Kidney Bowls......

sprintstar67 · Post by **sprintstar67** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:27 am

OK, friend of mine has just sold his really really nice 3.2 Carrera for what could best be described as "top money", a car which he has lavished love and attention on and looked after with no expense spared. It was essentially an immaculate car.
Guy who bought it inspected it himself and agreed, but has since taken it to have some work done and discovered that apparently the kidney bowl area is in need of replacement.
Now, being a classic car trader myself and being pretty well up on the Sale of Goods Act, I know the buyer really has no come back at all, but being an honourable chap, my friend thinks that meeting him part way on the cost is the best option.
So, here lies my question, whats your experience of and prices at various places please, so he has a good idea what the score is!

Cheers, Andy.

Gary71 · Post by **Gary71** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:45 am

Caveat emptor...

He should have had it inspected by someone who knows where to look.

Trouble is if the kidney bowls are gone you need to take the rear quarter off to replace them... Then you find the b pillar, sill and jacking points aren't long for this world and... you get the idea!

I'm not going to mention a cost as I do not know, but it will soon add up to a significant number.

Nick Moss · Post by **Nick Moss** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:18 am

Guy who bought it inspected it himself and agreed

He inspected it, approved it and bought it. Unless the car was unroadworthy that's the end of the story. To get it fixed properly is £1500 per side.

Vic Cohen · Post by **Vic Cohen** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:38 am

+! especially the price ...................only one way to do them .....properly!

pmjt · Post by **pmjt** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:40 pm

Gary71 wrote:Caveat emptor... He should have had it inspected by someone who knows where to look.

+1 - sale of goods act says buyer beware in private transactions.

Nige · Post by **Nige** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:42 pm

Sold as seen and walk away. If it was top money the buyer should've have some spare for a proper inspection. Checking for rust in the kidney bowls is not rocket science.

sprintstar67 · Post by **sprintstar67** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:03 pm

Agreed on all counts....and thats what I've told him.

Thanks for the idea of cost Nick, forewarned is forearmed and all that! I'll pass on the info and let you know what happens!

fetuhoe · Post by **fetuhoe** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:19 am

Seems a bit confusing.

The car clealry wasn't immaculate and hadn't had quite as much 'no expense spared care and attention' if the Kidney Bowls were rotten.

If it were advertised as being 'immaculate and having been carefully maintained' you will have a problem at a County Court due to the misleading description.

I wonder if everyone who says 'Caveat Emptor' would have the same view if the post started with --

I have just paid top price for a car that has deep seated rot what can I do to help offset the cost?

pmjt · Post by **pmjt** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:25 am

fetuhoe wrote: I wonder if everyone who says 'Caveat Emptor' would have the same view if the post started with --

I have just paid top price for a car that has deep seated rot what can I do to help offset the cost?

Yes because that's what the law says. In a private transaction you have little recourse so either buy from a dealer (where you have *some* recourse) OR do your homework and have the car inspected properly by an expert

fetuhoe · Post by **fetuhoe** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:19 am

The point that I was trying to make is that if the vehicle was advertised as being in excellent condition then the description must be accurate even if it were a private sale.

You cannot advertise something that is not true and then claim that the Buyer has no rights.

I agree that the Sale of Goods Act restricts your rights when you buy privately but not when goods are falsely advertised.

If goods are not 'as described'you have the right to cancel the contract and demand a refund and you can make a claim through the County Court.

Nick Moss · Post by **Nick Moss** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:51 am

If goods are not 'as described'

Then he should have spotted the problems when he inspected the car. Classic car dealers are probably worse then private sellers when it comes to describing a car. I always used to put "as inspected and accepted" or "as seen and approved" on my bills of sale.

gridgway · Post by **gridgway** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:50 pm

fetuhoe wrote:The point that I was trying to make is that if the vehicle was advertised as being in excellent condition then the description must be accurate even if it were a private sale.

I'm with this. Commentators are very quick to say caveat emptor, they are right and fundamentally wrong. It's a growing comment that lets the seller get away with saying anything they like. That is not encompassed in law. If the seller makes a statement, then it has to be true, even in a private sale. So let's move on from the caveat emptor mantra. It's true where the seller is silent, but the seller's statements are representations to be relied on.

Bert

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:32 pm

Ditto.

Nick Moss · Post by **Nick Moss** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:50 pm

So you are prepared to buy a car based on its description, and hope the courts will back you up if it proves to be a pup? Sounds naive to me.

Sam · Post by **Sam** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:09 pm

Everyone is right. As gridgway says, mis-description applies just as much to a private seller as it does to a trader so if a buyer is mislead, deliberately or not, they do have recourse, but it will be a PITA to sort out so much easier to inspect fully in the first place.

Good on the OP's chum for wanting to help out, if only everyone was so reasonable.

Clearly, a buyer's best bet is to buy from a decent, honest dealer who not only must describe a car accurately but must also ensure it is 'fit for purpose' for 6 months. I'm sure there must be one out there somewhere.