Ford Territory Purchased Privately - Later Found Floor Was Rusted out

jodie1980 on 21/08/2018 - 14:01
Last edited 21/08/2018 - 14:16 by 1 other user

My hubby and I purchased a 2010 Ford Territory as a private sale. The person who listed the car said it was perfect condition inside and out.

Two weeks after purchasing it we had it serviced and they told us there is some rust under the car that will need to be fixed. We took it to our local crash repairer and when they lifted the car, so we could see underneath, the whole bottom of the car had rusted away. In some places it was showing the carpet. The seller had spray painted all the bottom of the car silver so we were unable to see the rust.

So to cut a long story short, the wrecker had to purchase a whole new body and cut the floor out and replace it. The inside of the car has been gutted and it is costing a fortune.

I’m just after some advice should I try and sue the person who sold me the car?
Do I have a case if I was to take him to court?

I’m looking for some positive responses I know we were in the wrong for purchasing the car this way. And we’re out of pocket $1,000’s of dollars. I’d really love it if anyone was a lawyer and would let me know if anything could be done.

Automotive

Comments

  • Mikinoz on 21/08/2018 - 14:03
    +65

    Did you you get an inspection done prior to buying?

    • vinni9284 on 21/08/2018 - 14:12
      +6

      This is the number one thing I would do before any purchase!
      My bro is a VL genuine Turbo nut.
      He wanted to buy one from QLD (from VIC) and the owner said it had minimal rust only in small areas.
      After inspection, the car had more rust than metal

      • Praeto on 23/08/2018 - 16:06
        +1

        Drove all the way to Canberra to look at a VL Calais Turbo I was interested in.. Owner told us it was in perfect condiction, no rust.. when we arrived it had fresh paint, and looked perfect. During the inspection someone leaned on their hand which was placed on the body near the radiator and it went half way through. The thing was 90% rust.

        • vinni9284 on 24/08/2018 - 09:45
          +1

          Wow, It just goes to show how shifty the sellers are.. try to conceal to get rid of the car.
          .. and ppl say that Car Salesman are dodgy??

          Tbh, that type of car has rather a special niche market (and are becoming rare .. at least the genuine factory fitted turbo).. and if the potential buyer has interest, he/she will be well versed in knowledge of that particular car.

          They now go for around $30K+ (in good condition) so the seller should expect a rather comprehensive inspection from the potential buyer's request.

          Luckily you wasted your money only on logistics rather than fixing a rusted lemon.

          Anyway, my bro just got one rebuilt, body ..etc however has genuine plates/engine. .. and is spending an absolute fortune on it.

          Did you end up buying one?

          Cheers

        • Praeto on 24/08/2018 - 15:17
          +1

          @vinni9284:

          I actually had one as a first car, but it got rear ended and written off. I’d always wanted to get another one, but after multiple experiences with dodgy sellers and poor examples, I ended up going with an XR6 Turbo instead. I still look at the old VLs every now and then though!

        • vinni9284 on 25/08/2018 - 09:00
          +1

          @Praeto:

          Completely understandable.

          I used to remember back in the late 80's (~1988) when I used to see VL Calais, lowered and with Simmons wheels … two tone Maranello Red and Silver, fully padded headrest etc .. how nice were they?
          A mate of mine had the Blue VL SV88 and that was gorgeous .. not sure if he still has it….

          I mean they are now pushing 30+ years old so basically you have a choice to spend minimal and expect a rust bucket or huge and expect a complete restoration (hopefully).
          I have another friend that has 2 x Genuine Yellow Ex Vic Pol BT1's in his garage. However they never ever come out, if so very rarely. What's the point of that???

          I think you have done a good move to get an XR6 Turbo, however I am contemplating an ~ 2014 F6 or an ~ 2012 AMG C63 ….
          I guess the Mercedes is really untouchable re: mods etc however its elegant IMO…. overall but then really expensive to maintain.
          The F6 I reckon will be more fun … $2K extra for more power etc …
          I'm stuck ATM.

