Car dealer reneging on agreement
D.M. Procida
She saw a car she wanted to buy at a main dealership. She agreed a price
and part-exchange with her old car, and paid a deposit.
She has a receipt for the deposit, and a written agreement.
This was last week.
Now, the dealership have got back to her to say that the salesperson
"offered the car at too low a price", and that she has to pay more than
had been agreed.
What are her rights, if any?
Daniele
The Todal
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1jukif6.z8vlpk152d7n8N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
She should point out that they are in breach of contract. If they are not
prepared to sell at the agreed price, she could demand the return of her
deposit and then sue for loss of bargain, ie the extra sum she would have to
pay to get the same bargain elsewhere.
Alternatively she could pay the increased sum, making it clear that she does
so under protest and that she will be suing them for a refund of the
additional sum they are demanding. I would suggest she does that only if
the new price does not seem excessive, because a refund certainly couldn't
be guaranteed.
Ste
Perhaps she should reply that her husband insists that she offered
"too much for the car", and that the dealer must now accept less than
had been agreed. When the dealer reacts with outrage, she should then
suggest that they each comply with the original agreement.
And seriously, with a written agreement which I presume records the
price that was originally agreed, the dealer is not in a position to
renegotiate.
Roland Perry
<1jukif6.z8vlpk152d7n8N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
at 11:35:02 on Tue, 4 Jan 2011, D.M. Procida
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> remarked:
Is the one she's buying a new car? It used to be the case (I haven't
looked recently) that dealers would put in their contracts that the
price for a new car was that reigning at the time of delivery, not at
the time of order - in which case here is some scope for a salesman to
'freeze' the price a little too early in the process.
--
Roland Perry
R. Mark Clayton
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1jukif6.z8vlpk152d7n8N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
It depends on how little. If the price is clearly a mistake (a new car for
£2,000 or say a five year old one for £200) then the dealer can refute the
contract (AND repay the deposit).
OTOH if it is merely a very keen price (e.g. 15%+ off a new car or a used
car at "bottom book") then her options are: -
1. Demand specific performance - i.e. that they hand over the car for the
balance.
2. Pay the difference and sue for its recovery.
3. Buy an identical (if new) or very similar car (if used) elsewhere and sue
for the difference.
The third option will be the most expensive for the dealer, as you can be
picky about condition and not fussy about price with another garage. The
first is the most difficult because the remedy can not be claimed through
the small claim procedure, so unless the car is a rare classic don't bother.
NOTE if the difference in price is simply due to the VAT then it is tough
luck on the buyer that she did not complete before today. Suppose she
bought a car with an agreed price of £1,000 + VAT (£1,175 including VAT),
but the invoice was not issued until today then the dealer can charge £1,200
including VAT because the tax is by definition added to the value of the
goods and the seller is merely colleting the tax on behalf of HMRC.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> "D.M. Procida" wrote
>>
>> She saw a car she wanted to buy at a main dealership. She
>> agreed a price and part-exchange with her old car, and paid a
>> deposit.
>>
>> She has a receipt for the deposit, and a written agreement.
>>
>> salesperson "offered the car at too low a price", and that she
>> has to pay more than had been agreed.
>
> they are not prepared to sell at the agreed price, she could
> demand the return of her deposit and then sue for loss of
> bargain, ie the extra sum she would have to pay to get the same
> bargain elsewhere.
I've seen car purchase contracts that say the contract does not arise
until approved by the dealership manager. If the buyer's contract
was actually signed by the proper person, I agree she should insist
on the contract as stated.
GB
>
> I've seen car purchase contracts that say the contract does not arise
> until approved by the dealership manager. If the buyer's contract
> was actually signed by the proper person, I agree she should insist
> on the contract as stated.
We have the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs in this country. Some
such term on the back of the form might be considered unfair unless the
buyer's attention was unequivocally drawn to it. My personal view is that
it's unreasonable. If the salesman isn't authorised to make the contract
then it's ridiculous for him to sign it, purporting to do so on behalf of
the dealership.
--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
Phil
Would you want to buy a car from these people?
