Exclusion of Liability The Trader shall have no liability to the Purchaser whether arising through the wilful and deliberate acts and/or the negligence of its employees, agents, contractors and/or officers for any breach of the terms of this Agreement howsoever the claim arises and all liability shall be excluded (this exclusion extends to but is not limited to any indirect and/or consequential losses that may be said to be suffered by the Purchaser its successors and/or assigns). The Purchaser has not communicated any special circumstances to the Trader as to the use to which the vehicle is to be put. The Trader is not responsible for any delays in delivery of the vehicle whether beyond the Trader's control or not.
a.woodrow,
Jun 3, 9:35am
Yep standard
humvee,
Jun 3, 9:40am
If thats standard - thats scary - Who here after reading and understanding the clause would agree to it!
strobo,
Jun 3, 10:03am
If yas think thats bad !check out the liability clauses inthe usually obscure small print with regards toliability incurred with regards to estatemanagement & investments . makes the Lmvd look tame!Whats come of this worldwhere no one is responsible for their actions. actuallyExclusion of Liability is an admission ofbeingoutright dishonest is it not ! Or is that just speaking of things not as though they are.
strobo,
Jun 3, 10:03am
If yas think thats bad !check out the liability clauses inthe usually obscure small print with regards toliability incurred with regards to estatemanagement & investments . makes the Lmvd look tame!Whats come of this worldwhere no one is responsible for their actions. actuallyExclusion of Liability is an admission ofbeingoutright dishonest is it not ! Or is that just speaking of things not as though they are. Bamboozalingoldenglish crap writings justto confuse the masses into getting ripped off is all it comes down to! may have made sense then but not in this day & age. but there is always some clever little basket of economic law who explains it all away nicely in no uncertain terms !
strobo,
Jun 3, 10:20am
"lmvda" by the way , may have dropped the "a" a while ago lol
smac,
Jun 3, 10:46am
SO to summarize:
1. The trader has no liability even if it's employees commit acts of wilful negligence and/or they in fact breach the conditions of the agreement (you can bet your arse the purchaser will be held liable if THEY breach the agreement).
2. The purchaser has to fully disclose to the trader how they will use the vehicle (for ever!).
3. The trader is not to be held responsible for delay in delivery, even if it's absolutely their fault.
I don't care if this is standard, cross it out before you sign. End of the day if they want the sale there's more cars on lots out there than there are customers with cash in hand.
kazbanz,
Jun 3, 10:50am
Humvee there is a very BIG bit you are missing out that makes it a lot less scarey imo. The exact wording varies a bitbut it in one way or another says"the seller CANNOT contract out of their obligations under the sale of goods and CGA" What the gobbledee goop you have typed above says is that people can make mistakes or be dishonest.That is down to THEM not the dealership. So a salesman selling stolen goods for example isn't the dealerships responsibility
kazbanz,
Jun 3, 11:03am
Gee willikers you have the wrong end of the stick. 1) no the company isn't responsible for the actions of its staff BY LAWbut you'd loose customers fast if you don't stand behind your product. 2) Don't be silly- The clause is there for intended use --it aint rocket science for gosh sakes.Normal private use is just that regardless of if its a commuter,show car or whatever.Taxi's,couriers etc aren't covered under the CGA as its for commercial purposes.So should the buyer use it as a commercial vehicle then the CGA doesn't apply. Be it right away or 6 months later. keeping in mind a private van used once a month for a day asa courier van is still predominantly for private use. 3)This is entirely to avoid being financially penalised for what is usually outside of our control -Again yea the clause is there but its good customer service to prevent it happening and to keep the customer happy
humvee,
Jun 3, 11:07am
and so why would someone buy through a dealer rather them privately then!
I have walked just away from purchasing a car from a dealer who would not accept this section of of the above paragraph being deleted
"The Trader shall have no liability to the Purchaser whether arising through the wilful and deliberate acts and/or the negligence of its employees, agents, contractors and/or officers for any breach of the terms of this Agreement howsoever the claim arises and all liability shall be excluded (this exclusion extends to but is not limited to any indirect and/or consequential losses that may be said to be suffered by the Purchaser its successors and/or assigns)."
In addition to this the car had some faults that my mechanic believed should not have passed the last wof which was "brand new" according to the dealer (although to them apparently "brand new" means 1200km and 15 days ago. They seemed unwilling to fix these and seemed angry that I had even found out about the faults
smac,
Jun 3, 11:45am
OK Kaz I was being slightly tongue on cheek, but my point is these clauses get used as a sledge hammer to crack a nut. I deal with legislation a LOT and I get sick and tired of it being applied to the letter, but when it's questioned the response is "oh it doesn't really mean THAT, it means THIS." The wording of legislation and contracts is critical, but instead of that being used as a reason to get it right, and for it to mean what it says it gets used as an excuse to employ legalise that can be interpreted any which way you like, just so every possible eventuality can be covered. Those clauses are simply TERRIBLE wording, and I suspect they've been in use for decades. Needs serious work.
I stand by what I said above, I wouldn't enter into a contract with it in place. If the trader has a problem with that because it doesn't mean what I summarized above, then they are welcome to replace the wording with something they actually mean.
kazbanz,
Jun 3, 1:00pm
Humvee/smac --I'm sorry guys I don't know what planet I'm on today -Genuine brain fart sorry 1)I have NO clause in ANYof my paperwork that wriggles out of my responsibilities under the cga/soga-Ie what I have quoted from youis nowhere on my paperwork. 2) Given the dealers response to your inspection my reaction would be to run away. Hmm but hang on--what price/milage car and what EXACTLY were the faults!
tigra,
Jun 3, 1:04pm
If there are faults with the WoF inspection tell the NZTA and they will get thos issues rectified at no expense to you
tigra,
Jun 3, 1:05pm
smac sometimes Lawyers dont understand their OWN wording. Seen this many times in Commercial leases.
kazbanz,
Jun 3, 1:06pm
Again Smac---sorry dude brain fart--forget completely my comments on the first clause. Ive reread my CURRENT Vosa and CIN card and its nowhere to be seen. But the second clause is pretty clear cut and I feel completely fair If the vehicle is PRIMARALYfor commercial use then theres no cover under the CGA. Now why is it open ended! The two SPECIFICindustries that made it as such are taxi drivers and Couriers. They buy the vehicle privately then put it out for comercial use a month or two later. (its a well known ruse for a taxi drivers fully employed relative to take out a HP so the taxi can be put on the road.
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.