Just got done for flogging a car

I kept posting it was not quite right and that's why it'd been off the road for a few months. Then i got a call from somebody wanted to buy it.

Happy days. So we agreed a price. It went through a MOT. It must have passed because they bought it.

Then much to my suprise I found out someone had got the car and it was working fine........ but I've found out I've been out of pocket 3-4 years later because the MOT didn't identify a problem that was in the public domain even before I flogged it.

I don't really know what to do......

Can anyone help ?

 

But what did the contract say!?

 

Sold as seen?

 

I've no idea. Ask Hull. No doubt they must have covered all angles if they were spending 750k........

 

Not the best analogy.

 

DOnt worry about it unless you are a motor trader.. Caveat emptor

 

If you read the actual judgment you'll realise why that's not an apt analogy and is way, way off the mark. It's amazing the number of people saying the tribunal is not fit for purpose, or Hull are at fault etc. when that's just not an accurate reflection of the matter and they clearly haven't read the detail. Funnily enough it reminds me of Wigan fans' whinges about the points deduction.

 

The point is they did cover the angles in the transfer contract, which is why we lost.

 

Go on then..... elaborate

 

I was going to post a more accurate car analogy but then I realised that referring to a bloke who has been affected by cancer as a broken down car is pretty distasteful.

See my posts in the other thread for more detail, but basically he had a long list of symptoms (suggested to be a lot more varied and remarkable than low iron) with no diagnosed cause at the time. We voluntarily (and stupidly) agreed a transfer agreement with a clause whereby we warranted that we had disclosed all medical info relevant to his ongoing ability to play football, and agreed we'd cough up for any loss Hull suffered due to breach of that warranty. Due to an internal error somewhere the club doctor wasn't aware of the need to disclose all that information regarding symptoms and issues as part of the transfer and it wasn't disclosed. If it had been disclosed Hull wouldn't have bought him.

As a result we were liable for the full loss suffered by Hull, including one hell of a costs bill. It's all our own daft fault.

 

Distasteful no. An indirect comparison yes.