Sold a Motorbike Now Buyer Is Threatening to Take Me to VCAT

TIKS on 31/05/2015 - 18:10

Hi guys, I'll try to shorten this as much as possible….

I had a 2006 cr125 honda 2 stroke. It siezed like 2 strokes do sometimes so I had it rebuilt.

15 hours of riding later I decided to sell it so I could get a tamer motorbike as I'm getting on In age. Advertised as rebuilt top end 06 cr125 bla bla…

A family drove up to look at bike, loved it then the kid test rode it, it stopped running…. We checked and it had ran out of fuel. I put more fuel in. It it still wouldn't start, spark plug was always dry so we presumed blocked jet due to running out of fuel.

I gave the potential buyer 3 choices. 1: leave bike and go home and I'm sorry for the troubles. 2: leave bike and I will vet it repaired over next week or 2 and they can have first dibbs on it once fixed. Or 3: I had bike advertised at 3000 so I said they could take it as is for 2500.

They chose option 3 and I wrote a receipt stating "The current condition of the bike is not running after it ran out of fuel on a test ride".

They were happy and took it and that was it. A week later he has stated now the bike had in fact seized when it ran out of fuel and he wants me to pay him money. He gave me options of paying him 1300 as the bike vin translates to a 2004 model (I had no idea cause they use same parts etc for 06 and 04) so the 1300 is for his travel and payment to repair the bike.

Or

Buy the bike back off him for 2800 but I have to travel 200km to pick it up. The extra 300 is for his travel time.

If I don't take either option. He is taking me to vcat for a civil case.

Anyone know where I stand? His kid was riding it when it blew up? (Underage, not rwc or rego and on a sealed road) I had no idea it had blown up. But surely private sales have no warranties?

Thanks in advance to anyone who reads this.

Automotive

Comments

  • ozhunter on 31/05/2015 - 18:20
    +77

    Call his bluff on going to VCAT.

    • toristo on 31/05/2015 - 18:43
      +7

      Have you been communicating by email or SMS?

      Makes it a lot harder for him to argue if you can show evidence that you've tried to offer some resolutions in good faith (AND given you'd written the "as is" condition on the invoice after they took it for a test ride).

      I'd be inclined to call his bluff on VCAT too.

    • Utopian on 02/06/2015 - 21:00

      Yup.
      "Caveat emptor"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor

  • modsec802 on 31/05/2015 - 18:42
    +59

    Clearly sold as is so no need to worry at all.

    • LauralHardy on 07/06/2015 - 01:44
      -5

      Well, no.

      Two Issues here; to be brief..

      1) He has sold the bike with a specified fault, i.e. not working because it has run out of fuel, if it has another fault i.e. seized this is not covered in the sales contract. If he has simply put sold as seen that would have covered everything, he did not.

      2) The really big problem here is if he has sold a 2004 bike as a 2006 that is a serious misrepresentation and invalidates the sales contract, on this alone the buyer would be entitled to a refund. It’s pretty close to fraud and fraud is a criminal offense.

      If I was the buyer and the seller took the majority advice on this thread and ignored me I'd go to the cops and see if they would follow up a fraud complaint.

      Fraud Offences WA
      The use of deception, lying or dishonesty in order to gain a personal or financial advantage is called fraud.

      The seller can argue that they were not being purposefully deceptive but describing a 2004 as a 2006 is deceptive and he is responsible under the law for the veracity of the description, he has to know what he is selling and describe it accurately.

      • McFly on 07/06/2015 - 02:01
        +3

        "contract… fraud… criminal… deceptive…"
        lol
        First year law student?
        You aren't going to pass and become omnia omnibus unless you learn to throw in a good sprinkling of ipso facto's and carpe diem's, et cetera.

        • LauralHardy on 07/06/2015 - 02:36
          -7

          Yeah, thats why I never bother posting replies, the community contains too many jackasses.

          You really have no idea what contract law is do you?

          But fought and won a few of these issues as both buyer & seller, faced down the odd infringment notice by letter and in magistrates too.

          .. but lol away my friend, I'm out of here.

      • Speckled Jim on 07/06/2015 - 10:38
        +1

        I believe this on the receipt:
        The current condition of the bike is not running after it ran out of fuel on a test ride

        Can be argued either way if semantics are employed.

