Agreed purchase price, but seller sold to someone else!

nointerestinhorses said:
1) For a valid contract one party must offer and the other accept. If the OP has agreed to terms set by the dealer then the dealer does not need to communicate her acceptance of the OPs acceptance, there is already a valid contract.

2) Her case, if she chose to pursue it would be decided in court not on a forum, so I don't think it would be wise for her to display her evidence so publicly.

4) With regards ICLR I admit that no deposit could be evidence against but there is stronger evidence for it when they agreed to spend money on transport costs. As the presumption is in favour of ICLR in this case I believe it would be found.

5) The contract is such that it requires one party to act before the other, by your logic any contract where this is the case could be held void.

7) Why would you do a qualifying law degree and a GDL?

8) If you are qualified then it would be even more advised to put the disclaimer down. Otherwise it could argue that it is professional malpractice and you shouldn't be giving advice outside of work.

10) With regards the other post, contracts for the transfer of property fall within the Sale of Goods Act or the Supply of Goods and Services Act. If these acts concern this case then the rules on risk apply. The fact that it is a consumer rather than a business transaction means that the EU directive would apply.
Click to expand...

I have left the posts out that I have no issue with...

1) You have misunderstood my point. There has to be an offer and there has to be an acceptance of the offer. That acceptance HAS to be communicated to the offeror though. We are not told anywhere in this post that the seller accepted her offer. All we were told is that she has text messages to prove that they'd agreed a price. That is not acceptance. That is discussion and negotiation only. Silence is NOT acceptance and, as it stands, we are not told specifically that "the dealer accepted that I was to buy the horse if I paid x amount". All we were told is that they had agreed to get some transport prices and the asking price. I asked for clarification from the OP incase I had missed something important but that has not come forward.

2) Of course it is wise to display it publically... she asked for advice and to get the advice, you need to provide the evidence. Evidence posted in a public forum is of the same value to evidence NOT posted in a forum. Therefore, she has absolutely nothing to lose at all by revealing the answers that I have been asking her for...

4) They didnt agree to spending money on transport costs. All we were told is that they both agreed to get some quotes. Thats WORLDS away from both agreeing to spending on transport costs!

5) Not at all, they can sort out paperwork...common place once a sale has been concluded...especially in a business to consumer transaction?!?!

7) I didnt do a QLD and a GDL, I did a QLD and a PGDLP.... commonly known as the LPC.... why are you asking such a green question.. are you secretly vetting me?

8) It could ALSO be argued a marketing excercize at some point in the future if, as a suspect she hasnt, the OP has not actually been to a solicitor yet.... Had she answered my questions, I would know whether or not she is likely to win and if she hasnt actually been to the solicitor yet, I might have poached another client from her local firm... the rules have changed on malpractice recently. I'm not up to date on the new conduct regs (my conduct regs are again in work) but I am sure you are still allowed to accept instruction from any person... yes it contradicts the malpractice arguement but its still advertising!

10) You raise a good point. I am not up to speed with SoG and I admit I would have to resort Halsbury's Laws to get the up to dat eposition but I cannot do that at home. We dont have electronc access in work if you are not in your expertise. I only have electronic resources for other areas (its cheaper this way apparently) so I would have to see if what your point here actually is accurate or not.

End of the day, we dont know exactly what the facts are here because the OP has become that infamous fart... but if we had the answers, I am sure we could comclude the answer between us.. or at least agree to disagree. Eitherway, she would get the real issues in her case answered and, at least in her own mind, she would have an understanding to whether she is likely to win or not!
 
lea840 said:
10) You raise a good point. I am not up to speed with SoG and I admit I would have to resort Halsbury's Laws to get the up to dat eposition but I cannot do that at home. We dont have electronc access in work if you are not in your expertise. I only have electronic resources for other areas (its cheaper this way apparently) so I would have to see if what your point here actually is accurate or not.
Click to expand...


I better try that one again, it didnt make sense.... We dont have electronis resources at HOME. I only have access to electronic resources in at home in limited areas and paper access for other areas are also in work.