          Cheers

        • HighAndDry on 27/08/2018 - 13:04

          @vinni9284:

          2012 AMG C63

          I mean, if it's an AMG it effectively comes pre-modded. Less tinkering, more driving if that's what you're after.

    • Oz8argain on 21/08/2018 - 16:46
      +29

      Getting inspection before buying is like putting on clothes before going outside.
      Everyone knows you should, though you don't have to do it, but you'll probably get into trouble if you don't.

  • TheBilly on 21/08/2018 - 14:04
    +17

    I'm not a lawyer but used car private sales are like houses. Caveat Emptor. Because I think you would have to prove that he knew about the rust and was negligible. For all you know it was sprayed before him. Just saying.

      • josho9 on 24/08/2018 - 12:27
        +1

        Great link… OP asks for advice and then proceeds to totally ignore the advice offered (including by someone claiming to be a lawyer) and argue their own position.

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:34
      +2

      Would also have to prove everything else.
      Seller could claim the buyer was informed about the rust too and maybe Op was informed.

      Ozbargain Posters always give us their BIASED side of the story and omit important facts to gain our sympathy and support

      • echelon6 on 23/08/2018 - 22:02
        +10

        She's ONLY looking for POSITIVE responses. Your logic and negativity is not welcome here.

        • HighAndDry on 24/08/2018 - 12:36
          +3

          Lol. Unfortunately OP bought a hunk of rust. The only positivity she might get would be if she hooked up a cathode to it. Maybe.

    • josho9 on 24/08/2018 - 12:28

      Caveat emptor is all very well but you can't mislead the buyer.

  • Ash-Say on 21/08/2018 - 14:07
    +5

    I am sorry for your loss but I don't think you could do much here. This is the risk of purchasing from private seller and there is no warranty should you identify any issues post transaction.

  • QW3RTY on 21/08/2018 - 14:15
    +2

    You purchased the car 'as is' without getting an inspection. I'm not sure you'd have a leg to stand on. You have no statutory warranty as it wasn't purchased through a dealer either.

    At a stretch, if you had evidence that the car was advertised as "perfect inside and out", and said lawyer could convince a judge that you purchased the car on this basis (no idea of relevant case law, no intention of looking it up, not a lawyer) then maybe, possibly you could sue the seller for a breach of contract?

    Taking an absolute pot-shot with that one, but hopefully this is a rather unfortunately expensive lesson learned.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2018 - 15:04

      I think you're out of luck - but following the pot-shot theme… if the advertisement mentions its a single owner car this could also work in your favour, as the temp spray job wouldn't warrant too many believable excuses. If there was a prior owner to the person you bought it off, I don't think there's anything you can do.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2018 - 15:13

        If the seller claimed that they did not know about the car being sprayed, then what?

        • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2018 - 16:11

          Only applicable if single owner vehicle - but why would a car that's been serviced be sprayed by the workshop when they could charge for the restoration ($$$)? If it hasn't been serviced, who else would have sprayed it unless there was a prior owner?

          Again, this is a pot shot, I think they're out of luck. We don't know if the car was serviced, if it was it might have the mechanics details and they may be able to allude to the fact they had notified the previous owner of the severe problem, which they sort to covering up in order to sell the car. Just providing outlets for OP to explore… crappy situation.

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:36

      Not really. Seller could claim they provided the description based on thier own knowledge of the vehicle.
      As they are not an expert and dont claim to base thier description on an expert inspection the seller could claim they had no knowledge of the damage.
      Bottom line: Buyer should have conducted thier own inspections.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2018 - 14:16
    +3

    What is the corrosion warranty on a Territory? An 8 year old car rusted out is very odd. I suspect previous owner drove through salt water on a semi regular basis and lives by the ocean.

    Body corrosion warranty is unlikely transferable anyway.

    Is it even economical to repair? Probably cost more than its worth. Lord knows what else the seller is hiding mechanically. Just cop the lesson on the chin and dump it.