        The buyer rode it, it ran out of fuel.
        Condition of sale doesn't say "not running as a result of running out of fuel". A reasonable person would surmise the brief test ride (prior to running out of fuel) was enough to satisfy the buyer despite this.

        It can also be argued that an interested party also has a responsibility to check the item they're buying is as advertised, and is suited to their intended use. So check the year. Capture and check the VIN against relevant databases etc.

        Sounds to me like a common rookie mistake; they bought their kid a two-stroke MX bike for leisure use. If they wanted a Honda MX bike for a beginner, the CRF would have been the wiser choice.
        Even an XR is pretty capable.

        They were burned by a two-stroke — very common — so they're trying to make a big issue of the year of manufacture as a technicality.

  • airzone on 31/05/2015 - 18:43
    +18

    Buy a second hand vehicle on the private market, buyer beware.

  • Lequ83 on 31/05/2015 - 18:43
    +29

    Yep. Tell him to take you to VCAT. You haven't misrepresented anything and in any case 'let the buyer beware' applies.
    He has no warranty.

  • Scorpiogirl on 31/05/2015 - 18:45

    Hi. Firstly perhaps it's something to do with your state but what's vcat? A fair trading place? Not sure, sorry. I was under the impression regardless of what it is or the value really, that you buy something as is, especially if there is no agreement or watranty offered. It is no different to selling something on Gumtree that is electrical and a week later it dies. You are not to know what happened to the bike a week later.

    I don't believe what i am told unless it's fact. I would do some research of where you stand just for reassurance/peace of mind. I would stop communication with them until you know where you stand. Don't reply or communicate until this time.

    If you did nothing wrong, i would stand up for yourself. Don't agree to anything.They may use it against you. If you are in the right, you don't need to feel bad or like you owe them anything. You didn't force them to take it. It sounds like you were straight up with them.

    Sadly some people will try to get money out of people. You don't even know if the bike isn't working as you haven't seen it correct? I didn't find their options realistic. It would be assuming you did something wrong knowlingly. Who ever it is in Victoria, call Fair trading. They will give you information about how things work after a sale and where you stand. They are there for both the buyer and seller.

    • Davo1111 on 01/06/2015 - 23:03

      VCAT is just a tribunal, used to be called CTTT in NSW, then became ACAT(?). It's basically small claims court where you have to represent yourself.

      • Scorpiogirl on 02/06/2015 - 10:17

        Finally. Well it took a while but thank you for explaining that. I figured it was something along the lines of that. Just appreciate your efforts to respond.

        • DialIN on 04/06/2015 - 13:33
          +3

          http://lmgtfy.com/?q=VCAT

        • Scorpiogirl on 04/06/2015 - 17:00
          -4

          @DialIN: For what reason do you suggest Google? Why not everyone who posts on Ozbargain then?

        • Ughhh on 04/06/2015 - 17:16
          +2

          @Scorpiogirl:

          If you ask people on a forum, you'll probably have to wait some time. The answers may not be 100% accurate/up to date.
          If you google a definition/term, you'll get a proper answer in 2 seconds, either from google or from the offical source. Afterall, "VCAT" isn't some complex theory… If you still don't understand after researching it yourself, then ask.

        • Jackson on 05/06/2015 - 18:10

          @Ughhh: In defence of the complainant, there are times when people are just rude telling people to google stuff. This isn't one of them.

    • lilkid28 on 02/06/2015 - 21:29

      Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

  • boonanza on 31/05/2015 - 18:46
    +5

    It's up to the buyer to make checks on a private purchase if he bought it not running then let him try vcat and fail miserably

  • Scorpiogirl on 31/05/2015 - 18:48

    Clearly the buyer is dreaming but for your peace of mind, find out exactly where you stand so you don't need to stress. Once you know, if he calls etc that would be harassment. Maybe he should pay you then? I'm kidding but some people think like that.

  • TIKS on 31/05/2015 - 18:53
    +2

    yeah thanks so much guys, I just had the most amazing weekend away with my wife in canberra and this bloke really put a crap spin on it for us. I will seek legal advice but I tried everything, and offered him everything… below is his sms to me I received today….

    CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – 2004 Honda CR 125

    31 May 2015

    I refer to our conversation on Friday 29 May 2015, regarding the condition of the motor bike whereby we originally agreed to purchase the bike from you at a reduced cost in good faith "as the current condition of the bike is not running as it ran out of fuel on a test ride" ( Receipt 23/5/2015) whereby in fact the engine was seized and now requires a rebuild at a much more substantial cost.

    This is not how the bike was was advertised "inter alia" the advertisement posted on Gumtree is relied upon as direct evidence in support of this claim along with our conversations on the day witnessed by three other members of my family. (witness statements and contemporaneous notes 23/5/2015 by xxx).

    I draw your immediate attention to "inter alia" your deceptive, false and misleading conduct by misrepresenting the motorbike in your advertisement posted on Gumtree as being "meticulously maintained with a recent top end rebuild" and that it is a "2006" model where in fact it is a "2004"model.

    "Inter alia"it is a breach of Gumtree's users terms and conditions and Victorian Consumer Law, "Inter alia" these breaches carry heavy and significant penalties and sanctions.

    In the spirit of the legislation I will present to you an offer to resolve this matter "ala" "Consumer to Consumer" before I instigate legal civil proceedings returnable in the Victorian Civil And Administrative Tribunal.

    The year of manufacture is proven by a legal identity "inter alia" the stamped Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). This indisputable evidence is relied on "inter alia" in support of this claim.

    OPTION 1
    On or before Friday 5/6/2015 return $1,300.00 to ourselves. This is to pay for the repairs to the bike to deem it "inter alia" "Fit For Purpose". It reduces the purchase price of the vehicle to reflect the true market value of a 2004 model and it compensates us for our costs to travel and inspect the bike and for mechanical work undertaken by a qualified Mechanical Engineer to identify the problem.

    OPTION 2
    On or before Friday 5/6/2015 return $2,800.00 to ourselves and collect the bike. This is to refund the price paid by us for the purchase of the bike and compensation for our costs to travel and inspect the bike and for mechanical work undertaken by a qualified Mechanical Engineer to identify the problem.

    Before this time has elapsed, I am prepared to hold discussions with you regarding this matter. After this time has elapsed and I have commenced Civil Proceedings I am not able to hold further discussions with you.

    You are hereby put on notice that in the event that proceedings are instigated, further claims for all legal costs "inter alia" will be claimed.

    You are in possession of my contact details should you choose to contact me. If you do so you are further notified that any conversation will be recorded and witnessed and will be used as evidence against you in the future in any and all proceedings

    • airzone on 31/05/2015 - 19:44
      +9

      https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/c…
      http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/motor-cars/buying-a-used-car/…
      http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/motor-cars/buying-a-used-car/…

      Probably irrelevant since you're not a vehicle trader..
      http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/motor-cars/compensation-claim… not covered

      Common theme - if you buy on the private market, the onus is on you to validate the details and serviceability of the bike.. Personally if the bike broke down on a test ride, and you couldn't get it running again, that's a pretty big red flag.

      The only obligations you have as a private party making a one-off sale is right to title, undisturbed possession, and disclose securities..
      i.e. 1) You actually own it; 2) Once paid, you let them take it, fill out the rego transfer, and it's theirs; 3) There isn't a secured loan on the bike.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 31/05/2015 - 20:46
      +55

      Since when does it take a Mechanical Engineer to repair a motorcycle? Surely a mechanic could do the job.

      I'd tell him to get ****ed "inter alia".

      In all seriousness, just ignore him. :)

      • cheesecactus on 01/06/2015 - 12:29
        +67

        As a mechanical engineer, i have no idea how to repair a motobike.

        • bjdchwr on 01/06/2015 - 21:57
          +5

          Me too. Mechanical Engineer is a degree based qualification but not really experienced based (according to Engineers Australia guidelines).
          Being a Mechanical might not mean anything and we are supposed to do the design work rather than motorcycle repairs. (Just my own opinion)

        • pingMarky on 02/06/2015 - 09:36
          +14

          @bjdchwr:
          Mechanical Engineer here, can confirm motocycle repair not in the exam. Back to the bar.

