I am looking for some legal advice over the sale of a classic car with the new owner trying to cancel the sale after two months of ownership.
Hi Philip and welcome to the forum.
What reason/excuse is the New Owner offering to back up the bid to cancel the Sale?
Hi Stella, he says the car has corrosion and is unroadworthy yet it had a new CT?
If the CT does not mention corrosion then that argument does not hold up.
If it were unroadworthy - the CT would mention the list of things to be done within the time-limit for getting it done and having it re-inspected.
what was the date of the CT and the date of the Sale ?
Hi Stella, thanks for the advice. I now contacted an English advocate in Condom and am going to speak with her.
This type of dispute may be covered under Vice Caché.. If so, it could be very expensive to defend.
Absolutely, Joyce - which is why the detail on the Contrôle Technique is so important and can (hopefully) be used against the allegations.
Thanks Joyce, not great news.
Why should it be “not good news”. If the car was sold in good faith and with a proper CT, you should have no problems.
Or did you deliberately disguise corrosion ?.. and… deliberately make the car unroadworthy after the CT ?? (of course, you did no such thing… )
Do you by any chance have the Assurance “Protection Juridique la vie quotidienne”
If you do, they will act on your behalf.
Whatever, keep calm. If you have done everything by the book, you have nothing to fear.
Was the car sold without a CT ?
If you had it done pre sale I can’t believe a CT centre would pass a car with bad corrosion.
Hi Stella, the car was sold in good faith and with a new CT. However the underside has always been coated in black protective paint ever since I bought it and it appears that was hiding corrosion. Seems to fall under the legislation Joyce mentioned so I think it is my responsibility to sort it out even though I was unaware.
Ann, yes new CT seemed really thorough.
Not an expert, but can’t see it being your fault
I don’t see why. If it was always like that and you had no reason to question it.
The black stuff was noticed donkeys years ago, by our local CT man and he pointed out that it “could” hide stuff - but, as he happily knocked and bashed and was happy with the resulting sounds, it was never a problem for that or any other CT’s.
We had explained that the black stuff protected against the salt on UK roads and was standard there - he was quite happy with that.
A few years ago I was taken to court as the seller of a car under the “vice cache” law.
I decided to defend myself without the help of a lawyer which could have been expensive.
Briefly, I sold a little cheap runabout to a local restaurant owner who bought it for a family member. It ran fine & apart from a little hail damage it was OK. Because of the damage it needed to be inspected by an “expert” in order to have a block on its sale lifted - standard for any car that has been written off by an insurance company but has been allowed to be sold back to its owner.
The buyer test drove the car & agreed to buy having been advised of its previous situation.
All was well for the next 6 months until I received a call informing me that the car was not running well & another garage had estimated that quite a lot of money needed to be spent. I was given an ultimatum - buy the car back for 200 euros less than the original selling price or I would be taken to court. Up until that moment I had been thinking of ways to help the buyer but once threatened any thought of help left my mind. After 6 months I felt that on older car might well need a little maintainence & although it should not be down to me I did consider (briefly) that in the interests of customer relations I might help.
Keeping a level head I did agree to look into the matter & let him know & went to see the car at the garage.
Since being sold the car had covered a further 11000 kms to its 250000 kms & much of the estimate for repairs were for items that do need replacing in normal use but the main problem was supposed to be a faulty injector pump.
The purpose of “vice cache” is that there was an existing fault at the time of sale, for example, a broken water pump which might not cause a problem until a longer journey could cause the engine to overheat. The seller might not be aware at the time but if it can be proved that it was faulty at the time of sale then the seller can be expected to compensate the buyer or annul the sale.
This is why a CT is insisted upon when a car is sold. It does not have to pass but it means that the buyer has an independent assessment of the general condition of the vehicle he is buying & it therefore helps the seller too. If the CT mentions corrosion & the buyer later tries to say that he did not know, he should have read the CT!
In my case I just told the truth, the judge asked the buyer to provide an Expert’s report as there is a big difference between fair wear & tear & premature failure & in the end I was vindicated.
Apart from my time & the sleepless nights there was no cost to me.
If you honestly feel that you have been fair in your dealings then let them take you to court & trust that the legal system is as honest as you are.