Message Forums

 bit of a tricky one this!!

 as you say its a private sale,so no really legal comeback here,except in the case if its that bad that it is too dangerous to be on the road,then its a case of seller has misrepresented it as fit.

 best course to call seller and explain that your not happy with it and that you have had it examined,pointing out that altho you did buy it with a bit of damp,there has more found which renders the van unusable.

 point out that he/her did put in the advert as stated.

 if you can come to a satisfactory aggreement,no more probs,otherwise small claims court is the answer here.

 hope you can get it sorted amicably

A cautionary tale for everyone in that buying from a private seller its a case, more or less, of "Caveat Emptor" - let the buyer beware. Its down to the buyer to satisfy himself that the goods are worth the purchase. Try, if you can, to always buy from a dealer as that gives you all of the protection you need from a whole raft of Consumer legislation.

All may not be lost, however. When you buy second hand goods from private sellers you do have a right to have the product correctly described and that the owner has the right to sell it (he owns it). 

In legal parlance, from what you have said, a false statement of fact was made by your seller to you and that induced you to enter into the contract for purchase. In one word, "misrepresentation". Might be nice to know if the seller emphasised the lack of damp and excellent condition during your discussions. You need to be satisfied that the misrepresentation did induce you to buy. If the seller will not hand the money back then you need to go to court to sue for recovery. Before any court proceedings you need to seek recovery form the seller. A chat to start with and if that doesn't get you anywhere, then a formal letter setting out the circumstances and advising the seller that he is in breach of contract and you want your money back. State that you will return the caravan. You will need to produce that letter in any court proceedings so keep a copy and send it recorded delivery.

Where a court concludes that there has indeed been a misrepresentation it can either 

a) rescind your contract and you hand the caravan back and the seller gives you your money (plus the costs of the court action) or,

b) damages (you keep the caravan and you end up paying what it is worth i.e the seller gives you back the difference).

You may also get damages as well as the contract being rescinded depending on the type of misrepresentation but I suspect that that could be unlikely unless you can proove that the misrepresentation was fraudulent.

Basically, the court puts you into the position you would have been in had there been no misrepresentation. (Misrepresentation Act 1967)

You do not say how much you paid for the caravan and that may be essential to your cause. If, for example you bought it for £50 then that should have put you on notice that something was amiss. However, if you paid the going rate for a good quality second hand caravan then that will assist your cause.

When suing you may hear a mention of the small claims court. That avenue can only be used if the amount of the claim is less than £5000. This procedure can be a relatively simple and informal way of seeking redress where you don't need a solicitor. The court officers will usually be quite helpful in assisting you to fill out the claim forms. If the amount you want to recover is more than that then you would need to use the more formalised County Court process and would really need a Solicitor. Where you win then you should get an order for the seller to pay your costs. You have to hope he has the money to repay and meet your costs.

Once an order has been obtained in your favour then, if the seller will not pay up, you have to use the courts enforcement procedures which can be time consuming and fees are involved. Worst case scenario is that you end up with a charging order on the sellers house (similar to a mortgage) and then get an order for possession, evict him and his family, and then sell the house to recover your losses and costs.

Hope all this helps

Phil

Two points..and I posters have overlapped here posting at the same time (all just too keen to help you 2wheels)

1. Small claims court has a financial limit and if you paid more than £5000 you cannot use that procedure

2. Note my comment "You need to be satisfied that the misrepresentation did induce you to buy". I should perhaps have expanded upopn that. You say that you enquired about damp and found some when inspecting the van. I take it that this led to a discussion on damp. So you knew before your contract was made that there was damp and that the advert was incorrect i nthat regard. Think about what the seller said to you, if anything, about the damp you found. Did he make further representations to you about the damp e.g "That must be the only area of damp then as I have had it checked out at a local dealer before I advertised it" or, perhaps "Didn't know there was any but now you have found some there may be other areas you will have to take it as found". The two comments given as examples are quite different. The first is a misrepresentation that may have induced you to buy and the second is a misrepresentation at the time of contract.

Cases turn on their individual facts. In court you need to show

1. Misrepresentation at the time you contracted to buy

2. That that misrepresentation actually induced you to buy

Phil

Sorry should have read

The first is a misrepresentation that may have induced you to buy and the second is not a misrepresentation at the time of contract.

Phil

unfortunately when buying private your warranty is 3 feet or the gate whatever comes 1st. bit of a sore one

that is why I ended up buying from a dealer as having a warranty was worth it

Disagree RuneCaster

We have an advert which expressly states that there is no damp. We have a purchaser who found considerable damp. We have an advert which expressly states that the van is in excellent condition. What the court will consider will be the situation at the time the contract to buy was made. Stripping down the van after the contract was made evidenced the misrepresentation.