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:39
      +1

      More likely the original owner did this and subsequent buyers have on-sold the vehicle when they found out.

    • cashless on 23/08/2018 - 09:08
      +1

      Agreed - without even seeing it, it sounds like salt water corrosion. Maybe it got bogged at one point and flooded out?
      Maybe previous owner was using it on boat ramps without any care and got salt water inside the car (rusted from inside out?)
      Doesn't really matter what the reason for corrosion, the outcome is the same, the car is now cactus.
      If you get it repaired you are just throwing good money after bad.
      Swallow the pill and dump the car
      [from bitter experience, similar happened to me many years back]

  • HighAndDry on 21/08/2018 - 14:18
    +1

    Not to beat a dead horse, but private sales are "as-is". To successfully sue (or have any real prospect of succeeding), you'd need to prove that the seller subjectively knew about the issue and misled you. That's hard even for crimes (ask any police how hard fraud is to prosecute even with a paper trail), for this? Eh. Cut your losses.

    How much did you pay by the way? That's important, but honestly unless it's in the high 5-digits, probably won't make a difference to the "should we sue" calculus.

    Edit: Not a lawyer, not your lawyer, etc etc.

    • Diji1 on 21/08/2018 - 15:05
      -5

      You don't need to prove anything, civil cases are won by a preponderance of evidence.

      • HighAndDry on 21/08/2018 - 15:11

        Yes, "evidence", that thing which is apparently not 'proof' in your language.

        Funny, then, that the "preponderance of evidence" you refer to is commonly called the "standard of proof".

        Look, I didn't say OP definitely can't win a case - I just laid out what OP would have to do to have a chance of succeeding. Every step of the process will cost money - and again, as I mentioned, whether that'd make sense or not depends on how much OP paid for the car and how much in damages they're looking to claim and could realistically recover.

  • 2jzzzz on 21/08/2018 - 14:22
    +21

    Why bother even fixing it? There'll be rust all through it. I wouldn't have bothered with a Territory.

  • Donaldhump on 21/08/2018 - 14:33
    -7

    concealing a defect and stating it is in perfect condition amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation in my view, with your right to sue for damages or rescind the deal.

    the cost to get a lawyer will be a lot, but if you win they also pay those damages. if you lose you pay their legal costs.

    i'd write them a letter via a lawyer requesting the cost to fix, and if not done so in 2 weeks, you will take to court.

    this a prime example

    http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/1987/15.pd…

    • mskeggs on 21/08/2018 - 14:42
      -1

      Agree. Nothing to lose, and you should at least make life uncomfortable for fraudsters.

    • HighAndDry on 21/08/2018 - 14:56
      +25

      God save us from those with a little knowledge (and access to Google, apparently). If you're not a lawyer, kindly refrain from thinking that being able to Google qualifies you in any way. Especially when the ability to Google is apparently offset by an inability to then read the Google results.

      Your linked pdf goes to a case about real property (a house) not a car, is from 1983, and involved a wealth of proof that the sellers knew, subjectively about the defects. NONE OF WHICH APPLIES HERE.

      And that doesn't even go into the practical costs of trying to run such a case including satisfying all the evidentiary requirements, nor are you correct that "the cost to get a lawyer will be a lot, but if you win they also pay those damages". Actually that's almost 100% wrong.

      Edit: Sigh, for the purpose of completeness, I should note I agree with sending a lawyer's letter. That'll cost you maybe a few hundred, and has a better-than-zero chance of getting a few thousand in damages, maybe.

    • chumlee on 21/08/2018 - 16:41
      +1

      You want to make sure the other party has sufficient assets to make legal action even worth it

    • Oz8argain on 21/08/2018 - 16:49

      is describing something in 'perfect condition' even legally binding in private sale??
      it's possible the seller doesn't even know there's rust

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:44

      A lot of incorrect presumptions made here.
      The seller may not have concealed a defect if they did not know.
      The seller did not prevent OP from making an inspection either so did not attempt conceal anything.
      High legal costs - yes
      Getting awarded costs - not really

      And consider OP omitted to tells us….what a great buy it was - so cheap!!!!

