Thread: That was a waste of time.

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

Diana is correct. You cannot be held liable if you didn't knowingly deceive somebody. You can look it up in the Fair Trading Act (Vic) 1999 and TPA.

I've decided to be fair and offer $44.19 back, that is less my fuel costs.

This doesnt make the purchaser liable surely.
Good to see you have been fair.

So whats the plans now? Gonna keep the old girl

Originally Posted by p38arover

given the the prospect wanted the car in exchange for the $100,

So this "phrase" indicates ..... the car, year & model was not the "real" problem ... it was just the question of price

Originally Posted by mike 90 RR

So this "phrase" indicates ..... the car, year & model was not the "real" problem ... it was just the question of price

Good point.

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

Diana is correct. You cannot be held liable if you didn't knowingly deceive somebody. You can look it up in the Fair Trading Act (Vic) 1999 and TPA.

I've decided to be fair and offer $44.19 back, that is less my fuel costs.

I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that you have knowingly tried to deceive the buyer - you have advertised the vehicle based on the best information that you had to hand.

Unfortunately, some have suggested that the buyer might be less than honest and trying to "scam" you based on no real evidence to that effect.

Look at from the prospective buyer's point of view and consider the facts -

You advertised a 1966 vehicle for sale. The prospective buyer agreed to purchase the vehicle and paid a deposit. On seeing the vehicle, the prospective buyer discovered that, in fact, it is not a 1966 vehicle, but one that is 6 years or so older. The fact that rego papers or your honest belief indicate the vehicle to be 1966 is completely irrelevant - it is an older vehicle than what was advertised.

The prospective buyer is entitled to withdraw from the sale. If the "deposit" was paid only as a "holding" deposit to guarantee that you did not sell the vehicle to someone else, then the prospective buyer would also be entitled to a full refund of the deposit under these circumstances.

However, because you have gone to the effort and expense to transport the vehicle to the supplier, then I believe it only fair that the prospective buyer should compensate you in some way for your time and cost in doing this.

I certainly don't believe that the prospective buyer had any reasonable grounds to expect to take the vehicle off your hands for nothing more than the deposit paid, which really only possibly covered your costs in delivering the vehicle. I'd like to think that this offer was made "tongue in cheek", but not being there, really don't know. If you believe that the prospective buyer was serious about this expectation, then I can certainly understand you being pee'd off about it - I wold be too.

Had I been the buyer and made the same discovery, I think I would have tried to negotiate a reasonable deal with you that we were both happy with. At least that way, there's a chance that both of us would have come out of it with something near what we wanted - the way that this has ended up, neither of you has had a win.

Except, if as others on here have said, your vehicle is actually worth more than what you were originally asking (and I wouldn't know) - you might very well end up selling it for more than what you were at first expecting.

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

Diana is correct. You cannot be held liable if you didn't knowingly deceive somebody. You can look it up in the Fair Trading Act (Vic) 1999 and TPA.

I've decided to be fair and offer $44.19 back, that is less my fuel costs.

All credit to you mate. I think thats a fair and mature response and if the purchaser doesnt take it as a good faith offer then I would think less of him for it.

Angus

Now I dont know much about the Series vehicles, but damn it, surely an old Land Rover (btw - looks very nice) is worth at least the price of a friggin trailer (trailers are $1500 and more). $100 is a damn right insult, you cant even buy a pair of decent running shoes for that... honestly, LR folk are sometimes worse than non-LR folk when it comes to the value of our beloved LR's!

So if I find a Series for that money, ill sure be tempted to purchase a bit of history!

Originally Posted by stooge

Now I dont know much about the Series vehicles, but damn it, surely an old Land Rover (btw - looks very nice) is worth at least the price of a friggin trailer (trailers are $1500 and more). $100 is a damn right insult, you cant even buy a pair of decent running shoes for that... honestly, LR folk are sometimes worse than non-LR folk when it comes to the value of our beloved LR's!

So if I find a Series for that money, ill sure be tempted to purchase a bit of history!

Me too.

From the photo - I think this one for sale is worth way more than is being asked, and $100 is nothing short of a joke. Not sure if it's registered or not, but if it's a goer and is either registered or easily able to be, I would have expected to pay at least a grand or more for something like that - and I have no idea of the current values of Series Landy's either. But I've seen plenty of people pay well above this price for vehicles (Landy's and others) that don't look anywhere near as good. Geez - my young bloke paid 2 grand for an old Corolla not long back as a work hack so he wasn't driving his Mazda to work every day. Given the choice of his Corolla and this Landy, I know which I'd rather have.

Originally Posted by BMKal

Sorry - but this is rubbish. ...

...This is a Landrover site after all - surely there is enough knowledge on here to be able to state accurately what the vehicle is - regardless of what it says on the rego papers.

And the claim that "someone who was more of an expert than you correctly identified the vehicle as earlier than it actually was is not your problem" -??

Would love to see you try to use that argument when you're trading in or selling a vehicle at a car yard and they tell you that your 2004 Discovery ....

The operative word here is "In good Faith" if you truely believe something to be something and what it was sold to you as then you should not have to delve the depths of the National Archives of Australia or the United Kingdom to confirm your beliefs. That you were in error is irrelevant provided you didn't do it intentionally.

If we are such experts on these vehicles, please tell me the model year of a 109" Land Rover 26302400C? it has a Holden Red motor now but I'm interested in it's year because I want to sell it.

Regarding the 2004 Discovery or any vehicle sold in Australia post 1972, they are required to have a compliance plate stating the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle. Vehicles before that date are another matter there are no compliance plates and unless you can decode those models that do relate to a production year, don't necessarily relate to a manufacture date.

I still maintain that you sold in good faith and accepted his withdrawing from the sale, but you had to undertake work involved in the loading and transport, fuel, wear and tear on your vehicle and trailer (even if you didn't hire it) and all that has a dollar value. Several hours of my toil whether it be "work" or "leasure" time is definately worth more than $50.00 per hour. And providing that you didn't agree that the purchase and your related "meeting him" trip was subject to purchase approval or anything of the sort, then I'd be keeping the dollars.

Diana