Buyer wants his cash back?

Not what I would call positive outcome . I think he was veryclever & got $1000which was probably aboutwhat he washoping to get .Bet he islaughinghishead offnowShould have stuck to your gunsas if it went to district courtthemagistrate would have thrown it out on legal groundsofbuyerbe ware&fact he bought itwithoutseeing it first . . Having been self employed for 33 yearsivehadseveral DThearings & never lost 1orbacked down.(onlawyersadvice )

Well, at the end of the day you were at the hearing and we weren't, so we can only offer our opinion. Personally I wouldn't have given him anything, but well done for being the bigger man.

Do you often make $1000 donations to fools!

Kills the whole matter in a legal sense, but has it killed the matter in the mind of this mentally disturbed person! As he sits and looks at the car and gets infuriated all over again, who knows! The fact that he lives at the other end of the country is something to be thankful for, I guess.

rpvr I hate to say it but you are correct. Instead of recieving an email I have recevied the following.

Looks like I won't be paying any money after all and my sense of generosity has had a good kick below the belt.

Hi Phil,

Sorry to be bearer of bad news but seems the hearing yesterday wasn't in essence legal or at the very least fair and reasonable and at the end of the day neither party wants a less than fair and honourable outcome. XXXX perhaps should have excused herself given she was referenced in a complaint to the Principal Referee in 2011 concerning unprofessional conduct (As Observer Referee fraternising pre-hearing with respondent referenced in the YYYY fiction. The one police mentioned to you who also made a false complaint of being threatened - ie revenge for exposing his darker side) This explains for eg why she remained so obstinate and impervious to common sense plus a plethora of expert evidence vs unqualified arguably anti-commonsensical comment by vested-interest opposing party, and why, right from the outset, my cost total for eg was perceived as inaccurate (Giveaway bias from outset).
In short respondent mechanic who worked on MGB audaciously chatted XXXX up whilst outside hearing room waiting for hearing to begin. In the end conversation was so intimate and enamoured, after entering hearing room, the pair remained oblivious to adjudicating referee's introduction and my subsequent acknowledgement. XXXX thought respondent genuinely fancied her, becoming flattered and silly as an old chook. In fact he was just using her as demo to me of his manipulative prowess, in response to me having highlighted it in my submission as a key feature of his psychopathy. In my report I cheekily promulgated a scenario during respondent's elation - at making such an impression on XXXX and hopefully also adjudicating referee - Janet quietly leaning forward (she was sitting behind him), whispering in his ear, "Hey buddy. I'm not XXXX, I'm the janitor! (Couldn't resist it!!:) Whether XXXX's invoking the Sale of Goods Act instead of the appropriate Contract Remedies Act was also malice aforethought or IQ related is hard to say but her desperate (Original poised smirking condescention gradually dissolving to dishevelled angst) and constant grasping at straws to deny me you'd have to admit, became beyond the cravenly comedic.
Let this be a lesson to you btw. Having now witnessed how malignant pathological narcissism can become even for a sworn upholder of objectivity, fairness and justice, it's well worth a reality check from time to time (ie, emotional accountancy). What we experienced was the emotional equivalent of not being toilet trained, as it were, and indeed correspondent of cavalier licentious behaviour back in 2011 albeit opposing emotional predilections. Mind you the court's main referee who turned a blind eye to her conduct above conduct is even way way more neurotic! A veritable loose-canon freak of nature in terms of projecting his twisted cynical reality onto healthy others. You saw his influence on XXXX, ie suggestion of an underlying motive for litigation. The projection is also a way of transferring or assuaging shame and embarrassment, by proxy, for the indulgences and violating grandiose conduct (Not unlike a vomiting bulimic). Until the depressive neurotic would-be real lawyer cum pretend senior referee leaves or is kicked out the place will remain a dysfunctional mere approximation of a disputes tribunal.
Anyway that's all a round about way of saying the matter in the end is really ripe for a district court (Judicial review) judge, as I suggested at the hearing, to rehabilitate claim and functionalise associated slippery sad sacks. Will be in touch.
Regards
G

Oh and more to follow.