      Probably only paid about $3,000 for it.
      Seller could claim the buyer only paid what it was worth

      End result: OP should have organised for a proper inspection

  • jellykingdom on 21/08/2018 - 14:35
    +2

    SUPER common issue with the Territories unfortunately. My company used to give them as company cars, and we had 5 of them junked for that exact problem. Something to do with poor rustproofing and corrosion protection of the chassis?

    • jodie1980 on 21/08/2018 - 15:05

      Yep that’s what the crash repair told us. But we have gone ahead with fixing it. The guy we purchased it off had a boat so I’m assuming that’s why it rusted because of the salt water while backing the boat into the water.

      • JimmyF on 21/08/2018 - 17:08
        +1

        Oh salt water would do it. Its a bit late now as its getting fixed, but you could have hit ford up and see what they say. Whats the body warranty on these things back in 2010?

      • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:47
        +7

        Well then why blame the seller for a manufacturing issue. You should be approaching FORD!

        • [Deactivated] on 22/08/2018 - 19:46
          -2

          prob a case there for accc

      • r3volt on 22/08/2018 - 23:02
        +7

        If youre reversing your car into the water at a boat ramp youre doing something drastically wrong.

        • SupeNintendoChalmers on 23/08/2018 - 13:08
          +1

          dont even have to, the sheer amount of salt in the wind is enough to rust some cars quickly.

        • bdl on 24/08/2018 - 09:03
          +4

          The HMAS Territory :)

    • kangatrich on 22/08/2018 - 08:53

      Quality control was a joke at Ford. Used to work for them in Campbellfield

      • [Deactivated] on 22/08/2018 - 19:46
        +1

        fcking transmission issues!!!!

        • nick90 on 24/08/2018 - 14:34

          It's usually not the transmission itself that causes the issue. It the bloody transmission cooler that built into the radiator that fails.

      • bmerigan on 22/08/2018 - 21:55

        Are you saying you didn't do a very good job?
        I think the problem was the production line workers not the company. Only the Japanese seem to actually have a work ethic these days.

        • HighAndDry on 24/08/2018 - 12:48
          +1

          Not really - any one worker is just a link in the chain. The overall build quality and standards are still going to have to be set, enabled and enforced by management. You can look through my comments and see I'm far from some card-carrying union member or leftist, but there's not much one worker can do.

          E.g.:

          1. Factory tolerances that are set by management - a worker would be judged not by adherence to this (this is basic) but their output and speed would be judged in relation to these as well. A worker who goes 150% better than tolerances but works at a 90% speed is going to be replaced very fast.

          2. Quality of the parts, fittings and various fasteners - nothing workers can do about this, including any prior corrosion treatment, reliability and longevity of parts (which depend on materials more than anything else), and small creaks and squeaks.

          3. Overall design - also obviously out of workers' hands, and usually comes via compromises between the engineering department and the budgeting department: better designs usually cost more, and good designs are often compromised to save on parts and build costs.

      • smartazz104 on 24/08/2018 - 00:43

        Sounds like you did a great job.

  • AdosHouse on 21/08/2018 - 15:03
    +21

    Hmmm, did you buy it with a roadworthy certificate?

    My interpretation, but in QLD a roadworthy includes a check for body rust or damage, https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/registration/roadworthy , so if it came with a roadie you could go after the issuing mechanic.

    • Mrgreenz on 22/08/2018 - 19:16
      +1

      I think this could be another avenue, It sounds like the damage is pretty bad so surely it should have been picked up seen as it’s a pretty dangerous defect.

    • bmerigan on 22/08/2018 - 21:56
      +1

      Agree here. Definitely a roadworthy issue - thus if you had one supplied it's shonky.