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>>
>> I've seen car purchase contracts that say the contract does not
>> arise until approved by the dealership manager. If the buyer's
>> contract was actually signed by the proper person, I agree she
>> should insist on the contract as stated.
>
> We have the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs in this
> country. Some such term on the back of the form might be
> considered unfair unless the buyer's attention was
> unequivocally drawn to it. My personal view is that it's
> unreasonable. If the salesman isn't authorised to make the
> contract then it's ridiculous for him to sign it, purporting to
> do so on behalf of the dealership.
I didn't say it was on the back or not obvious. To the contrary it's
stated in bold terms above where the customer is to sign. It's not
for the purpose of fooling the customer, but for the protection of
the dealership. When done properly I don't think it's unreasonable.
Ian Jackson
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>I didn't say it was on the back or not obvious. To the contrary it's
>stated in bold terms above where the customer is to sign. It's not
>for the purpose of fooling the customer, but for the protection of
>the dealership. When done properly I don't think it's unreasonable.
The OP mentioned that the dealer took a deposit, which you haven't
discussed. I can't see how it would be reasonable to take a deposit
and claim not to have concluded the contract.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>I didn't say it was on the back or not obvious. To the contrary
>>it's stated in bold terms above where the customer is to sign.
>>It's not for the purpose of fooling the customer, but for the
>>protection of the dealership. When done properly I don't think
>>it's unreasonable.
>
> The OP mentioned that the dealer took a deposit, which you
> haven't discussed. I can't see how it would be reasonable to
> take a deposit and claim not to have concluded the contract.
Thanks, I'd forgotten that point.
One thing that's not clear to me is whether OP actually got the car,
or was supposed to pick it up later. I have the vague impression she
did not get it when she signed the contract.
Roland Perry
5 Jan 2011, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>The OP mentioned that the dealer took a deposit, which you haven't
>discussed. I can't see how it would be reasonable to take a deposit
>and claim not to have concluded the contract.
I don't like the word "concluded" there - several connotations. It's
possible that the contract has been formed, but that the contract also
specifies the way in which the final price will be ascertained, which
may also include the dealership setting a price that differs from one
given earlier. But until we hear more from the OP, we just don't know.
--
Roland Perry
Man at B&Q
wrote:
> In article <Xns9E647BA726652spamtraplexregia...@130.133.4.11>,
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
> >I didn't say it was on the back or not obvious. To the contrary it's
> >stated in bold terms above where the customer is to sign. It's not
> >for the purpose of fooling the customer, but for the protection of
> >the dealership. When done properly I don't think it's unreasonable.
>
> The OP mentioned that the dealer took a deposit, which you haven't
> discussed. I can't see how it would be reasonable to take a deposit
> and claim not to have concluded the contract.
It's possible for deposits to be taken without the exact final price
being known.
MBQ
Ian Jackson
No, it clearly isn't possible for a consumer to enter into such a
contract; it would be unfair and thus unenforceable. (I'm assuming
you're not suggesting that consumer contracts for the purchase of used
cars exist which specify some fair and objective way to determine the
price after the contract is made.)
The purpose of the deposit is to stop the consumer from changing their
mind and walking away. Ie the consumer is no longer permitted to
rescind, at least not without losing their deposit. That obviously
doesn't work if the price hasn't yet been settled.
Ian Jackson
Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 10:45=A0pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>wrote:
>> The OP mentioned that the dealer took a deposit, which you haven't
>> discussed. I can't see how it would be reasonable to take a deposit
>> and claim not to have concluded the contract.
>
>It's possible for deposits to be taken without the exact final price
>being known.
Only if the final price can be later determined in some fair and
objective way. That doesn't apply to buying a consumer's used car.
Unless you're suggesting the contract might say "the final price will
be determined by an independent valuation by the AA". I'm sure if it
did the OP would have mentioned it.
Roland Perry
6 Jan 2011, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>In article <28kGbEwf...@perry.co.uk>,
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <AEg*d0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 22:45:04 on Wed,
>>5 Jan 2011, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>The OP mentioned that the dealer took a deposit, which you haven't
>>>discussed. I can't see how it would be reasonable to take a deposit
>>>and claim not to have concluded the contract.
