Anywhoo.you two go get a room, now back to the discussion:
Why can't they simply make the CGA apply to new goods only, and the seller offers any guarantee on used goods that THEY see fit. Your choice then to buy or not buy! Method of sale (auction, fixed price etc) doesn't come into it.
Am I seeing it overly simplistically!
bellky,
Apr 25, 9:20pm
It's about consumer protection. That simple enough!
smac,
Apr 25, 9:30pm
Yeah but it's more complex than that.
As it stands, motor traders (and other 2nd hand goods sellers) will have to stand by products that they realistically have no real way of knowing the reliability of. The result has to be prices go up, as dealers will need to either have a higher margin to cover failures, or have every trade in inspected. Either way price goes up, or no body will sell 2nd hand, and the entire economy and planet collapses.
Makes sense from a consumer protection angle, but also hits us in the pocket.
The alternative is there's no cover on 2nd hand goods at all. Stuff will be cheap, but you'll be buying more often.
Messy either way, don't see a right answer myself.
bellky,
Apr 25, 9:47pm
^The bottom line for me is that this will mean an improvement in consumer protection. It may cost a little more for this protection but I think: ".and the entire economy and planet collapses." is overstating it somewhat.
tonyrockyhorror,
Apr 25, 9:53pm
There's more than enough consumer protection already. It's become an issue of no longer being able to chose whether you need or want it on specific transactions involving motorvehicles.
Rather than making every vehicle sold directly by a trader subject to the provisions of the CGA, they should simply require that those sold by competitive online bidding have a statement to the effect that the CGA doesn't apply to that sale. That would both inform the idiots and leave the rest of us with the choice of a cheaper vehicle without protection we don't want or need.
tgray,
Apr 25, 10:09pm
At least it will stop dealers auctioning off cars with blown head gaskets etc, getting market value for them and then having the customer break down on the way home and having no comeback. This type of thing happens more than you think.
tonyrockyhorror,
Apr 25, 10:14pm
No, it won't. Live auctions will just do it for them, taking a commission.
If consumers don't know what they're doing and buy a vehicle at auction that they haven't had checked by someone who does, they only have themselves to blame when they get swindled. They have the option of buying from the dealer off the lot if they want CGA protection.
Seems some want to have their cake and eat it.
rob_man,
Apr 25, 10:45pm
You do actually, somebody needs to speak for the people who don't require legislation to replace diligence and native caution in their lives.
pollymay,
Apr 25, 10:49pm
You are welcome to pick up the slack and pay me some $$$ next time I buy a car for protection I don't want/need.
oaic1,
Apr 25, 11:17pm
You couldn't be bothered to read and consider an alternative opinion but you had time to exchange insults with other posters. That was not a response I would expect for someone who claims to have a "First Class Honours Degree in Accounting". You of all people should know all about the importance of studying all the details. And once you have done so, making an informed decision. You have just proved my point about irresponsible behaviour. I don't see why you or anyone else of your ilk deserves any protection from your own idiocy.
oaic1,
Apr 25, 11:21pm
If you want to be avoid this kind of scenario you can do 2 things. 1 have it checked out by a competent professional BEFORE you buy it. 2 Buy it from a retailer. If you don't want the risk.don't go to a auction Simple.
bellky,
Apr 25, 11:26pm
Right on partner.
THIS ISSUE IS A NO-BRAINER IMO
oaic1,
Apr 26, 12:14am
Yes, the issue between having a choice and not having a choice IS a no-brainer.only someone without a brain would choose to have no choice.
smac,
Apr 26, 12:28am
I can't figure out if the inability to hold a civil discussion without getting abusive on this board is just plain hilarious or kinda sad.
Damned if I know how you guys get by in life.
oaic1,
Apr 26, 12:32am
Who's being abusive! I am not offended in anyway. I will always defend Belky's right to say what he wants to say and I welcome his responses. It's his percieved right to have something for nothing that I have an issue with.
rob_man,
Apr 26, 1:07am
I'm not seeing any abuse either.
kazbanz,
Apr 26, 1:09am
The part about this I find so funnny its wet yer pants stuff is that should the law change go through in its current form it wont make a jot of difference when it comes to cars falsely advertised about condition. The backyarders are gonna carry on selling the heaps of rubbish to the public because "they aren't dealers" and its "my aunties/cousins/mates car" Turners auctionswho "coincidently" aren't covered by this proposed law change will continue to pump out cars THEY imported or are the self same trade ins refered to here under the old law. Rather than a sticking plaster aproach to consumer protection isn't it about time that The CGA be clearly and with NO chance of ambiguity be quantified whenit comes to second hand vehicles
smac,
Apr 26, 1:32am
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what abuse is.
If you don't think any of that is abusive, why would you say ".you had time to exchange insults with other posters."!
I'm feeling stupid.lets have an argument on the internet!
texastwo,
Apr 26, 1:42am
Maybe it will also bring into scrutiny all those backyarders and side-of -the -road traders thatsell off unwanted trades and dilapidated vehicles to people who have very little protection.
rob_man,
Apr 26, 2:17am
smac, you must have lead a very sheltered life if you consider that to be abuse. I supposed I just abused you by making that statement.
rob_man,
Apr 26, 2:18am
You have all the protection you need, it's called discretion and it should be applied to all purchases.
oaic1,
Apr 26, 2:36am
smac.you must be a very sensitive soul if you consider that abuse. (i am not abusing you with this comment either) You should be very afraid of people who would trade your liberty for their security.
smac,
Apr 26, 2:38am
Ha! Nah.my skin's a little thicker than that. I guess I'm just thinking about the difference between abusing somebody and them being offended. What I mean is just because I'm not offended doesn't mean it wasn't abusive.
Oooo getting deep. Anyway, my point was, I've yet to see a single thread on this board that involved two people having opposing views that didn't degenerate into a monkey poo slinging match. It's just can't happen. Weird.
It's either just the whole keyboard warrior/nameless faceless nature of the internet, or people here genuinely don't know how to make a point without it becoming about the people involved rather than the topic. I need a drink.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.