        • rodinthink on 02/06/2015 - 11:21
          +2

          @tyler.durden:

          As an IT graduate degree, sometimes I have no idea how to fix the computer whether it's OS/chrome/Network bug
          I used google/youtube which I found very practical and educative for multipurpose problem.

          It's so silly & easy for people to generalize /stereotype

        • Scrooge McDuck on 02/06/2015 - 12:09
          -1

          @pingMarky:

          not in the exam. Back to the bar.

          Was that in the exam?

          Which uni?

          B.E. (Mechanical) [Hons I] from Sydney Uni here. I can confirm that motorcycle repair was not in the curriculum, but I learnt how from Formula SAE.

        • drink water on 02/06/2015 - 15:25
          +2

          Mechanical Engineer here too, don't remember repairing bikes lol

        • sv123 on 03/06/2015 - 09:18
          +9

          As a software engineer, I know how to repair a motorbike

        • Scrooge McDuck on 03/06/2015 - 12:50
          -1

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          [negged comment]

          Must be a rival uni…

        • Jackson on 05/06/2015 - 18:16

          @Scrooge McDuck: Why are you being downvoted?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/06/2015 - 01:43

          @Jackson:

          That's what I'd like to know… :/

        • sd4f on 09/06/2015 - 11:22

          @tyler.durden: Working for banks, finance and insurance companies. Those industries are the second largest employers of engineers in Australia, from the stats I've seen.

        • tyler.durden on 09/06/2015 - 13:09

          @sd4f:

          mechanical engineer works for banks, finance and insurance companies????

        • sd4f on 11/06/2015 - 10:06

          @tyler.durden: It's true, and it's because they are numerate and good at problem solving. Can check this link; http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/Research/GradJobsDollars/B…

      • imc123 on 01/06/2015 - 17:53
        +17

        get ****ed "inter alia"
        this comment made my day
        …and a big fat mess because i snorted my water everywhere

      • Shitstorm on 02/06/2015 - 10:01
        +2

        This was my thought's exactly…

        "You sound like a scrub first year law student. Go get "inter alia" (profanity)."

    • Bunnyburger on 01/06/2015 - 08:56
      +26

      This is hilarious "Ala", "Inter Alia", so much legalese! Might as well ask him for some chicken a la cordon bleu!

      • Musing Outloud on 01/06/2015 - 21:17
        +3

        I choked on my beer!

        Praise be to Inter Alia, or ala if you like… XD

    • cim85 on 01/06/2015 - 09:04
      +1

      Is this bloke a copper or does he have a mate who is "inter alia" a lawyer? lol

      • McFly on 01/06/2015 - 10:47
        +10

        If he does have a mate who is a lawyer then that mate is "inter alia" a dipstick!

    • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2015 - 09:32
      +17

      Sounds like one of those douchebags who is either a lawyer or is buddies with a lawyer. From my experience, using scary legalese in a letter normally means that they have nothing on you and are trying to intimidate you into settling.

      I agree with everyone else here - call their bluff. I would not be surprised if douchebag suddenly backs off just before the VCAT hearing date, knowing that he/she will look like a complete tit in front of the tribunal.

      • ankor on 01/06/2015 - 17:01
        +12

        If a lawyer ever wrote that crap in the sms then they'd be laughed out of the profession.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/06/2015 - 14:02
          +1

          It definitely happens.

          One of my family members had a planning permit dispute with a neighbour that had been approved by council, but was heading to VCAT thanks to the neighbour. My family member received a letter from a mid-tier firm warning her of 'legal consequences' if she went ahead with her application.

          I took one look and noticed that the law firm was disputing a 'building permit' rather than the planning permit - a stage in the process that was a least a year off. One quick letter back pointing out the difference between 'planning' and 'building' permits and the VCAT hearing was called off, along with any blatant shakedown attempts by the law firm.

          Which is why I'd absolutely head off to VCAT if I were in OP's shoes. There are way too many people out there with a little bit of legal knowledge who use it to exploit those who aren't in the know.

    • nickj on 01/06/2015 - 10:42
      +47

      For anyone wondering WTF "inter alia" means, apparently it's just latin for "Among other things". I.e. it's pure linguistic wankery, as you can safely ignore it without losing any useful meaning in this context.

