The sh*t has hit the fan, calling all toyspeed, need help

[TRD Man]

The point you're both missing is that this would never have made it to a court.
And there is no right of appeal of a tribunal decision other than against the impartiality of the referee (or rather lack of) - which would be very difficult to prove.

[Mr Revhead]

This is the sort of thing we'd prepare on the yard for sales outside of the warranty system:

This is a contract for sale of 1987 Toyota Corolla ZXCVBN Vin # 1233456 which is offered for sale on an 'as is where is' basis from premises at 123 High Street, Levin.
The vehicle is sold unwarranted and as parts only and nothing either said or written by the seller is to be considered a statement of any condition or fitness for any use or purpose.
No warranty is expressed or implied.
It is the purchasers responsibility to carry out any inspection, testing or research to satisfy themselves of the vehicles condition and fitness for any purpose they intend. Further it is the purchasers responsibility to remove the vehicle from the place of sale and once having done so all matters pertaining to the vehicle, and it's use, are the sole responsibility of the purchaser.
On signing this contract the purchaser indemnifies the seller from any claim in respect of any matter pertaining to this vehicle from time of sale onward.

That oughta cover you in any similar situation.

Just to drag this back up... Just read the april MTA "Radiator" magazine
They had a report from thier disputes tribunal about a customer buying an "as is where is" car from a dealer who got them to sign something like the above.
Tribunal found in favour of the customer as you cannot contract out of the CGA by the above type thing.

The only exception was listed as only if a business was purcahsing and there was further info on that aspect.

So going by the MTA Tribunals rules, if you are dealer, the CGA applies no matter what and you can't contract out of it....

[dnalunchie]

This is the sort of thing we'd prepare on the yard for sales outside of the warranty system:

This is a contract for sale of 1987 Toyota Corolla ZXCVBN Vin # 1233456 which is offered for sale on an 'as is where is' basis from premises at 123 High Street, Levin.
The vehicle is sold unwarranted and as parts only and nothing either said or written by the seller is to be considered a statement of any condition or fitness for any use or purpose.
No warranty is expressed or implied.
It is the purchasers responsibility to carry out any inspection, testing or research to satisfy themselves of the vehicles condition and fitness for any purpose they intend. Further it is the purchasers responsibility to remove the vehicle from the place of sale and once having done so all matters pertaining to the vehicle, and it's use, are the sole responsibility of the purchaser.
On signing this contract the purchaser indemnifies the seller from any claim in respect of any matter pertaining to this vehicle from time of sale onward.

That oughta cover you in any similar situation.

Just to drag this back up... Just read the april MTA "Radiator" magazine
They had a report from thier disputes tribunal about a customer buying an "as is where is" car from a dealer who got them to sign something like the above.
Tribunal found in favour of the customer as you cannot contract out of the CGA by the above type thing.

The only exception was listed as only if a business was purcahsing and there was further info on that aspect.

So going by the MTA Tribunals rules, if you are dealer, the CGA applies no matter what and you can't contract out of it....

true, but again, completly different if your a private seller

[Mr Revhead]

yes.... as we have already stated

[dnalunchie]

yes.... as we have already stated

lolz

[TRD Man]

Warwick,it's also been stated a number of times already that dealers cannot contract out of the CGA or the FTA. No business can.

However these 2 acts are more lenient than the old MV Dealers Act in that they allow sale of trade-in stock etc... by way of auction or tender and free of obligation.
There is also greater freedoms, under the new acts, with terms such as 'reasonable' and 'acceptable' in relation to quality, an understanding of fitness for purpose, and acceptance of disclosure of defects etc...

You can, as a dealer today, offer a car for sale which is in a state disrepair, unwarranted, unregsitered and harbouring a number of defects, and still be compliant with the CGA.

So a contract like that, which was pure bluff back when we used them, is more valid today.

[Mr Revhead]

That was my point though, according to the article I just read (have a read if you can find a copy) that contract now days is illegal and you can't use it.

If you can't find it i'll see if I can scan it

[TRD Man]

Yes, it would be interesting to read. Without knowing the case you refer to it's difficult to know the ruling and whether it has been accurately reported or whether you've misinterpretted it.

The CGA, and it's supporting information, quite clearly states that the terms 'acceptable' & 'reasonable' are open ended and will take account of the price, condition and disclosures made at the time of sale.

So if you offer an item demonstrably cheaper than other similar items, disclose all of it's defects and ensure there are no misunderstandings in repsect of it's fitness for purpose, then your exposure to claims under the CGA are lesser than they would be otherwise.

However there is always the human element that will come into effect whenever there is a dispute as, no doubt, the object of your article has recently learnt.

[RunningRich]

Damn this is a long-winded thread. I feel like punching some of your guys in the face!

[Crampy]

Damn this is a long-winded thread. I feel like punching some of your guys in the face!

Nice

Sorry I had to jump in on that action.

[Mr Revhead]

Yes a long thread! and covering two topics!
But some good stuff covered that may help someone