999tigger Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 No, it's fraud, you could probably be charged with something under the theft act. Deception to obtain a pecuniary advantage, or something like that. errr no it depends what was said at the time of sale. If he just sold the car without mentionining and made no prepresentations that the car was fre from debt then it is just a normal sale. Hence buyer beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Hmmm, I'm not convinced, but I'm not sure what section of law would cover it to be able to check. Deliberately not offering up information like that is deceptive IMO, and I suspect that a court would agree. I can't prove my opinion though and am open to you proving me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 As I said in private sales it is buyer beware. He is making no express or implied warranties. If he opens his mouth and says something that knowingly induces him to buy i.e there is no debt then that becomes a fraudulent misrepresentation and it is criminal. Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597. Silence doesnt count, so if the buyer fails to ask then he hasnt done anything wrong, hence buyer beware. You simply do not know the facts of what happened at the time of sale. He seems to have made no enquiries . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 You could make the same argument about selling stolen goods, but there you'd definitely be wrong, which I think applies in this case as well. If the owner is technically the loan company, then the person who sells the car actually has no right to do though. Failing to disclose a mechanical fault would be quite different to selling something which you have no legal right to sell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Hughes Doesn't appear to be relevant at all, that's a case of the buyer making a mistake and blaming the seller, not the seller deliberately defrauding the buying, which is what we are talking about here. A unilateral mistake is therefore in principle no ground for rescission of a contract. We aren't talking about a mistake here. If a car is subject to a logbook loan, also called a bill of sale, the loan company is the legal owner of the car until the loan is paid off in full. If you buy a car that has a logbook loan on it and the person you bought the car from stops paying the money back, the finance company can repossess the car and keep it until the debt is paid in full. This applies even if you bought the car in good faith and did not know it had a logbook loan. The loan company does not need a court order to repossess the car. From citizens advice http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/consumer_s/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_problems_with_the_car_you_bought_e/consumer_the_vehicle_you_bought_doesnt_match_its_description_e/you_have_bought_a_car_that_has_a_logbook_loan.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 He would be selling his right to use the car. You dont know what the seller said because you dont have those details. The case is relevant becayse it says silence does not amount to a representation. You are making assumptions based on details you do not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 So it's perfectly fine to sell the car with a loan on it as long as you keep your mouth shut and don't say anything? Yea, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 So it's perfectly fine to sell the car with a loan on it as long as you keep your mouth shut and don't say anything? Yea, I don't think so. We are talking about whether its civil or criminal. It depends upon what representations are made. If the buyer rushes in and buys without asking questions or doing checks, then that is the risk he takes. As soon as the buyer makes representations that induce the contract then he becomes responsible for those. Hence buyer beware. If the representations were made that amounted to being fraudulent then it is criminal otherwise it is civil based upon the representations being negligent or innocent. Ho and read the misrepresentation act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 We are talking about whether its civil or criminal. It depends upon what representations are made. If the buyer rushes in and buys without asking questions or doing checks, then that is the risk he takes. As soon as the buyer makes representations that induce the contract then he becomes responsible for those. Hence buyer beware. If the representations were made that amounted to being fraudulent then it is criminal otherwise it is civil based upon the representations being negligent or innocent. Ho and read the misrepresentation act. Does the log book loan company take possession of the V5? If so then isn't the guy who's selling the car being fraudulent by offering the replacement V5 as proof of him being the keeper? Or indeed,isn't he being fraudulent by obtaining a replacement.. he must have lied to get it or would DVLA send one out if he said he'd taken a log book loan out and the loan company had the original? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Does the log book loan company take possession of the V5? If so then isn't the guy who's selling the car being fraudulent by offering the replacement V5 as proof of him being the keeper? Or indeed,isn't he being fraudulent by obtaining a replacement.. he must have lied to get it or would DVLA send one out if he said he'd taken a log book loan out and the loan company had the original? I dont know what happened or what the seller did. If he wasnt entitled to a log book then that would indeed be sign of criminal intent imo. From the little that is known of this case then it looks unlikely the seller was the brightest bulb in the box. He has to have intent. Perhaps he didnt understand what the logbook loan meant. You have to look at the individual case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Does the log book loan company take possession of the V5? If so then isn't the guy who's selling the car being fraudulent by offering the replacement V5 as proof of him being the keeper? Or indeed,isn't he being fraudulent by obtaining a replacement.. he must have lied to get it or would DVLA send one out if he said he'd taken a log book loan out and the loan company had the original? If the V5 is transferred into the companies name when the loan is made then the 'seller' would have to obtain a second V5 before getting the loan. Just send off to the DVLA and say they've lost it. However this does clearly show pre-meditation and intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.