    • McFly on 01/06/2015 - 10:45
      +10

      That's a hell of an SMS! (Should say hell of a lot of SMSs!)

      Anyway, the only thing I'd say to him is futue te ipsum et caballum tuum.

      • cim85 on 01/06/2015 - 12:55
        +3

        I would call that SMS a novel, lol

      • Musing Outloud on 01/06/2015 - 21:22
        +3

        Or even Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere. Which in the context here translates as "you didn't break it so you don't have to fix it!

    • GaryQ on 01/06/2015 - 14:37

      Seems to me this boy has hisself a mite o' book learnin',
      but not so much in the way of smarts

    • devpress on 01/06/2015 - 15:32
      +4

      How the hell did he managed to type that into a SMS ??

    • Rorschach on 01/06/2015 - 21:10
      +1

      Oh wow, so many of the replies to this comment have made my day!!

    • Agret on 02/06/2015 - 00:14
      +5

      This is not how the bike was was advertised

      lol no kidding, the engine obviously wasn't seized when he first came and gave it a test ride…

    • Lysander on 02/06/2015 - 14:14
      +4

      Seek legal advice.

      Your problem lies in the following phrase:

      "as the current condition of the bike is not running as it ran out of fuel on a test ride"

      It can be argued that the only reason for the bike not running was a lack of fuel. If seizing up can be established a reasonably normal effect of running out of fuel you might be in luck but if it can be established that normally seizing up does not occur you might be unlucky, as then the buyer can argue that the only incidents covered by your phrasing are the direct reasons given and those that are reasonably foreseeable.

      It is really not clear-cut. Given the fact that the buyer has also given you options this could go to reasonableness on his behalf. Especially option 2 ($300 to cover travel costs and time) is not unreasonable.

      While it is true that a private sale does not come with the same warranties attached as a commercial sale, it does not mean you are free of any warranties or liabilities. You cannot withhold any information you know or could have reasonably known.

      The fact you got the model year wrong is likely to work to your disadvantage, too. You should and could have known the model year by checking the number before the sale. An earlier model year reduces the value of the bike.

      It can be argued that using the wrong model year is either misleading advertisement or at best innocent mistake. But in either case, the buyer is likely to have the right to rescind the contract in which case everything goes back to what it was before the sale plus additional costs incurred by the buyer due to the innocent mistake.
      The buyer wanted to buy a 2006 model, you sold him a 2004 model, and hence it can also be argued that in fact there was no meeting of the minds and hence no contract. Therefore, restitution needs to take place for both parties, which means you get the bike, and he gets his money plus reasonable costs (as he needs to be put in the position he was in before this whole thing took place - this means he can only claim actual costs incurred, probably not the time).

      I would not argue the fact the kid rode the bike without rego etc. because you as the owner of the bike gave him permission to do so. Both you and the buyer's son might get punished by police for that. So I would drop that.

      Also note: if VCAT is anything like QCAT in Queensland regarding costs, the buyer is not bluffing. QCAT costs only about $23 with no further cost risk as no lawyers are allowed and hence no costs can be incurred. So I am pretty certain that it is worth it for him to take to VCAT given $2500+ is at stake here.
      Assume that if you cannot settle with him you will have to attend a mediation and then, if that fails, a hearing. That means you will have to take two days off work, too. If you are self-employed, it might be wiser to just take the bike, return the purchase price (plus his actual costs incurred - see receipts) and not having to take two days off where you could make a lot more money (say, if you are a plumber etc.)

      • matt_will_fix_it on 02/06/2015 - 21:03
        -1

        So I am pretty certain that it is worth it for him to take to VCAT given $2500+ is at stake here.

        But he would have travel costs to the OP's nearest court plus time off work. If he estimates its $300 in travel costs, it will soon add up.

        • Lysander on 02/06/2015 - 23:58

          Not a court but a tribunal - sometimes that can be more flexible than a court. In Queensland the QCAT has its own places and does not use the court buildings. Maybe it is the same in Victoria.
          Also, the mediation stage can be done over the phone as it is possibly to file a claim say with QCAT against a person or business resident in Victoria. Therefore, to save costs, the first stage can be done over the phone.