      • MetaphorOZB on 23/08/2018 - 12:52
        +1

        Plenty of shonky roadworthy's floating around.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 23/08/2018 - 13:09

      This is probably OPs only avenue. $5 says the roadworthy was done by a family member or friend of the seller. Hit them with a letter of demand and watch them turn on the seller ;)

    • nick90 on 24/08/2018 - 14:35

      That would be the first thing I'll be doing if the car came with a roadworthy.

  • Diji1 on 21/08/2018 - 15:29
    -7

    I don't see any reason why you shouldn't sue provided you have evidence of the claims that the buyer was making and you documented the damage.

    You don't require a lawyer to mount a civil suit.

    I am not a lawyer so take this with a large grain of salt.

    • JimmyF on 21/08/2018 - 17:06
      +2

      I am not a lawyer

      and yet you're telling them to sue?

      private 2nd car sales are sold 'as is', no warranty.

      • misterpotatomato on 23/08/2018 - 14:29
        +1

        I'm not a lawyer either, and I think OP should take up violin.

        • h4zey on 24/08/2018 - 14:58

          I am a violin teacher and I think OP should take up piano instead

    • HighAndDry on 21/08/2018 - 20:00

      You don't require a lawyer to mount a civil suit.

      While you're right, lawyers don't make money because people somehow have nothing better to do than to throw cash at them. In this case, it's not enough for OP to prove that "seller said X" and "X is wrong". OP would have to prove "seller said X", "X is wrong", and "seller knew X was wrong when they said it". That last bit is going to be the tricky part.

  • Randxyz123 on 21/08/2018 - 16:40
    +7

    Obviously you got a mechanical inspection. You were told the seller had a boat(or saw said boat) so you knew it could be rusty. Right??

    IMNAL but I’d say you don’t have a case. Private sale cars are sold “as is”. It’s the buyers responsibility to get the car inspected not the sellers job to disclose.

    If you have pictures of the underside maybe you have a case. It’s a big maybe.

    Territories are pieces of crap and I wouldn’t even bother repairing it. Give it to a cash for car place and move on.

    The money to sue wouldn’t be worth it.

    WHY didn’t you get it inspected ?

    I’d really love it if anyone was a lawyer and would let me know if anything could be done.

    They wouldn’t be allowed to help you unless you were a client.

    • Baysew on 21/08/2018 - 16:47
      +2

      I’m looking for some positive responses

      This response may not fit into that category.

      • JimmyF on 21/08/2018 - 17:05

        True doesn't come with a sugar coating. They have no case against the seller.

      • Randxyz123 on 22/08/2018 - 13:49

        Maybe not but I’m being straight up and to the point.

        The OP has avoided multiple posts about whether it had a roadworthy and if it was inspected.

        They are also ignoring posts telling them not to repair the car and just scrap it.

  • PinzVidz on 21/08/2018 - 16:56
    +8

    Terrorstory.

    • HighAndDry on 24/08/2018 - 12:51

      Surely Terrortory would be better?

  • JimmyF on 21/08/2018 - 17:04
    +8

    I’m just after some advice should I try and sue the person who sold me the car?

    Private sale, its buyer beware, you have no recourse.

    I’m looking for some positive responses

    Oh you just want people to agree with you?

    Sorry, as crap as it maybe, it was a PRIVATE sale and its buyer beware. A inspection of the car would have picked it up. Lesson learnt for next time sadly.

    And we’re out of pocket $1,000’s of dollars.

    Not too bad then, I'm guessing these are the $1000s you saved on this car being so cheap in the first place?

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:50

      Yes OP forgot to mention what a great buy it was - so incredibly cheap - just had to rush in without an inspection

  • BertieBrown on 21/08/2018 - 18:24
    +5

    OP, can I ask, how much are you now paying for the car to be fixed? How much did you buy the car for? I don’t mean to ask impertinent questions, but it might just be that it’s worth looking at moving on and considering the car a lost cause?

    Consider the sunk cost fallacy here. Are you spending more money than the car is worth or is prudent only because you have already bought it? It might make more sense to save your money towards a new vehicle?

