Deals on cars (fume)

[Wij]

My wife negotiated a very good deal from a car dealer (I did some groundwork ok) on a new car. She gave them the Visa Debit Card details to take a deposit and as far as she was aware the deal was done.

10 minutes later the saleman's boss rings back and effectively says, sorry we can't do that deal, we'd be losing money, you can still have it for a grand more.

I've phoned up and told them we're not best pleased but the guy's attitude is tough; I've apologised and I'm not losing money over it.

Does anyone know if we have any rights here ? To me this isn't a quote. It was a done deal. We gave them card details, you don't do that for a quote. In fact the Visa Debit transaction for the deposit may well have been done and reversed off since my available balance has been affected by that amount (plus a bit extra probably from last Sainsbo's visit.)

*fume*

 

[ECA]

Sounds like they are being shady fucks, you had an agreed price, he's trying to wangle some beer money. fuck him.

 

[Tom]

Do you have anything on paper? If you have, and have already paid a deposit then AFAIK the deal is binding.

Offer and acceptance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ECA]

On a serious note, contact citizens advice thingy, tell them whats happened, and threaten the car people to contact the local newspaper if they dont fuckoff.

 

[Wij]

Nothing on paper but I'll contact ctizen's advice. I'll bung in a Data Protecton Act request to see the Visa Debit activity too.

 

[Nilima Rugs]

does it work?

 

[throdgrain]

It's quite likely they made a mistake.

I had a deal like this a few years ago. I did the deal using the agreed strategy my boss and I had planned, then he changed his mind and told me to ring the customer and give him his deposit back.

Needless to say we had an arguement that ended up with my boss smashing his mobile phone up in temper. There was no communication for half an hour, then he rung me up to apologise.

We still didnt do the deal, but he rang the customer to give the good news ...

 

[MYstIC G]

If it's that good a deal, offer to split the difference with them?

 

[Nate]

It's quite likely they made a mistake.

I had a deal like this a few years ago. I did the deal using the agreed strategy my boss and I had planned, then he changed his mind and told me to ring the customer and give him his deposit back.

Needless to say we had an arguement that ended up with my boss smashing his mobile phone up in temper. There was no communication for half an hour, then he rung me up to apologise.

We still didnt do the deal, but he rang the customer to give the good news ...

Nicely done throd, it's really great to put the Manager infront of the customer in these situations as they can be all demanding and tell you to fuck off the customer but if it's the Managers fault and you realise this you have every right to get him to sort it out. Makes them squirm

 

[MYstIC G]

Oh and I'm not good on this stuff, but I thought as a general rule of thumb, contracts have to be "fair", e.g. I can't have a contract with you that deliberately cause you harm or isn't reasonable.

 

[tris-]

there is only a contract if -


one party makes an offer

the other party accepts it

there is an intention to create a legally binding contract (assumed when public is dealing with a business)

consideration has been passed from one party to the other for the promise of performing the contract (consideration is something of economic value. i dont believe card details have economic value)


without all four of those ingredients you dont have a contract.

 

[MYstIC G]

Again, not good at this and not sure how applicable it is in the UK: Impracticability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tris-]

mystic g, without a contract there is no duty. so even if it was a uk thing (never heard of it my self), it wouldnt apply.

 

[Scouse]

mystic g, without a contract there is no duty. so even if it was a uk thing (never heard of it my self), it wouldnt apply.

Contracts don't have to be written to be binding. I know this because if I accept a contract for work and then start performing it before reading it (which is common practice) then I'm assumed by law to have agreed to the contents.

If they've used your visa debit I'd say that's a binding contract - but citizens advice may be able to help more

 

[tris-]

Contracts don't have to be written to be binding. I know this because if I accept a contract for work and then start performing it before reading it (which is common practice) then I'm assumed by law to have agreed to the contents.

