Yep, not good enough to just simply tick re registered on the CIn form if a dealer is selling a written off repaired car.
franc123,
Nov 1, 10:06pm
Just goes to show that some dealers will try it on if they think they can get away with it. Totally justifiable decision, they know the rules.
tgray,
Nov 2, 9:39am
Actually, it sets an interesting precedent, because what happens many owners and years later if a dealer trades in a car that has been re registered and does not know why? A full history report such as Carjam etc won't tell you why and the current owner may have no idea. Cars are registered for a number of reasons ie/ stolen and recovered, lapsed rego, written off and re complied) and it is not always apparent why. This decision means that dealers must establish why a car has been re registered before selling it now and not just tick the re registered box on the paperwork.
tony9,
Nov 2, 11:59am
I thought the finding was a bit harsh. The vehicle would have been through the re-entry process so would have had a higher level of validation than the average car that has just been through wofs. No actual issue was found with the vehicle and the back of the CIN referred to vehicle write off as a possible reason for re-rego.
So there was no issue with the vehicle and the dealer had not with held any info or misled the buyer.
kazbanz,
Nov 2, 12:07pm
My feeling on that subject is that the dealership concerned failed to explain the CIN card as all dealers are required to do by law. it i9s not sufficient to say. "sign here" on the front without explaining every "box" The "box" concerning this subject is pretty clear in stating first up that a vehicle can be deregistered by being an insurance wright off. That should have raised alarm bells for the buyer.
tamarillo,
Nov 2, 1:05pm
As the dealer knew it’s history he should disclose it IMO. Fair call that a dealer may not, after a few changes of wire ship, know and can therefore only allude to it.
kazbanz,
Nov 2, 1:27pm
This isn't a case where the waters have been muddied by time though mate. Unless the MVDT report reads wrong they knew full well it was a rebuilt wright off.
kazbanz,
Nov 2, 1:49pm
Just to be clear. The court did NOT order a full refund of purchase price. The court ordered a $5000 payment be made on the basis that the vehicle had been used for 11000km buy the buyer and the vehicle was worth $XXX less than an undamaged example would have been. The evidence also showed that the damage was not to the main structure of the vehicle. --ie the damaged parts were all bolt on. I reckon that's fair enough and it will be interesting to see if the dealer takes the wholesaler to court for non disclosure.
curlcrown,
Nov 2, 3:36pm
To me there are a few key points here. It was clear the owner of the car no longer wanted it because he was trying to sell it. He tried to get a full refund for that reason, the ruling I feel rightly did not give him that. However a late model car such as his would have to be a few thousand dollars cheaper than non damaged ones to sell so $5000 is fair compensation. He can now sell his car $5000 cheaper than he otherwise could have and still be in the same financial position as he would have been if it was not a damaged car. If he was given a full refund he would be better off than what he would have been if it was not a damaged one and the courts and about compensating for loss, not making money for people. On an older car of less value the fact that it was a write of would not make as much difference in it's value and once it gets down to a cheap car it may make no difference at all. so it will not make any difference to selling 15 year old cheapies with unknown history as long as there is honesty, it would be reasonable to say you don't know why a car was reregistered 10 years ago and it is for sale for $3500. It seems as if the dealer knew in this case why it was reregistered but kept quite about it knowing that it made the vehicle worth thousand of dollars less. A fair result but could have easily been avoided.
toenail,
Nov 2, 8:18pm
yes this was not about the quality of repairs, its that no one would pay the same as an undamaged car without repairs. Plenty of near new hail damaged cars repaired sold for thousands less.
franc123,
Nov 2, 8:59pm
The dealer DID know the reason why it was deregistered and did not disclose it when they should have. They knew it came from Turners Damaged and it was repaired. Whether the vehicle is problem free or not isnt the issue it was the effect of its stained record on its trade value that was the issue.
kazbanz,
Nov 3, 9:34am
The way I'm reading the procedings is that the salesman was under the impression he was not legally required to state specifically that the vehicle was an insurance wright off. MY issue with this decision is that I can't find anywhere in the law that states they are specifically required to state a vehicle IS a rebuilt wright off. They ARE required by law to explain clearly the possible reasons for deregistration but I can't find where they are required to state the specific reason. That's at odds with all fresh imports where we are required to state that a vehicle was/wasn't imported as a damaged import. MVDT decided it was in essence fraud by omission. im not talking moral obligation or doing whats right. Just the legal side of things.
curlcrown,
Oct 28, 7:03pm
That has always been my understanding too, that it is a legal requirement to state that a car has been reregistered but not a legal requirement to state why.
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.