    At any rate, I’m sorry to hear. My feeling is that depending on the cost of the car, and whether small claims is an option, that suing might not be worthwhile financially either, especially if engaging a lawyer is necessary to go forward.

    Maybe at this moment, try and take a deep breath and give yourself some time to just sit down and consider your options. Can you borrow a vehicle in the meantime? Try not to rush into a decision in the heat of the moment I guess is what I’m trying to say.

  • Masterpupil on 21/08/2018 - 21:32
    +3

    This is plainly shocking. The problem with this kind of thing is pursuing it legally tends to be not commercially responsible.

    I agree with the comment above regarding whether it was sold with a RWC. I would think that this level of rust would plainly have made the car roadworthy and if it was sold with a RWC then the certifier has not inspected it properly, as this was then picked up shortly after you purchased it by another mechanic.

    The certifier may be insured, and if you are going to sue anyone, then you are more likely to get a positive result be suing two responsible parties.

    But again, I would suggest it may not be commercially responsible to pursue it. It may be easier to cut losses and fix it.

    Barely any lawyers specialise in this kind of thing, as there is not much work in pursuing small claims, and of course, you have to be sure you are going to be able to get the money out of the defendant party in the end.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2018 - 23:42
    +6

    If only judge Judy worked in Australia. I would have watched this episode.

  • ozzpete on 22/08/2018 - 05:07
    +10

    Later Found Floor Was Rusted out

    Suited for an easy Flintstone type conversation. Zero emissions, and save $ on fuel

    • CocaKoala on 23/08/2018 - 23:30
      +1

      Might be a bit harder to get roadworthy, but I generally agree with your idea. :)

      • ozzpete on 24/08/2018 - 12:54
        +2

        As long as you have >1.5mm tread on your sneaker… you should be fine. :)

  • farknos on 22/08/2018 - 08:26
    +5

    If you purchased a Ford Territory i would say the rust is the least of your concerns.
    just chalk it up to a life lesson,

    • stirlo on 22/08/2018 - 11:32
      +13

      They obviously didn't teach you punctuation in law school…

      • UFO on 23/08/2018 - 14:45

        Or the name of the degree… which would be an Undergraduate LAW degree. I have never heard of anyone with real legal qualifications refer to their studies as "legal degree".

        • HighAndDry on 24/08/2018 - 13:13
          +1

          Maybe he's talking about a degree which he legally obtained and which is legal to give - so not defrauded and not in something like money laundering?

        • h4zey on 24/08/2018 - 15:04

          not sure what you are talking about but me mate got a legal degree, you see every time i ask him if it's legal, he always says "mate, i spend those years getting me legal degree, i can tell you this is 100% legit, legal to the very core even her majesty can not fault this"

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:54

      Yes and many OBs post very biased versions of what happened to get our sympathy and support
      When you dig a bit deeper you find out it wasnt quite the way the poster described and alot of important information in support of the other party has been omitted.
      Thats why Im always critical of these posts.
      They are always very one-sided and many OBs take the brief as Gospel.

    • johnno07 on 22/08/2018 - 21:13
      -1

      Ugh. Learn to spell, baby lawyer.

  • habib23q on 22/08/2018 - 09:21
    +2

    As someone who has bought and sold alot of cars in the past over a long space of time I can say that unfortunately alot of people advertise cars as perfect condition but are anything but. As others have said take this as an expensive lesson learnt but one thing doesn't make sense here. If your gonna buy any type of car regardless of make or model why didn't you Google it first. A quick Google search comes up with numerous posts talking about Territory rust problems and issues. I myself was considering purchasing one in the past until I googled it and saw all the issues with it. I ended up buying a Mazda instead. No problems after close to 3 years.

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 13:01
      +4

      Yes every car is advertised as perfect inside and out and regularly serviced.
      But a quick inspection reveals:
      no service log
      thick black oil
      black automatic transmission fluid
      plain water in the radiator.
      Not to mention torn seats, radio or a/c not working and the odd minor ding.
      And the test drive reveals poor starting and performance and jerky gear changes.
      Thats your average used car in "perfect condition"

      Thats why its buyer beware!

      • ozzpete on 23/08/2018 - 00:16
        +2

        Yes every car is advertised as perfect inside and out and regularly serviced.

        I look for the people with adverts that tell me bad stuff they didn't have to tell me ie. People that are very honest/nice people.
        It is "buyer beware" ie. There is no warranty or guarantee (unless you get a written one) on used car with private sale. Morally/ethically on the other hand, it would be nice if people do no completely BS to you to take advantage.
        There are a few things I know nothing or very little about, but have utilized psychology to do well. Poker, and buying used cars are 2 examples.
        Being nice to people when buying used car certainly helps sometimes I think. Some will reciprocate. Last car I bought the guy gave me an extra hundred or 2 off. Some people are doing well financially, and don't mind giving someone who is nice to them a good deal. There was an issue that came up at pink slip inspection prior to purchase, and I was going to ask for something off due to this, but before I even had to ask, he offered double off as what I was going to ask for..
        He also told me something leaks but only have to top it up every 6 months or so (something I never would have had any idea about in quick inspection when buying) .
        Most people even with zero psychology education probably get a kind of 'gut feeling' regarding the sellers integrity upon meeting them (harder to tell just over the phone, but you can strategically 'trip up' liars and scammers) for eg. Ask 3 times or more "is there any issues, is there anything I will find wrong when i get there, etc" and if it they mention some things only upon you really pushing for info, then they cannot be trusted.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 23/08/2018 - 13:12
          +1

          I look for the people with adverts that tell me bad stuff they didn't have to tell me ie. People that are very honest/nice people.

          I do the exact same. If they mention negatives about what they're selling it's a lot less likely they are hiding something.

        • ozzpete on 23/08/2018 - 15:51

          @zeggie: Exactly… and if you have to ask them 2 or 3 times if there are any issues, before there conscience kicks in, and they tell you something wrong with vehicle, well it makes you wonder what else they are not discloseling .

  • andyhui01 on 22/08/2018 - 10:06
    +6

    If the car had a Roadworthy Certificate (VIC). I would go after the Tester via Vicroads rather than the seller. If what you are saying is true, rust to the point the carpet is visible, I'm pretty sure it isn't Roadworthy.

    1. What you have to do is first get a Roadworthy yourself so you have proof from a LVT about the rust. Dealers cost more but in this case, you might be better off paying a Ford dealer to do it.
    2. Contact the Workshop and tell them and see what they say
    3. Collect evidence of trying to resolve the issue with the workshop amicably and then contact VicRoads

    I am sure other states have a similar process when selling cars.

  • HeWhoKnows on 22/08/2018 - 12:29

    The advice from Dept of fair trading is always BUYER BEWARE!

    Inspections and model research should be conducted BEFORE the purchase.

    I'd would consider suing YOURSELF for making such a bad decision.
    And of course you forgot to tell us that is was:

    So cheap - Such a good deal!

    Please dont come complaining to us for your own huge mistake.

  • eggles01 on 22/08/2018 - 13:42
    -1

    lot of solicitors give you a free appointment for 20 minutes or half hour to get info, maybe the :FAILURE TO DISCLOSE:information may help,if you have already fixed the problem that maybe the only thing you can do,you would have to get an affidavit from who ever fixed the problem or any other persons who witnessed the problem,if the wrecker had to purchase the other body for parts you maybe responsible for their costs also,maybe you should have taken it to a body repair shop and asked for a quote for the repair and contacted any other smashed repair shops,get in touch with DEPT FAIR TRADING and ask them how you stand and they can also refer you to other contacts who may be able to help,best of luck

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 23/08/2018 - 13:14

      There is no failure to disclose avenue for this scenario. Misrepresentation maaaybe, but next to no chance proving it unless they wrote or emailled a letter to the buyer confirming the car is 100% rust free. Bet they didn't!

