AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Selling used vehicles

29th March 1980, Page 52
29th March 1980
Page 52
Page 52, 29th March 1980 — Selling used vehicles
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Les Oldridge, TEng, (CE I), MI :TION 60 of the Road Traffic 1972 makes it an offence to or supply, or to offer to sell upply, or to expose for sale a or vehicle or trailer in such a dition that its use on a road Jld contravene any of the s contained in the Motor ides (Construction and Use) ulations 1978, concerning tes, steering gear or tyres; or regulations which deal with maintenance of vehicles in a condition; the construction, 3ht or equipment of vehicles te law relating to the lighting pment or reflectors required ehicles. There is a maximum alty of a £200 fine for conention of this section.

is a defence to a charge ar Section 60 to prove that: he vehicle was sold for exfrom the UK.

'he seller had reasonable ;e to believe that the vehicle Id not be used on roads in country until the defects been remedied.

/here there were defects in ights or reflectors the seller reasonable cause to believe the vehicle would not be I during the hours of dark until the defects had been le statutary defence pro d in the second example .e requires the seller to be that the vehicle will not be

until it has been red. If the vehicle is towed from his premises, even if on a suspended tow, it is "used.Although this is

ably a quite safe practice

3ct that the vehicle is being

3d" precludes the seller availing himself of this de:. This is particularly so, of ie, if he was aware of the the vehicle was going to be ported.

cidentally, it is no defence )ve that the buyer was told the defects which are pre)n the vehicle. If a defective vehicle is sold the only safe way to transport it is on a trailer or pick-a-back on another lorry. If this is done there can be no question that it is being "used on a road" because the wheels are not in contact with the road.

In British Car Auctions Ltd v Wright (1972) 1 WLR 1519 it was held that an auctioneer could not be guilty of offering to sell an unroadworthy car under this section as he does not, as a matter of strict law, "offer for sale" but makes an invitation to treat those persons who are present at the auction.

"Invitation to treat" is a strange legal term used, for example, where a price tag is put on an article. In this case the seller is not making an offer but inviting the public to make an offer. An auctioneer is in a similar manner inviting those at the auction to make him an offer.

In Sandford Motor Sales Ltd, v Habgood (1962) Crim LR 487, it was held that the selling of a motor vehicle in contravention of this section was an "absolute" offence, ie it does not depend on the person committing it having guilty knowledge. In other words he need not be aware that the vehicle was defective.

In most cases a customer who has been sold a defective vehicle is more interested in getting the seller to put the vehicle right or in obtaining damages. The Road Traffic Act offence does not help in this respect and in fact in Badham v Lambs (1946) KB 45, it was held that breach of this section does not give a purchaser a right to recover damages. Nevertheless, one would think that if a seller had been successfully prosecuted for selling a defective vehicle, subsequent action in the civil court to recover damages would stand a better chance of success if this was the case.

Actions in the court to obtain damages when a vehicle does not come up to the purchaser's expectations are tortuous and uncertain; the Latin tag "caveat emptor" — let the buyer beware — is very relative. For this reason one is well advised to purchase used vehicles through a reputable dealer who will give a guarantee and stick by it.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979, which consolidates the old Sale of Goods Act 1893, is of some help. If a vehicle is bought from a garage normally selling vehicles and the purchaser informs the supplier the purpose for which he wants the vehicle and after taking delivery he finds the vehicle is totally unsuitable for that purpose then he probably has a claim against the supplier.

In these cases it is assumed that the purchaser relied on the seller's expertise. If the purchaser arranged for an inde pendent engineer to make II

examination of the vehicle a he then bought it on t strength of the engineer's rep then he could not say he h relied on the seller's skill, so t e "fitness for purpose" clau would not apply.

Under the Sale of Goods Act, goods supplied in the course 44 a business must be Of "Merchantable quality" — that is "the goods are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, th4 price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances."

The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it unlawful for a person in the course of a trade Of business to apply a false trade description to any goods offered for sale. It should be noted that this Act only applies to goods offered in the course of a business. If a horsebox was bought from a lady who had used it purely for carrying horses she rode for pleasure then the Act would not apply.

It has been the habit of unscrupulous used car dealers td turn back the mileage reading on speedometers so that it appears as if the car has covere a very much lower mileage tha is actually the case. In man cases this has been held to be a false trade description an heavy fines have been imposed. Although this practice does no appear to have been so pre valent where commerica vehicle sales are concerned th I law applies in just the same way In 1 974 a case went to th appeal court where a Bedfor lorry had been described in an advertisement in a motor trade journal as being in first-clas condition and of 12 yard capacity when in fact it was neither. The dealer who sold th ' vehicle was successfully prose cuted. He appealed but lost the appeal.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus