Buyer wants his cash back?

Thanks Phil for your considered response. No, I simply overlooked signing off with the cutting and pasting from Documents, and similarly of course I'm not threatening you. Simply debating issue pointing out recourse to mediation/arbitration. Some of the most enduring friendships and indeed marriages 'suffer' from differing perspectives involving discourse but through it all come out stronger and more enhanced as a result.

Courts incidentally don't get too imbued with so-called caveat emptor any more than they do caveat venditor. They simply look at the representation vs objective reality. To that end it is of little or no consideration whether seller is aware or not of relevant disparity. Buyer is entitled to accept contractual representations as valid, again whether representer is aware of an opposing reality or not. And it makes good sense as AA inspections for eg are fraught with them emphasising limits to their ability to ascertain inherent defects, and also with exclusion clauses, plus of course the inherent limits of having access to vehicle for such a limited amount of time - as of course illustrated in no uncertain terms with you own AA report.

An owner on the other hand in conjunction with his mechanic who've 'lived' with the car naturally has an infinitely more realistic understanding of condition. But as I say, it's a moot point because awareness of defects is not a consideration in breach of contract issues. Simply loss suffered due to standard of goods (or services) not equating with reasonable expectations created by the way in which goods or services were represented.

As I've endeavoured to point out the only reason I'm approaching you is that we are contractually united and that's where my remedy lies.
You on the other hand are also contractually united to the AA which is where your remedy and legal rights lie, enabling you to claim all reasonable or reasonably anticipated costs and or loss flowing from their negligent inspection. Again, it's simply where our respective remedies lie. Whatever, within standards of reasonability, you for eg are obliged, by settlement or arbitration, to compensate me, you accordingly have reasonable claim to that same amount from those who owe you a duty of care to provide an adequate inspection(predicating of course against the current outcome) Obviously they didn't as there is no way "surface rust" can develop in such usage and or time-frame to where it is today.

So there we so interestingly have it. Nothing personal, accusative or indeed threatening. Just relaying the news. Let's know what you think.

Regards
XXXX

Tell him to fek-off back to law school & take his dictionary with him!

wow lots of big words and confusing terms used. Was it really necessary for that huge spiel to simply ask for a refund!

But yes. 9 months later on a near 45 year old car. not looking good for him.

Is he emailing you from Nigeria by chance!
String him along.
Tell him you NEED $5000 for freight costs in order to secure funds for the refund.

i wonder what he writes when he went to the toilet to have a dump. the higene of the implement you sit on to exposeyour excrements was compromised by lack of duty from the hygeen technition .

You've no doubt been given a run down from your mechanic regarding rust inspected/verified by Carters here in Dunedin (I was present when latter pushed his finger lightly against the 'cross member,' in short order flaking away to expose cavity within the chassis).

Well there ya go then.

It wasn't OBVIOUS AT ALL.

Incedentaly warrant inspectors aren't really allowed to prod and poke.

One BIG self foot shot I M H O.
Irrespective of his digestion of a legalease dictionary and elouquent wording.
Also as to his taking out a loan and relative value and due care.
Respectivley he should have taken it for a warrant 2 weeks before the warrant expired-but alas he appears to live in the world where.

He is using someone elses money and alludes to a 48 year old vehicle passing every warrant in concourse condition.
Just how realistic is that!

Either tell him *swear words*
Or else do not try to engage in to any conversations or explanations apart from simply telling him you owe him nothing and have no interest in any further dealings with him.
Then just file away and ignore any further correspondence. At some stage he'll stop playing the idiot.

That is good advice.

At the end of the if he was legally entitled to a refund from me I would have to pay up.

But the trend here looks like I shouldn't have to. It's certainly what I have thought as well but when you are put in a position where you may have to defend your actions you quickly realise you know nothing about the law.

But thanks again for your replies.

Time will now tell

Tell him "you dont understand the question".
Guys like that love that one.

regarding rust inspected/verified by Carters here in Dunedin (I was present when latter pushed his finger lightly against the 'cross member,' in short order flaking away to expose cavity within the chassis

[With Respect to said rusting inside a boxed section rusting from the inside out and not visible-as to the *prodding*-or pushing of a finger-inherantly that is exceeding the authority governing inspections.-And Beyond Any Doubt shows a design flaw in manufacture-therefore you should be seeking recourse with the manufacurer-or damages against the pushing finger]

Further along the chain I owe a duty of care to my creditors to maintain security value commensurate with obligations regarding our mutual loan agreement. To this end I'm legally obliged to make good now compromised security by invoking necessary means to re-establish parity in terms of originally declared value.