  • solidussnake on 22/08/2018 - 15:33
    +4

    Maybe the Flintstones owned it before previous owner ???

  • rave75 on 22/08/2018 - 15:43

    tough luck, you need to do your own due diligence before buying privately. Not worth your time to pursue this, move on.

  • brendanm on 22/08/2018 - 16:12
    +1

    What state are you in? Dis it come with a RWC? If so, you are for more likely to be successful going after the person who did the rwc. Seller owes you nothing, vehicles are purchased as is unless from a dealer.

    Why is it that people don't just get a pre-purchase inspection?

  • picklewizard on 22/08/2018 - 16:22

    I’m just after some advice should I try and sue the person who sold me the car?

    No.

    Do I have a case if I was to take him to court?

    No.

    I'm sorry to be blunt, but you purchased the car as-is. The person did the wrong thing by you, but unless you had a pre-purchase inspection that came with a written guarantee, you're out of luck. Even if the car came with a RWC (depending on the state you are in), this is not a guarantee and you have no financial recourse, but you can make a complaint against the mechanic who provided it.

  • syousef on 22/08/2018 - 16:28

    I would love some financial details.
    How much did you pay for the car?
    How much are you paying to have it fixed?

  • Azzy on 22/08/2018 - 16:35
    +1

    I assume you're from SA
    Under SA law, a Private individual who sells more than 4 cars a year (and other exceptions):
    "they have bought (or offered to buy), or sold (or offered to sell), at least 4 second hand vehicles during a 12 month period" is deemed to be a LMCT and must warrant cars under 160,000km or less than 10 years old., or
    they and a close associate have bought (or offered to buy), or sold (or offered to sell), at least 6 second hand vehicles during a period of 12 months.

    I think there's a very good chance this seller may have breached LMCT obligations, if they have sold/brought/ expressed interest to sell/buy a total of 4 cars in 12 months they have to provide a warranty for the car.

    re:
    https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s03s04s02.php

    If they are carrying on a 'backyard car re-selling business' then you will be able to force them to honour their obligations under SA law re: LMCT obligations.

    I see this as your most likely possible avenue of redress.

    If they brought the car less than 12 months ago, and then sold it, (which will be revealed on paperwork with the sale/transfer of registration, then you only have to find another 2 instances of them selling/buying cars.

    Do they regularly sell cars? Check their history, on Facebook/Gumtree etc.
    See if they're selling a car(s) right now.
    If you can prove they breached LMCT laws, you'll be in a good position to send them a letter demanding they honour their obligations under the LMCT law/act. (Or face being reported for breaching the act).

    regards Aaron
    (Disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, nor a lawyer who hasn't done research, just a private individual)

    • brendanm on 22/08/2018 - 16:41
      +3

      Wow how did you find out how many cars that the guy who sold op the car has sold in the last year? You should work for the police with those detective skills.

    • HighAndDry on 24/08/2018 - 13:16

      if they have sold/brought/ expressed interest to sell/buy a total of 4 cars in 12 months

      This couldn't possibly be right, because this would mean - reading the bold, anyone who has "expressed interest to buy a total of 4 cars in 12 months" would be caught. I'd hope that anyone looking to buy a car looks at more than 4 cars before they make a decision.

  • stumo on 22/08/2018 - 16:56

    Another point… If its that badly rusted its a sign that the car has probably been stuck in salt water.

    So it probably isnt worth fixing because you will be in for a world of pain when the wiring starts to corrode away.

    The only "positive" thing you can take away from all this is that RACV inspections etc are really very cheap and carry a guarantee. So make sure you do that next time.

  • Pantagonist on 22/08/2018 - 17:08

    Slightly unrelated, in Canberra today I saw a 2007 model Ford Territory with a for sale sign in the window. 235,000km on the clock. $10,000. Does that seem insanely high to anyone else?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join