]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

But the defect would not have been spotted until it was already in the water, as its impossible to see if a seal to prevent water coming in is working until its tried in the water, given the short amount of time it was in the water then its likely the seal was broken and the seller had previous knowledge of this and the cost of the repair hence why he sold it, rather than pay for it to be repaired. The marine engineers statement as an expert witness statement would likely confirm this. Seals don't just break like that they rot and wear down over a fairly long period of time. The overall damage to the engine/bearings/prop shaft as a result of water getting in would suggest that the seal was broken prior to sale and water damage was caused prior to sale, therefore proving it is likely the seller had the same issues and knew about it prior to sale. Dry dock ticking over of the engine would not reveal such fault as water would not be getting in to cause the engine to cut out.

Martyn, did you take a screen shot of the item discription on ebay?

Yes that would be the argument, there is of course an obvious counter but i think it could go either way.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

True, but denying such knowledge of said damage doesn't prove within reasonable doubt that they did not know. Where as the expert witness statement from the marine engineer would show beyong reasonable doubt that the damage occured prior to sale and therefore likely that other seller knew about. plus their is the question of why buy a boat and only use it 8 times, must buy boats to last a long period of time, not just 8 trips on a river or at sea.

[alham]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

With private sales it is always very difficult to prove defects with mechanical objects. Say I sell a hoover on ebay as a "working" item, buyer uses it for 10 minutes and then it packs up. It worked for me, it did work for the buyer, albeit for 10 minutes, however, now it is dead - who is responsible?

BTW I know that dealing with boats of substantial value it is recommended to use a marine assessor. Another point - you should be very careful when running marine engine out of water. Sorry, but if it was I in your situation, I'd swallow it as an expensive mistake and stop the case as I am afraid you will lose more than it will cost you in repair.

[Guest]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

Must admit i tend to agree with you Alham , Teaboy they don't have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt this is a civil case.

However it is possible that the OP may get a sympathetic judge lets hope so.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

“on the balance of probabilities” is not as good as beyond reasonable doubt. Its always better for a claiment to prove beyond reasonable doubt then to just rely on balance of probability which a defendant could easily tip in his/her favour, like in this case where he denies there was a warranty. Which means the best form of attack for the claiment is to prove beyond doubt. That it is not warranty or breach of implied terms that is being claimed, but false representation of the goods via the sale discription, and breach of section 13 of the sales of goods act 1979, where the marine engineers witness statement makes it clear that the damage was done prior to purchase - Therefore proving the seller likely knew about it.

[Guest]

Re: Sale of goods act Reurchase of a boat

“on the balance of probabilities” is not as good as beyond reasonable doubt. Its always better for a claiment to prove beyond reasonable doubt then to just rely on balance of probability which a defendant could easily tip in his/her favour, like in this case where he denies there was a warranty. Which means the best form of attack for the claiment is to prove beyond doubt. That it is not warranty or breach of implied terms that is being claimed, but false representation of the goods via the sale discription, and breach of section 13 of the sales of goods act 1979, where the marine engineers witness statement makes it clear that the damage was done prior to purchase - Therefore proving the seller likely knew about it.

You said, " True, but denying such knowledge of said damage doesn't prove within reasonable doubt that they did not know."

He does not have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, not even that he did not know.

D