{Surely you should have taken the vehicle for a warrant inspection prior to the end date of the current warrant-are your creditors aware of this!}

So there we so interestingly have it. Nothing personal, accusative or indeed threatening. Just relaying the news. Let's know what you think.

You on the other hand are also contractually united to the AA which is where your remedy and legal rights lie, enabling you to claim all reasonable or reasonably anticipated costs and or loss flowing from their negligent inspection. Again, it's simply where our respective remedies lie. Whatever, within standards of reasonability, you for eg are obliged, by settlement or arbitration, to compensate me, you accordingly have reasonable claim to that same amount from those who owe you a duty of care to provide an adequate inspection (predicating of course against the current outcome) Obviously they didn't as there is no way "surface rust" can develop in such usage and or time-frame to where it is today.

[With Respect to !Caveat Emptor!Perhaps again in *Duty of care to your creditors* YOU should have done all *Due Diligence* prior to purchase-giving you direct acess to such remedial avenues you point out!-
Again it appears to be a lack of *Duty of care to your creditors*

Regards
XXXX

As I've endeavoured to point out the only reason I'm approaching you is that we are contractually united and that's where my remedy lies.
[Respectivley we are not. Clearly any contractural obligation on my part was met when the vehicle was sold-and in the 3 points of contractural law-there has been -offer-acceptance-and compliance-.However your failure to maintain the vehicle as obvious by the failure to comply with legislation and present the vehicle for a safety inspection some 3 months ago again clearly shows a lack of your duty of care]

Regards
XXXX

[Short version-*invoke sex and travel clause*-donna make ya problem moi problem]

I think he is trying to infer that the fault lies with the AA and the OP can take money off them and give it to him.
Fat chance of that.

Bahahahahaha!

He's a muppet with a thesaurus.

"Tell 'im to get stuffed."

Classic

He is assuredly most eloquently verbose.

Ahh.or could he indeed be verbosely eloquent!

The buyer sounds like a pompous, self-important arse who isn't half as articulate or pursuasive as he likes to think. As others have said, just politely decline to refund anything and leave it at that.

Even jazz's huge posts make more sense than that!

Jeez, after that letter it sounds like somebody I know, the most pompous long winded annoying legalistic beaurocratic a****le I have ever met, loves the sound of his own keyboard and thinks he's some sort of big shot, only really he is just a retired old fart that nobody likes.

Only I don't think he's ever had an MG.It would be far too unsafe for him.

Do not feed into the guy, the more you reply, the more he will reply.

"I do not believe I am liable, you clearly dispute this, the appropriate place to resolve this is the disputes tribunal, I await the documents when you lodge the claim."

That's it.Nothing else.

Just to confirm.the car was sold via classified & not by auction!

Correct. I didn't do an auction.

lol, that is brilliant.

Keep asking if he can explain it again as you dont quite understand.
I wonder how many hours the O/P would be able to get the idiot to waste writing pages and pages of more nonsense.

This.
What an absolute douche. He's trying to scare you into thinking he's in the right by being confusing and using legal terms. I would have lost patience with him a long time ago so you're doing well.

Just say you're not liable, and you're prepared to defend yourself in court.

taken from the consumeraffairs website, http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-consumers/shopping/where-you-buy/private-sales
'Private sales are when you buy from someone who is not a professional trader. This includes buying at a garage sale, from a neighbour, from a classified ad in the paper and also online auctions if the seller is not a professional trader. Private sales are not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act or the Fair Trading Act.
Without these, there is often little you can do if your new purchase isn??

taken from the consumeraffairs website, http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-consumers/shopping/where-you-buy/private-sales
'Private sales are when you buy from someone who is not a professional trader. This includes buying at a garage sale, from a neighbour, from a classified ad in the paper and also online auctions if the seller is not a professional trader. Private sales are not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act or the Fair Trading Act.
Without these, there is often little you can do if your new purchase isn??

Good call.No point even trying to play email games with this guy.The OP sold the car in good faith with a new WOF.The buyer bought it sight unseen without having it inspected.I'm no expert on disputes tribunals but I can see which way a reasonable common sense decision should go.