Thread: That was a waste of time.

Shonks

You can take it home next GPA Swim in at Corowa!

Diana

At the end of the day he put a deposit down for a 66 which YOU were unable to supply. So I think he should get his $100 back.

I agree that the way he went about it was a touch rude, but I don't think it is the buyers fault that the vehicle is a 60 not a 66.

Sorry but personally, I really do think the deposit should have been returned.

In the long run you can advertise the vehicle for more now, cause its a SII, so that should cover it

I would have offered to give him $50 back. Fair enough, mistake made and it sounds like an honest one, but there is no need to demand to get the vehicle for free. Thats just unreasonable.

I do think you should have offered him some money back cause from his point of view he has paid $100 to get nothing. He did buy it thinking it was a '66 and he wasnt obligated to follow through with the purchase.

Sounds like an unfortunate situation in general...

Angus

Originally Posted by Grimace

At the end of the day he put a deposit down for a 66 which YOU were unable to supply. ...

The issue goes back further, if the last time the vehicle was registered it was recorded as 1965 and that is how you purchased it and advertised in good faith. Then the Government's records take precedence. That someone who was more of an expert than you correctly identified the vehicle as earlier than it actually was is not your problem. It also sounds like the intended buyer was not only an expert, but a bit of a horse trader as well trying to scam you out of the agreed price.

You agreed to sell him a Land Rover which you fully believed to be 1965, the price was from your home and he paid a deposit.

The fact that he correctly identified the model year is irrelevant. He chose not to continue with the sale and your time, trailer and effort to tow the vehicle is well worth $100. If he came to your home the argument would have been very different and you should return the deposit. IMHO

I agree with you sticking to your guns.

Next time advertise the vehicle with the chassis number and there's no argument.

Diana

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The issue goes back further, if the last time the vehicle was registered it was recorded as 1965 and that is how you purchased it and advertised in good faith. Then the Government's records take precedence. That someone who was more of an expert than you correctly identified the vehicle as earlier than it actually was is not your problem. It also sounds like the intended buyer was not only an expert, but a bit of a horse trader as well trying to scam you out of the agreed price.

You agreed to sell him a Land Rover which you fully believed to be 1965, the price was from your home and he paid a deposit.

The fact that he correctly identified the model year is irrelevant. He chose not to continue with the sale and your time, trailer and effort to tow the vehicle is well worth $100. If he came to your home the argument would have been very different and you should return the deposit. IMHO

I agree with you sticking to your guns.

Next time advertise the vehicle with the chassis number and there's no argument.

Diana

Are you kidding me.... The past is irrelevant!

I must think backwards to everyone else, If I was the seller I would without a doubt refund the deposit.

If the original seller was unable to identify the vehicle correctly that is no fault of the intended buyer.

I agree it is not the direct fault of the seller, but it is the sellers problem and responsibility, not the buyers.

The way I see it we all may aswell start falsy advertising vehicles and taking deposits and keeping the coin . This is not intended at the original poster as I do understand that it was an honest mistake.

Again even thou it was an honest mistake it was again not the mistake of the buyer.

At the end of the day the buyer got ripped off $100. He will most probably learn from this and hopefully gets more info before he places a deposit on a vehicle in the future.

The seller not only scored $100, they got to take a nice drive & learnt more about their vehicle through the misfortune of an intended buyer. Hopefully you too do more research when buying a vehicle in the furture.

Seriously ****ty situation, but as the owner of the said vehicle you should sack up and accept the responsibility, which is your own and no one elses. IMHO ofcourse.

I do think the prospect was entirely unreasonable in wanting the car for the $100.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The issue goes back further, if the last time the vehicle was registered it was recorded as 1965 and that is how you purchased it and advertised in good faith. Then the Government's records take precedence. That someone who was more of an expert than you correctly identified the vehicle as earlier than it actually was is not your problem. It also sounds like the intended buyer was not only an expert, but a bit of a horse trader as well trying to scam you out of the agreed price.

You agreed to sell him a Land Rover which you fully believed to be 1965, the price was from your home and he paid a deposit.

The fact that he correctly identified the model year is irrelevant. He chose not to continue with the sale and your time, trailer and effort to tow the vehicle is well worth $100. If he came to your home the argument would have been very different and you should return the deposit. IMHO

I agree with you sticking to your guns.

Next time advertise the vehicle with the chassis number and there's no argument.

Diana

Sorry - but this is rubbish.

Government records are meaningless. I've seen Toyotas registered as Nissans on Government paperwork. Just because some fool in a gov't rego office doesn't know his or her job shouldn't mean that what they type onto the form is "gospel". You should see what my camper trailer is registered as.

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 (according to the rego papers and someone has changed the headlights) is really only an '02 and not worth anywhere near as much as what you are asking for it.

Having said all that, the issue of a refund of the deposit is another matter. I do think it was unreasonable of the purchaser to expect to take delivery of the vehicle for nothing more than his original deposit, but at the same time undersand his unhappiness to find that the vehicle was not what he was orginally offered (even if the vehicle, in the opinion of people who probably know more than him, is actually worth more than what he was originally offered for sale).

Not sure what the outcome should have been - wasn't there on the day, but I would have thought that some compromise would have been reasonable. Doubt if he's got a leg to stand on if he does report it to the police though.

Is that you Mr Nick?

Is the river shot at Poly Quinns.

Very unfortunate for all concerned.

I guess that's why all vehicles sales ads should include ; VIN or Chassis numbers ( which should have been on the original rego papers ) and an engine number.

The buyer can then do a Vicroads check regarding vehicle background , security , right offs , finance, etc.

Can understand why you are both unhappy.