At this stage, however there was an agreement made and theoretically so long as I honour it that should be the end of it. He has a chance of complaining about how the hearing was run which would give him access to another hearing.

Is he able to take this further.I don't really know. Guess you are all about to find out.

You've gotta be shi**in me!!

Your $1000 might be better spent on having an interpreter translate that pile of waffling crud into something resembling english!

FWIW I think your offer went above and beyond although I can understand your reasoning - full credit. To recieve that nonsense in response shows that this muppet was no doubt filing in the courts way back when he was bullied in school.

Vexatious litigant much!

An agreement has been entered into and a district court (WTF!) would not be interested in overturning this ruling that was agreed on.
I don't think he is serious about a district court case - not only is there no case to answer, it would cost him a small fortune to proceed.
Again, you were VERY generous in your agreement and this just goes to show you what kind of person he really is, by wanting the last word.
He really is a freakin nutter with wayyy to much time on his hands.

Put the grand in your back pocket and put a block on his e-mails and live happily ever after. Oh and have a DB, you deserve it (o:

Yep, in light of his new email, I'd just pocket the $G, change your email address & live happily ever after.
Or send him a reply saying you're your brother, your body was found yesterday & the police are investigating the cause of your death.

THE END

Dont pay the money, he is only going to use it to take you to court.
Wont get far, but if you have funded his chance.

Do this.
Except add that all of his emails have been fowarded to the police as they asked for them directly.

Phil -As you know I buy and sell a few cars. My advice to you would be to contact the DT. Make it clear that you are happy to procede with the decision made. However having received the e mail enclosed (above)
Could they clarify if the decision is in fact final or do you await district court!
By so doing you are covering yourself as this cretin may well be hoping your response is indeed to say "I'm not paying" So he has the chance to reapply etc.
Also-(ON this specific Im a bit hazy) I think you may well find that how long you take to pay has no bearing. Ie if you apply for time payment of say $100 a week and its accepted then that has to be stuck to--Nothing he can do about it

What a plonker!

Phil, I'm sure your loathe to post again, but if you are still following this thread, this is the advise to take - really.

Well i hate to say i told you so but you should never of given this fool the 1k.As said above he's just going to use it against you now.

If anything when you had his face in the dirt you should of dug a deeper hole and pushed him in!

Read post #288

Ahh well thats even better if he hasnt handed the 1k over.I was to busy trying to decipher the ramblings in that post below that.

No one can decipher that(o:

Best thing about the district court.

You can claim costs.

Bankrupt this piece of shit.

Phil you are a sucker! He has got you to admit some liability by offering a grand and now he is going for the kill. You set YOURSELF Up mate. Go into war mode. Refuse to pay anything and then vlaim costs against him. This is law mate. No more mr nice guy. It has already cost you unlimited stress and time.tell him to eff off! He is a nut case!

Do what it says in post #297 in the first instance.

WOW!Just when we thought it was done and dusted, he throws a sucker punch.I'm no expert but I think kazbanz advice is on the button.My understanding was that as a result of you paying the $1000 it was settled and the emails would stop. Yet less than 24 hours after the Disputes Tribunal "agreement"he is back into it.That to me is a breach (on his part) of the agreement.After clarification from The DT that you are in the right I'd email him, tell him that due to the breach of the agreement and the indication that he is intending to pursue this matter through the courts, you are withholding the payment awaiting the ruling from a district court judge."Due to the matter proceeding to the district court I have secured the services of a solicitor. Please forward all future emails and correspondence to my solicitor , Mr C Boy at [email protected]"

I agree with this too. You should abide by the agreement and let DT know about this nutters actions. Abiding by agreement keeps your nose clean.