    • KingstonTheNotSoWise on 07/06/2015 - 11:02

      They said, after taking it home, they refueled it and drove it around THEN it seized on them, regardless of whether the engine seized before or after he purchased it is his problem, he purchased it under the condition that it wasn't a working vehicle and both you and the customer agreed that it was because it ran out of fuel. You didn't force him to buy it either. He purchased it as is. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure if he had someone underage riding the bike, even to test it, he has no recourse, I'm going to assume he himself has no license to ride the bike? I'm not sure if VCAT take that into consideration, assuming it goes that far, but I really hope they take that into consideration. The only problem I can see here is the 2004/2006 situation, which even still, anyone with half a brain buying a vehicle would check the VIN (unless brand new from a dealer), still; you should have done so as well to avoid any problems like that when it comes to advertising. They may have grounds on the basis they were mislead in that area but being a private sale it's a case by case kind of thing.

      If absolute worse comes to worse which I doubt it will, but if it's causing you too much distress either ignore it or I'd say offer them back what they paid, so the $2,500 and pick it up, but screw their travel compensation, would they have charged you for the travel fees had they not bought it & just gone home? No, they would have just gone home. So it makes no difference whether they bought it or not, travel expenses were always their responsibility plain and simple. And he said it's because of travel time? By that logic I can fly on a plane and charge the airliners for my travel time.

      Sounds to me you got some idiot customers who just saw the ad and drove down the instant they saw it without a single thought in their brains.

  • Scorpiogirl on 31/05/2015 - 18:55
    +21

    Stop talking to him in any form. It just leaves a foot print behind.

  • Scorpiogirl on 31/05/2015 - 18:58
    +11

    Puh-lease commensate for travel? Yeah right.

    • nickj on 01/06/2015 - 10:21
      +12

      Yeah, the "compensation for our costs to travel and inspect the bike" is absurd - if he came and saw the bike and decided NOT to buy, would you have to refund him his fuel costs? Of course not! His travel costs are HIS travel costs, not yours. So that's just silly.

      And the mechanic costs are his problem - the bottom line is that private vehicles are sold as-is, there is no warranty, which is why you should check it, inspect it, before you buy. He saw that there were problems and bought anyway at a reduced cost, and that was his choice, and he has the accept the consequences of that.

      Only point he makes that I think is valid is the year of the bike, 2004 vs 2006, so that's the only thing that seems where you made a mistake and/or behaved unfairly, and the price difference between the two could be quite small (few hundred dollars maybe).

      So either ignore, or offer the price difference between these two years. If he wants anything more than that then go to VCAT.

  • Scorpiogirl on 31/05/2015 - 19:03

    How was Canberra? I imagine FREEZING as it was here in Sydney. I hate cold lol. It took him a week to tell you there was a problem? Do research. Know where you stand. I wouldn't entertain him at all. Keep us informed please :) Compensate btw

  • Ughhh on 31/05/2015 - 19:08
    +3

    "Inter alia"it is a breach of Gumtree's users terms and conditions and Victorian Consumer Law, "Inter alia" these breaches carry heavy and significant penalties and sanctions.

    Are Gumtree transactions even covered by the Victorian Consumer Law (or any other consumer law)?- as far as Im concerned, its not. Gumtrees T&C isn't the law and they don't penalize anyone, at most they ban your Gumtree account.

    Does this guy have any of your personal details, apart from number?

    • TIKS on 31/05/2015 - 20:27

      he has my name and address from the receipt

  • Almost Banned on 31/05/2015 - 19:34
    +4

    I don't think you have a problem with the condition of the bike - you clearly sold it 'as is' and after they had inspected it.
    I do think you have a problem with selling it is a 2006 model if it is a 2004 model.
    Work out what the difference is in value between the two and offer that.

    • donga100 on 31/05/2015 - 20:53
      +14

      I imagine the difference between a 2004 model with major mechanical problems and a 2006 model with major mechanical problems wouldn't be very much.

      • GaryQ on 01/06/2015 - 14:42
        +6

        There is another, more sinister interpretation

        The buyer had an existing 2004 with a siezed engine, and looked for an advertised working replacement. Switched the engines, then complained that you had sold him a dud.