I need to hit the sack now... I hope you lot have enjoyed the discussion... even if you dont agree with everything said by me or anyone else...

Nite for now.. I will return at about 19:30 tomorrow.. unless I see something right after I hit the magic "send" button! :)
 
I have to admit I am fascinated, I just hope that OP is still monitoring the thread and can make use of the brilliant discussion even if it just helps with making a decision on what to do next (or not). The different interpretations of the law, even by qualified, professionals, amazes me, it just goes to show how difficult the area is to understand and what an 'ass' English law really is.

It is a real shame that you legal brains were not around a few weeks ago when someone else desperately needed help with a sale that had gone wrong, could have been a happier outcome for her.
 
digitalangel said:
*applause* you two should totally get married ;) :D :D :D
Click to expand...

Nooo............I'm assuming that nointerest is a man (writes like a man I think) and that if I am correct he should marry me and we could have all sorts of legal arguments all day long (which I would win, naturally). I've been arguing the legalities of this for days with my OH, he is with Lea840's argument, I'm with nointerest's, and, as I am always right................. :p
 
gnubee said:
For those who are curious about what would happen if it was the other way round, and the dealer wanted to enforce a contract with the buyer pulling out:
the rules are the same; the contract is valid in law.
Click to expand...

I wasn't particularly interested in the LEGAL position... more what would peoples responses be :p:D - the HHO Justice, you know, is a very special kind ;)
 
nointerestinhorses said:
I'm still here! Forum deleted my essay of a reply, so I have it write it out again. Watch this space
Click to expand...

How unnecessary to delete your post. It was positive and written out in a sensible and sympathetic manner rather than the barrack room lawyer approach that has been on here. If anything that should have been removed.
 
nointerestinhorses said:
Sorry for taking to reply, i wrote it all and then my computer logged me out so it went away :(

I have just read my first post and nearly killed myself so I can't bare to think how you guys must be feeling, with that in mind I'm going to write this one in bullet points :D

1) For a valid contract one party must offer and the other accept. If the OP has agreed to terms set by the dealer then the dealer does not need to communicate her acceptance of the OPs acceptance, there is already a valid contract.

2) Her case, if she chose to pursue it would be decided in court not on a forum, so I don't think it would be wise for her to display her evidence so publicly.

3) Consideration does not have to be money and does not have to at the time of contract. Examples of non-money consideration include the horse in this case. There are contracts for non-disclosure and shareholders agreements where the foregoing of a right is valuable consideration and if you had to wait for the consideration to be paid to get a valid contract where goods are delivered and paid for later when these contracts exist all the time.

4) With regards ICLR I admit that no deposit could be evidence against but there is stronger evidence for it when they agreed to spend money on transport costs. As the presumption is in favour of ICLR in this case I believe it would be found.

5) The contract is such that it requires one party to act before the other, by your logic any contract where this is the case could be held void.

6) The SGA only covers contracts where the only consideration is the price, in this case it is probably more akin to a barter. Fortunately the reform in 1982 has made the difference largely obsolete (except with regard to rejection of goods).

7) Why would you do a qualifying law degree and a GDL?

8) If you are qualified then it would be even more advised to put the disclaimer down. Otherwise it could argue that it is professional malpractice and you shouldn't be giving advice outside of work.

9) I've seen all your posts

10) With regards the other post, contracts for the transfer of property fall within the Sale of Goods Act or the Supply of Goods and Services Act. If these acts concern this case then the rules on risk apply. The fact that it is a consumer rather than a business transaction means that the EU directive would apply.
Click to expand...


Sorry NIIH I thought you meant that the Fat Controller has removed your post. I see now you meant your computer had done it.
 
martlin said:
I wasn't particularly interested in the LEGAL position... more what would peoples responses be :p:D - the HHO Justice, you know, is a very special kind ;)
Click to expand...

posting a thread on HHO is a walk in the park compared to acourt room I would think, ;)

ive never seen hho let anyone out on bail either:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top