Hey all iam the original builder\owner of 45USN i sold i t about 2 years ago for $23,000 .. as far as i new it was recently sold to some old guy maybe he was the guy that snaked you on the deal

I had heard that this car has changed hands several times. Makes you wonder why someone would spend so much coin and time building it only to sell it at what I think is an inflated price and then for it to change hands again and again so soon after.
Matty

hey guys - the car has been sold several times so please dont mistake the previous owners to the bloke that just sold it. i rekin this bloke needs to return back to his mother get bent over her knee and be taught some manners n morals.

cant be screwed reading the bitch fight, but this car is in the latest fast fours as a contender for car of the year, sms your vote! hehe

Quote:
great idea! common assault = up to 7yrs jail, but more likely to get a probation order and community service or anger programs, and a nice little fine for pain and suffering.

get over it - put it down to experience and find another car to buy.

so in the end what everyone is saying is that........there is a chance he will get no money and a chance he could get sum .......so you have a decision to make whether you want to bother with it .......and maybe while u are up in qld u should give him a nice strong hard punch in the head........what do u think 4susn ....surely he would have to be reading this ####.......

Interesting thread...I never consider a car mine until its in my garage and paid for...
guzumping is against the law, but the buyer has to cough up heaps in legals to make the law work...not worth it...

It sucks but he needs to move on...
Its the risk of doing business...

I have been on the opposite side too where I have sold a car the guy has left a deposit and then wants it back in a couple of days time...meantime I have lost a couple of would be buyers telling them that the car was sold. This guy then abused me cause I wouldnt give the deposit back.

As far as Im concerned the car isnt sold until the full amount has exchanged. And I believe the seller has the "right of way" at all times because its his asset...esp when it comes to a car or house....

Quote:
This new information of comfort leads me to think there was never an intention to enter into a binding agreement...but
Quote:
He here acknowledges it although obviously does not take it too seriously...
Quote:
As SaltWater Cowboy noted, consideration is also required to form a contract (something to bind them). This is normally seen as a deposit but it can also be seen in a detriment. This organisation of travel has conferred a detriment upon BUL33T's friend, of which 45USN knows about, and thus consideration here can be argued. That is what I have thought from the start.

As typical with law, if there is no consideration, a binding situation could still exist with the equitable exception of promissory estoppel. Estoppel prevents someone from gaining from their own wrong and one of its instances is induced reliance. Here there is reliance upon 45USN as expensive arrangements which he would reasonably have knowledge of.

By the way, if a breach is proven, remedies could include the cover of travel costs and the difference in market and contract price of the vehicle. This is to put the victim in the position they would have been if the contract was fulfilled (ie. able to purchase a similar item at market price).

L18_B110 is correct in the questioning of what time had passed to allow these events to transpire.
Cheers
Brock

I wonder what period of time transpired between this alleged "contract" being formed, and you're mate then arranging annual leave through work, plane tickets, hotels, and car transporters, before flying up there to hand over the cash for the deal.

something about the whole thing sounds fishy to me - I mean I could half understand this bloke selling the car to someone else to get the cash quicker, but if he was going to get the money the next day from your mate anyway, as you claim, it just doesn't make much sense to me. But then again, it doesn't make any sense to me that a seller of a vehicle would refuse a holding deposit either, unless he felt it was going to take an inordinate amount of time for your mate to make these arrangements to collect the car and the seller did not want to be bound to turn down any other offers in the interim. If that was the case, as common sense would suggest, then the only contract would have the caveat that if another buyer came along with the cash, the car would not be held.

In any civil action your mate brings, there is no burden of proof, it is heard on the basis of the most plausible scenario. And I doubt any reasonable person would believe the car was to be held in good faith if there was no holding deposit paid. And as I just said, if the seller turned down the deposit, as you claim, its clear that he did not want to be bound, and therefore no contract was actually formed except in the perception of your mate. Simple misunderstandings or miscommunications happen everyday...

Ok Guys here are a few key points to clear any issues raised:

* There was an offer made by my mate.
* There was acceptance by the seller which mirrored the offer.
* A deposit was offerred by the buyer, however the seller didnt feal comfortable with giving out his bank details..
* When the acceptance was made by the seller the plane tickets/pik up truck/hotel was organised by the buyer.
* The night before he was to leave for the airport 45USN called and said along the lines of "I was just out driving my car and a guy is really keen on buying. I feel like a c%$#t but this guy is really keen, i know we had an agreement but this guy wont stop hassling me for the car, he really wants it."
* My mate replied along the lines of "Well we had an agreement and the car was sold to me"
* Subsequent to the offer and acceptance by both parties the buyer organised plane tickets/hotels/pik up trucks etc.

Hope this clears all issues.

In my opinion the answer to this is quite simple;

There was an offer, there was an acceptance, there is a contract, the contract was breached by the seller, the buyer should be compensated damages which includes costs that has arrisen due to the contract being made. Its not only morally wrong but legally wrong!!!