        Apparently car rental places routinely substitute a different model for the one you order to stop people ripping new parts off the rental and switching them for faulty parts from their own cars.

        • JH100 on 01/06/2015 - 19:47

          Engine number should stop that one.

          But there is still a another interpretation …

        • Musing Outloud on 01/06/2015 - 21:26
          +3

          @JH100: For those wondering like me, I think it is it really did run out of petrol at the test drive, but within the week the kid really did seize the engine. The odometer reading may help on that one.

        • sv123 on 03/06/2015 - 09:26

          @Musing Outloud: A CR125 would not have an odometer - its a dirtbike. It may have an hour meter though if one was fitted.

  • Mad Max on 31/05/2015 - 20:25
    +8

    Tell him he is dreaming…
    Actually I would just ignore him.
    He can't do anything…except being more careful next time.
    If he wanted a warranty he had to buy it new.
    Or from a dealer (and even then it may not be so easy).

  • supnigs super skids on 31/05/2015 - 20:26
    +6

    Sold as is, you had believed it was a 2006. Stop communication with the kid/family. They are clearly trying to scam you after a week. Who knows what damage/modifications they did to it within that time.

  • TIKS on 31/05/2015 - 20:27
    +15

    Im definitely thinking I will take the ignore him approach

    • Logical on 01/06/2015 - 17:10
      +6

      Ignore him. Wait for a claim against you (if that ever happens). Your defence (1) sold with note that not running (2) buyer accepted (3) buyer took home and burned the crap out of it, buyer can not prove otherwise (4) you owe nothing to the buyer.

      Furthermore, if you wish, you can finalise your discussion with the buyer by stating something similar to this: Please note that should you proceed with your vexatious claim then I put you on notice that I will claim all legal costs and expenses against you.

  • supnigs super skids on 31/05/2015 - 20:32
    +9

    They could of even modified/done more damage within that week too.

  • TIKS on 31/05/2015 - 20:34
    +2

    Thats what my mate said - who is to know they didnt get a fuel block out of carby and thrash bike till it blew up?

  • supnigs super skids on 31/05/2015 - 20:40
    +1

    Just stand your ground. Logical people will be with you if it does go to trial and not thrown out. you are not a business, no warranties implied.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2015 - 20:47
    +10

    I reckon you should be a real man and smear his faeces on your face, that'll show him to not mess around.

    • vavs on 31/05/2015 - 23:11
      +2

      Wait a minute! Smear whose faeces on whose face?

    • juventino on 03/06/2015 - 02:00
      +3

      I'm sure the buyer won't mess around especially if OP 'forcefully' obtains said faeces from the seller :)

  • chumlee on 31/05/2015 - 20:50
    +14

    He cannot rely on Australian Consumer Law as it doesn't cover private party sales. He inspected it, took it for test ride and even agreed to purchase the bike knowing it had issues. There is no recourse for this buyer. Next time he should buy from dealer if wants te protection of Australian Consumer Law.

  • MITM on 31/05/2015 - 20:52
    +1

    Pay a solicitor $100 or so to read through his Civil Proceedings/SMS and give yourself some peace of mind.

    I can see his perspective though - but he should have walked away, after all, he went to buy a working bike which stopped working during his due diligence.
    His decision was he could get it working again at his cost - he should have taken option 2 if he was that keen.

  • what on 31/05/2015 - 20:54
    +2

    I think you should get some legal advise. Even if it is just for your peace of mind.

    Legal Aid might help with some free phone advice

    https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/get-legal-services-and-advic…

  • chumlee on 31/05/2015 - 21:03
    +6

    Also, VCAT does not award legal costs, only in rare circumstances it does, so the purchaser is just trying to intimidate you. The whole purpose of VCAT is to keep legal costs down and each party represents themselves

  • SpendLess on 31/05/2015 - 21:09
    +9

    did you force him to drive all the way from your place to his? $300 for his time and petrol? lol
    what are joke.

    • montorola on 03/06/2015 - 14:16

      $300 for his time and petrol?

      Sounds like this guy actually might be a lawyer himself lol

      • ChickenTalon on 03/06/2015 - 16:02
        +8

        I doubt it. He hasn't charged $3 a page for photocopying.