If they've used your visa debit I'd say that's a binding contract - but citizens advice may be able to help more

i never said it had to be written. im actually doing my dissertation on contract law next year so i know a fair about em

yes you agree to it, but there is 4 elements and ALL of them must be present otherwise its not a contract (written, verbal or otherwise). you have to pay something and here i dont think anything has been paid, unless youve left a deposit.

 

[tris-]

an easier way to look at it is this.

you goto a shop. theres a mars bar for 6p. you take it to the till and the shop keeper says im not selling it for less than 10p. do you think you have a contract for buying it at 6p?

 

[DaGaffer]

there is only a contract if -


one party makes an offer

the other party accepts it

there is an intention to create a legally binding contract (assumed when public is dealing with a business)

consideration has been passed from one party to the other for the promise of performing the contract (consideration is something of economic value. i dont believe card details have economic value)


without all four of those ingredients you dont have a contract.

Consideration has to be agreed but it doesn't have to be passed from one party to the other; if that was true all contracts would be payable in advance or require a deposit, which obviously isn't the case.

The problem in Wij's case is that the only real remedy is to walk away. Are you going to put yourself through the heartache of legal proceedings to secure the saving of a grand, or are you going to just say "fuck you" and go somewhere else? I'd suggest only someone extremely bloody-minded and with a lot of time on their hands is going to pursue this.

Of course you bad-mouth the dealer to everyone you know...

*edit* also, as its a new car you should also contact the car company direct and let them know why you walked away.

 

[MYstIC G]

No, but you can do him for false advertising unless he takes certain steps to correct his mistake.

 

[DaGaffer]

an easier way to look at it is this.

you goto a shop. theres a mars bar for 6p. you take it to the till and the shop keeper says im not selling it for less than 10p. do you think you have a contract for buying it at 6p?

Actually you do. If its labelled as 6p the default position is that shop has to sell it to you for that price (Consumer Protection Act). However, if the shop can show that the price is a mistake (e.g. all the other Mars Bars are labelled 10p) then they can say no, but only in those circumstances.

 

[tris-]

Consideration has to be agreed
it doesn't have to be passed from one party to the other
if that was true all contracts would be payable in advance or require a deposit, which obviously isn't the case.

if i promise to mow your lawn, and you promise to give me a tenner. you can only enforce the contract if youve paid me the tenner.

i reckon youre talking about things like phones or ISPs etc. if O2 promises to give me service, and i promised to give £30 a month. i can only enforce the contract if i pay that £30. O2 are giving me the service, so they can enforce the contract on me. if i dont pay the £30, i cant sue O2 for anything to do with the contract.

 

[tris-]

Actually you do. If its labelled as 6p the default position is that shop has to sell it to you for that price (Consumer Protection Act). However, if the shop can show that the price is a mistake (e.g. all the other Mars Bars are labelled 10p) then they can say no, but only in those circumstances.

im sorry but youre wrong. which part of the consumer protection act? an item on a shop shelf is not an offer to sell, its an invitation for someone to make an offer to buy.

heres the current law on this

"Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 Q.B. 394, [1960] 3 All E.R. 731 is an English law case concerning the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that, where goods are displayed in a shop together with a price label, such display is treated as an invitation to treat by the seller, and not an offer. The offer is instead made when the customer presents the item to the cashier together with payment. Acceptance occurs at the point the cashier takes payment. The judgment was delivered by Lord Parker C.J., with Ashworth and Elwes, JJ. concurring."

if contracts were like you say they are, then it means every business everywhere is legally obliged to sell me everything. when infact, a business does not have to sell anything.

 

[DaGaffer]

if i promise to mow your lawn, and you promise to give me a tenner. you can only enforce the contract if youve paid me the tenner.

i reckon youre talking about things like phones or ISPs etc. if O2 promises to give me service, and i promised to give £30 a month. i can only enforce the contract if i pay that £30. O2 are giving me the service, so they can enforce the contract on me. if i dont pay the £30, i cant sue O2 for anything to do with the contract.