>>
>>I don't like the word "concluded" there - several connotations. It's
>>possible that the contract has been formed, but that the contract also
>>specifies the way in which the final price will be ascertained, which
>>may also include the dealership setting a price that differs from one
>>given earlier. But until we hear more from the OP, we just don't know.
>
>No, it clearly isn't possible for a consumer to enter into such a
>contract; it would be unfair and thus unenforceable.
Contracts for the purchase of *new* cars (the OP has not said whether
they are buying new or used) routinely said that the price paid would be
the price on the day of delivery. You'll have to explain why you think
that's unfair, given that the manufacturer's price list is reasonably
transparent.
>(I'm assuming you're not suggesting that consumer contracts for the
>purchase of used cars exist which specify some fair and objective way
>to determine the price after the contract is made.)
New car; objective = list price (less any agreed discount).
>The purpose of the deposit is to stop the consumer from changing their
>mind and walking away. Ie the consumer is no longer permitted to
>rescind, at least not without losing their deposit. That obviously
>doesn't work if the price hasn't yet been settled.
I don't understand why.
--
Roland Perry
Adrian
were saying:
> Contracts for the purchase of *new* cars (the OP has not said whether
> they are buying new or used) routinely said that the price paid would be
> the price on the day of delivery. You'll have to explain why you think
> that's unfair, given that the manufacturer's price list is reasonably
> transparent.
You answered that yourself in your very next point...
Roland Perry
2011, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Contracts for the purchase of *new* cars (the OP has not said whether
>> they are buying new or used) routinely said that the price paid would be
>> the price on the day of delivery. You'll have to explain why you think
>> that's unfair, given that the manufacturer's price list is reasonably
>> transparent.
>
>You answered that yourself in your very next point...
>
>> New car; objective = list price (less any agreed discount).
No, I don't think so. Manufacturer's price lists are not aimed at
disadvantaging specific customers. They reflect the market conditions at
the point at which delivery is made. All the contracts are saying is
"this item has a long delivery time, you agree to pay the price
pertaining when we deliver".
--
Roland Perry
Just zis Guy, you know?
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2011 19:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> Manufacturer's price lists are not aimed at disadvantaging specific
> customers. They reflect the market conditions at the point at which
> delivery is made.
I think that manufacturers' price lists are a specific genre of fiction
only slightly less realistic than Fantasy.
The main influence seems to be tax bands...
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNJhn9AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/T80IAJiZXoK3l473zUZs6ISthvz7
3rnGIyKHX5Kklo4H8BZUucIPp6FiwiDVTNkuXd0S9YAzwUdE7Fs3KX1lGYz8GtXA
gYttLuNb7+hlc7jdgM4FTh6mE3t0tZ/fdPsMeCQ1bqtaG0L4M05vHIoDdHtZUWJ8
v88F0Tn5/hLcIRDzX80SQaoUPGPzMt5MdQiGAkEd6eyjkxtyM4GH88+C+NrocK6d
obCob+QBofojJV7TJQcoT/AayV9u82sFNXkf+9m0xDP0djJdy24tAgxC3EnLckgC
5XynY/03IXb7zTG/uf+8vRYB8RXV3P1H89UjXyvaBUnA/oHV5dMR7AmCQuJvecE=
=rWbe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Adrian
happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>> Manufacturer's price lists are not aimed at disadvantaging specific
>> customers. They reflect the market conditions at the point at which
>> delivery is made.
> I think that manufacturers' price lists are a specific genre of fiction
> only slightly less realistic than Fantasy.
>
> The main influence seems to be tax bands...
*ding*
Roland Perry
Thu, 6 Jan 2011, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> remarked:
>> Manufacturer's price lists are not aimed at disadvantaging specific
>> customers. They reflect the market conditions at the point at which
>> delivery is made.
>
>I think that manufacturers' price lists are a specific genre of fiction
>only slightly less realistic than Fantasy.
Is that because most buyers get a discount (and different discounts from
different dealers), or do you have some other feature of them in mind?
--
Roland Perry