To Portandbrandy again, if the Commerce Commission has "no problem" with Ezybuy, why did it send formal warning letters to Ezybuy Car Auctions Ltd it in 2006 and 2010! The Commission's view was Ezy Buy "in breach" (regarding its so-called tenders) and "in likely breach" (regarding press ads) of the Fair Trading Act.I sought comment from Ezybuy about those warnings, but got none. cheers again, Gordon Harcourt
kazbanz,
Jul 23, 4:07pm
PLEASE quote the legislation to back that state3ment up--or in other words--WRONG
elect70,
Jul 23, 8:05pm
These sort of places dont care aboutbad publicity, always plenty of mugswho think they are gettingthe deal of the century . Even a few finesdoesnt worry them either, its onlyif they are closed down .Quantitynot quality
tigra,
Jul 23, 10:43pm
Hey! Welcome to the TM Message Board.
tigra,
Jul 23, 10:45pm
Must keep you in mind when I next buy a car.
tgray,
Jul 24, 3:54am
. So if the WOF is 6 weeks old, and after you have travelled perhaps another 10,000k's, the seller you bought from is responsible for any WOF failure 4.5 months after you purchased! OMG You've got to be kidding!
sw20,
Jul 24, 3:58am
Its the thread that keeps on delivering. Thanks Gordon.
chebry,
Jul 24, 4:50am
I have no idea of the relevant legislation it has been practice going back 40 years a car must be sold with a warrant less than 28 days old or must be sold on a as is basis signed or the vendor is liable. The law is designed to stop anyone selling a car without a valid WOF.
chebry,
Jul 24, 5:00am
If you buy a vehicle without a new WOF you can only use it on the road to take it to be inspected so 4.5 months and 10000kms unlikely
outbidyou2,
Jul 24, 7:05am
Thats brilliant
tgray,
Jul 24, 3:08pm
I doubt whether most people who buy a car with a current WOF (but more than 28 days), go ahead and get another one many months before it's due again.
chebry,
Jul 24, 3:45pm
No they dont and neither did I with my current car but the vendor looked up the relevant law and coughed up for new ball joints for it this law hasnt changed in 40 years that I know of
chebry,
Jul 24, 3:55pm
No youre the idiot there are very good reasons not to sell cars without new warrants and you are too stupid to realise why
I suggest you read it as it only reinforces what I said a vehicle must have a new WOF at time of sale
smac,
Jul 24, 7:39pm
chebry you've taken avalid rule (about a vehicle having to have a WoF), but you have completely invented the consequence (seller has to fix repairs). That's why they're giving you a hard time.
Many repairs are nothing to do with a WoF. The two things are completely unconnected.
tgray,
Jul 24, 7:39pm
Nice to see your input Gordon. If people read his interview with autotalk, it shows nothing new and all that you uncovered on Fairgo still stands. ie/ That they are not real tenders and many cars for sale are owned by themselves. No different from a car yard expect they also sell on behalf of other sellers. Seems he is saying that they get customers to sign a waiver to contact out of their obligations (illegal under CGA) and justifies it by saying that they are cheaper than retail, so it's OK. Last year they were warned by the commerce commission for advertising cars in the NZ Herald for fixed prices, when they supposedly would not have control through a tender process. Now we know why. ie: because they are offered for sale on the spot for a fixed price, as agreed by the vendor at the time, or in advance. This is not a tender process and they know it.
tgray,
Jul 24, 7:51pm
EXACTLY!
chebry,
Jul 24, 7:51pm
True it was only the WOF repairs I was referring to
sc00bnz,
Jul 24, 8:56pm
well, would you look at that. portandbrandy have removed their post.
clck2,
Jul 25, 9:31pm
So did the explorer people get there money back in the end!
kazbanz,
Jul 25, 9:35pm
plus one
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.