It matters not what the seller thought for the basic breach of misrepresentation. He represented that there was no damp and it was excellent. His thinking may weigh in the courts mind if it finds that he actually knew there was coinsiderable damp and that it was not excellent. Then the court may move towards a consideration of fraud as the mens rea (the sellers thoughts) is then important.

If you are to represent that something is excellent then you have to know it is before making that representation. So be warned any of you advertising your goods. Tell what you know is true rather than what you hope is true.

Phil

In addition to the issue of contract law and misrepresentation (Misrepresentation Act as indicated earlier) the original poster may wish to consider the possibility of action in Tort i.e Negligence. Not as easy to prove a Tort (civil wrong) as a breach of contract, but if the poster takes legal advice from their Solicitor he may feel inclined to throw such a cause of action into the pot in any proceedings against the seller.

The case for a Tort by the seller in this case runs as follows:-

Where a relationship between two parties can be shown to create a duty of care on the part of one to the other (seller to purchaser in this case) then, in the exercise of that duty of care, the seller must take sufficient care to avoid any negligence liability.

Generally, a duty of care arises where one individual undertakes an activity (selling a van in this case) which could reasonably harm another in any number of ways including, economically. The OP argument would be that it was reasonable for the seller to have known that the information contained in the advert would be relied upon by prospective purchasers for entering into a contract and thus the seller had to take sufficient care in what was said in that advert. As Lord Atkin said in the famous case of Donoghue and Stevenson "individuals must take reasonable care in their actions or omissions, so as not to cause harm to others proximate to them." So, in this case the seller should have made sure of his facts before posting the advert and by not doing was negligent and the purchaser suffered economically.

Cases in Contract and Tort are subject to a time line and a court will always look at the facts at the time the contract was made, or alleged tort committed (not at the time the advert was placed) to ascertain what really happened.

Against the original poster is the fact that he spotted some damp. The court will ask itself, at the exact moment the contract was made, or tort committed, as the purchaser knew that there was some damp, did the purchaser still rely on the misrepresentation? If so then there is a case. In the alternative, a purchaser may be saying to himself, I don't care what you say Mr Seller I want the van anyway and thus was not swayed by the misrepresentation or tort.

Hope the OP had a witness to hear what was said

Phil

The advert says no damp, when you inspected the van you found a small damp area, knowing this you still bought the van. to me this could say that since the obvious area was small the owner may or may not have known about it so it is possible that he made the statement in good faith ( though personally I would doubt it ) however you bought it knowing it was damp so at that point whatever was said previously fails to have any relevance.

To me you have two choices repair it or scrap it, the private sale after you discivered the damp  gives you no cover whasoever.

Sticking point will boil down to "No damp, no leaks" in the seller's untrained opinion, so unless you can prove that the seller knew he/she was misrepresenting the condition of the caravan I think you're out on a very shoogly limb legally.

However, if the seller was a trained operative or caravan retailer....................

The law does not quite work in the way recent posters have suggested.  For example, in Jakes' post  he has introduced a new element to the issue which was not raised by 2wheels. The post indicates that there was no damp no leaks in the sellers untrained opinion. No where does 2wheels say that the advert was qualified to the sellers untrained opinion.  The advert, according to 2wheels, simply represented that the van was damp free, free from leaks and in excellent condition.

If we break misrepresentation down into its three elements it is :- 

a false statement of fact

made by one party to another party,

which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract.

From the information provided by 2wheels there was a false statement of fact. The representor does not have to know it is wrong. All that the court asks is "the advert says no damp and excellent condition. Is there damp? YES. Is it in excellent condition? NO. Therefore misrepresentation.

Did one person make that statement to another...clearly YES

Was the effect of that statement that 2 wheels was induced into buying? At this stage we do not know.

The Misrepresentation Act reads

"s1. Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him..."

It does not read

 Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him and the person making that respresentation knows it not to be true...

See the difference? The act does not discuss the knowledge of the representor except where fraud is concerned. Put simply, if you make a statement about goods that statement has to be true otherwise its a misrepresentation. If you don't know it is a fact then don't say it.

The issue in this case, on the facts presented by 2wheels, centres around the discussion at the point that some damp was found. As I said earlier there is a time line on a contracting process and you need to pin down what happened when. Did that discussion negate the effect of the advert?  The advert was a misrepresentation but (from the three elements I set out above) that is not enough. Was 2wheels induced into buying by the advert or any subsequent statements made by the seller?

So, on the information supplied there "may" be a case.

Perhaps 2wheels may care to add further comment

Phil