No, you're wrong. The promise of consideration is enough. A lot of contracts are based on payment by results and the consideration doesn't actually arrive until after the contract is fulfilled (or partially fulfilled), but that doesn't mean that because I haven't paid yet I don't have any rights. In fact, almost all corporate contracts work this way; if I do a deal with a supplier, I would usually agree 30-45 day payment terms and the supplier would start work before they got the money. If they don't do the work, I have the right to not pay them (even though consideration has been agreed), but also to claim incidental damages for breach of contract, even though I haven't actually paid a penny. After all, their failure to perform a contract will have knock-on implications beyond the simple cost of their service. This is standard boiler-plate stuff.

 

[Nate]

Didn't we go over this before tris, where you yourself owned Bugz in this thread effectively telling him that he does have to sell it at the advertised price?

 

[tris-]

how am i wrong? im getting my information from case law which is the only valid place to get it from.

"Price v Easton (1833)

Easton made a contract with X that in return for X doing work for him, Easton would pay Price �19. X did the work but Easton did not pay, so Price sued. It was held that Price's claim must fail, as he had not provided consideration."

as you can see, because price provided no consideration he could not enforce the contract.

 

[tris-]

Didn't we go over this before tris, where you yourself owned Bugz in this thread effectively telling him that he does have to sell it at the advertised price?

yes but no one listens to me cos i post in off topic!
doesnt matter i actually study this at university.

 

[Nate]

yes but no one listens to me cos i post in off topic!
doesnt matter i actually study this at university.

But now your saying the opposite? Hmm

I guess it's the terminology, it's not a contract but it is illegal. Thats what you said in the other thread anyway.

 

[tris-]

But now your saying the opposite? Hmm

I guess it's the terminology, it's not a contract but it is illegal. Thats what you said in the other thread anyway.

im not saying the opposite thing. da gaffer is saying it MUST be sold at 6p. the shop doesnt even have to sell it. they can charge the 6p or refuse to sell it at all. effectively what i believe da gaffer is saying is that because its priced 6p, the shop is offering to selling it at 6p. which would mean everything everywhere is on offer to be sold, when thats wrong. its simply inviting you to make an offer to buy.

 

[DaGaffer]

im not saying the opposite thing. da gaffer is saying it MUST be sold at 6p. the shop doesnt even have to sell it. they can charge the 6p or refuse to sell it at all. effectively what i believe da gaffer is saying is that because its priced 6p, the shop is offering to selling it at 6p. which would mean everything everywhere is on offer to be sold, when thats wrong. its simply inviting you to make an offer to buy.

No I didn't say that. The shop can always refuse to sell to a customer for any reason, but, if they are trying to deliberately label a Mars Bar for 6p and sell it at the till for 10p then they're breaking the law under the CPA unless they can prove it was a mistake. In your example the shop keeper can a. refuse to sell the Mars Bar at all, b. refuse to sell it for less than 10p but run the risk of being done under the CPA, or c. sell it for 6p.

Trading Standards Central - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK

 

[tris-]

No I didn't say that. The shop can always refuse to sell to a customer for any reason, but, if they are trying to deliberately label a Mars Bar for 6p and sell it at the till for 10p then they're breaking the law under the CPA unless they can prove it was a mistake. In your example the shop keeper can a. refuse to sell the Mars Bar at all, b. refuse to sell it for less than 10p but run the risk of being done under the CPA, or c. sell it for 6p.

i know all that.
suprisingly.
i even said it in the bit you just quoted me on!

 

[DaGaffer]

how am i wrong? im getting my information from case law which is the only valid place to get it from.

"Price v Easton (1833)

Easton made a contract with X that in return for X doing work for him, Easton would pay Price �19. X did the work but Easton did not pay, so Price sued. It was held that Price's claim must fail, as he had not provided consideration."

as you can see, because price provided no consideration he could not enforce the contract.

"Consideration" doesn't have to be money. It can simply be work, or anything that is to the detriment of one party and benefit of the other. So, if I enter into a contract with someone I don't have to give them money upfront, I just have to give them my business. Look, I know you're studying this, but so did I and I actually do contract negotiations all the time.