Sales of Goods Act

[Smeesh]

Just a quick one. Under the Sales of Goods Act I'm sure your legally meant to have a minimum of a 6 months Warranty on purchasing a second hand vehicle ... Am I correct ?

Smeesh.....

 

[moonloops]

Nope. There's no set time period set in the act for purchasing any type of goods.

If you buy a £350 20 year old banger and expect every little fault to be fixed they will laugh you out of court.

Of course if you are buying a newer item at a high value then it would be expected to be of satisfactory quality, as described in the advert and fit for purpose.

p.s. Sales of Goods act no longer exists.

 

[KillerHERTZ]

Now known as Consumer Rights Act 2015

New rules/laws came into effect from the 1st of Oct 2015:

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/legal-a...al-requirements-when-selling-second-hand-cars

 

[toffee-pie]

what does this mean for people looking at buying a cl500.

 

[brucemillar]

Sale of Goods Act. Then there is the real world reality act.

 

[pipmk]

Consumer Rights Act 2015
In broad terms, for reasonable price vehicle (not a £200 scrapper),within 30 days,right to refund (for adequate reasons for rejection) Within 6 months seller gets one chance to repair or replace,if not adequate then refund (less useage benefit etc.)
So yes,there is effectively a 6 month warranty against faults that are regarded as being pre existing. As always the devil is in the detail.

 

[Smeesh]

Thanks Chaps... Had a issue with my S Type many moons ago and the 3 month Warranty had ran out two after my Turbo's blew... They did honour the repair under the the then Sales of Goods Act ... Consumers Rights .... Good to know and thanks again....

Smeesh...

 

[def90cars]

Consumer Rights Act 2015
In broad terms, for reasonable price vehicle (not a £200 scrapper),within 30 days,right to refund (for adequate reasons for rejection) Within 6 months seller gets one chance to repair or replace,if not adequate then refund (less useage benefit etc.)
So yes,there is effectively a 6 month warranty against faults that are regarded as being pre existing. As always the devil is in the detail.

My only experience is this doesn't "cover" known issues considered normal.

For example if you buy a car that has generic issues (e.g. all the cars have that issue) then if it fails through expected use/wear and tear, then you are not "covered".

In short - you knew what you were buying.

From experience with a BMW 320D with a failed turbo.

 

[flango]

Consumer Rights Act 2015
In broad terms, for reasonable price vehicle (not a £200 scrapper),within 30 days,right to refund (for adequate reasons for rejection) Within 6 months seller gets one chance to repair or replace,if not adequate then refund (less useage benefit etc.)
So yes,there is effectively a 6 month warranty against faults that are regarded as being pre existing. As always the devil is in the detail.

This is not quite the correct interpretation this is a complex act which is still being worked out in the court's but there is no automatic right of rejection or automatic right of repair.

If the car was sold with a new mot and full service history and a fault develops then the dealer does not have to do anything because as the article says a new mot and service record proves the car was fit for purpose at the time of sale

 

[pipmk]

This is not quite the correct interpretation this is a complex act which is still being worked out in the court's but there is no automatic right of rejection or automatic right of repair.

If the car was sold with a new mot and full service history and a fault develops then the dealer does not have to do anything because as the article says a new mot and service record proves the car was fit for purpose at the time of sale

I believe your interpretation is questionable. A MOT only covers specified areas, a service record only proves that certain operations have been carried out and do not cover some areas which may well have problems. If your interpretation was correct then it is questionable if VAG would have liability for the recent scandal and no manufacturer would need to issue recalls for most issues. However as I said the devil is always in the detail,a caveat any lawyer will always make.
It is also doubtful if a garage (and that is on whom liability falls) would wish to risk the expense involved in defending such claims against the spirit of the legislation. They take a car back,fix it at trade rates and resell,against the risk of £1000s defending a case they may well not win.
However no doubt we will have test cases and only the lawyers will profit.

To set a precedent of course,the matter has to proceed to the higher courts where the costs involved get very high indeed. It would take very stubborn and motivated people with deep pockets to do this over a used car purchase. Both sides could court bankruptcy over something which is not likely to cost more than a modest sum to fix . "Only a fool or a very rich man goes to law".

 

[Little Lofty]

I hope your wrong flango, as dealers will absolutely love it if that's the case.

Here's a guide to the new law:

Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Which?

 

[flango]

I hope your wrong flango, as dealers will absolutely love it if that's the case.

Here's a guide to the new law:

Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Which?

Having been a car trader married to a lawyer and having been to court twice with customers trying it on wanting free repairs when they were at fault I'm not usually far off the money

As to the other post what VW did was illegal nothing to do whether if the car was roadworthy or not

Precedence was set a few years ago in high court a fresh MOT IS proof a vehicle is roadworthy at the time of sale. A comprehensive service history IS proof that maintenance has been carried out on the vehicle particularly if the last service stamp is at the time of sale.

 

[pipmk]

Having been a car trader married to a lawyer and having been to court twice with customers trying it on wanting free repairs when they were at fault I'm not usually far off the money

As to the other post what VW did was illegal nothing to do whether if the car was roadworthy or not

Precedence was set a few years ago in high court a fresh MOT IS proof a vehicle is roadworthy at the time of sale. A comprehensive service history IS proof that maintenance has been carried out on the vehicle particularly if the last service stamp is at the time of sale.

We have yet to find out if the latest Act undercuts the High Court judgements to which you refer. Precedent only lasts until it is overturned by either an Act or a superior court. A MOT only proves that on the day it was tested the vehicle met the MOT requirements,a service history only proves that the vehicle is (presumed) to have been maintained to the manufacturers requirements. The manufacturers are not, as have been shown, infallible.

As I have said,the devil is in the detail of each case and as I have also said it would be a rare trader,especially one of any repute that would want to risk his reputation,time and considerable monies fighting a case which he may very well lose for the sake of relatively small sums.