  • chillin222 on 31/05/2015 - 21:34
    +1

    This guy is barking down the wrong tree. He has absolutely no protection under the "Victorian [sic] Consumer Law" as you are a private individual - not a business!

    HOWEVER, he may have some kind of claim in contract law if he can convince VCAT that persuaded him that the bike's only problem was a lack of fuel; i.e. that you made representations that the bike was working etc… You would need to argue that you told him that the problem was unknown and that it was sold "as is".

    Given his SMS though (he has definitely not involved a lawyer haha "inter alia") I would just ignore it. If you need to go to VCAT so be it - also note that VCAT doesn't generally award damages for abstract costs e.g. 'travel time' etc. What they may do though is declare the contract void and you will need to refund the cash in return for the bike back.

    • TIKS on 31/05/2015 - 21:39
      +3

      Yeah I agree with you "however" part - but I stated on receipt that it would not start "after" running out of fuel, not "because" it ran out of fuel. I also went to petrol station whilst he and his family waited so surely that stipulates I never tried to persuade him that it was due to running out of fuel - due to the fact I was the one in fact that tried to remove this option as being the fault?

      • jzdhgkd on 01/06/2015 - 11:39
        +6

        From what I understood, it stopped and everyone thought it ran out of fuel. Then you poured some in but it wouldn't start and I'm assuming that the whole family saw this occur?

        If so, you definitely did nothing wrong.

  • bobwokeup on 31/05/2015 - 21:58
    +3

    Yeah don't play into his guys mind games. You gave him every opportunity to back out of buying the bike. Plus you are not a mechanic so even if you said it's definitely because the bike ran out of fuel (which the receipt didn't say that it just stated the facts which is perfect). In WA it is the buyers responsibility to get a mechanic to check the bike/car. If they did that and had a report then he would have a leg to stand on but with the facts you have given us it's his problem.

    Ps can't believe he had the cheek to ask for compensation and charge you more than what he paid for the bike in the first place. That fact alone would make me not cooperate with him. You have done everything by the book, as far as I'm aware, so ignore him unless it's from a lawyer or the courts.

  • Axelstrife on 31/05/2015 - 22:06
    +3

    Tell him to get Fked.

  • smpantsonfire on 31/05/2015 - 22:11
    +1

    If the bike ran, it clearly 'wasn't' seized. It may be now, but it definitely worked.

    • Jay43 on 01/06/2015 - 07:06
      +4

      That's is what I thought. The buyer may have seized the engine after they bought it. If the kickstarter was still turning over then the engine was not seized.

  • leighjames on 31/05/2015 - 22:26

    Had a similar issue when I sold my bike to a friend. The bike blew up about three months after I sold it, i didn't sell him a dodgy bike, but it was his poor riding skills that caused it to blow. He hit the gear when he came off a jump and he broke the gear causing it to go through the engine. 2 strokes are known for blowing up, I would only buy a four stoke these days.

    • sv123 on 04/06/2015 - 07:47
      +1

      I ride a 2003 YZ250 2 stroke and my friends on late model 4 strokes have had troubles that cost a lot. I haven't had any so far. I don't think what you're saying is entirely true. Also I don't want to go down the whole 2 stroke vs 4 stroke argument.

  • MrDad9000 on 31/05/2015 - 22:46
    +11

    Bike was working fine. They test rode it. Ran out of fuel conked out. You put more fuel in, still didn't start. Bad sign, but purchaser decided "I'll buy it anyway".
    Once it's left your property you have no responsibility or knowledge of how it was treated.

    Don't fall for it. It wasn't seized when they arrived there. You are in the right - he took the risk/reward option by taking the the discounted price.
    Suggest you either don't communicate any further, or drop a brief email or SMS advising you have traded in good faith he took the bike in as is condition when he paid for it, along with discount for it not starting. Once the bike left your premises it became his sole responsibility.

    Good luck - don't let his fear mongering deter you; if anything it'll be a good life lesson to go through the process and see how the legal process works. Worst case I expect will be VCAT making you accept his terms anyway.

  • Almost Banned on 31/05/2015 - 22:49

    Please be very careful before you rely on legal advice from the internet.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join