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

        • KingArchibald on 04/06/2015 - 11:05

          @ChickenTalon:

          Regardless of that they have been doing this for the last 10 years that I know of and the ACCC has never stopped them.

        • ChickenTalon on 04/06/2015 - 11:07
          +1

          @MickyH85: these are new-ish laws

          http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/cons…

          Section 3 is relevant.

          Honda is not the law, regardless of what they say. If they misrepresent your rights as a consumer then they are in breach of the law.

        • KingArchibald on 04/06/2015 - 11:10

          @ChickenTalon:

          Im not arguing that the consumer law says different. I am just stating to help the OP have a case against warranty of these bikes when even brand new their own manufacturer does not warrant them.

        • ChickenTalon on 04/06/2015 - 11:13

          @MickyH85:

          What warranty does a private seller ever have to give? You're confusing a business selling a used car. If a business sells a car it does need to provide a warranty, this varies by state.

          You're also saying, incorrectly, that there is no warranty from Honda. This might be whatever Honda says, but the law that Honda is subject to says otherwise.

        • KingArchibald on 04/06/2015 - 11:17

          @ChickenTalon:

          Prove that Honda would warrant a new motocross bike then. I don't seem to find anyone winning a case, unless you have found evidence otherwise?

          I am simply stating the facts here for if the OP wanted to mention that even Honda "claim" there is no warranty on the bikes why would a private sale have to cover the costs when it was bought "as is".

        • ChickenTalon on 04/06/2015 - 11:21
          +1

          @MickyH85: in 2006 they might not have given a warranty, there was different laws in place then.

          But in 2015, if you purchase a brand new Honda dirt bike, get it home and it doesn't start, then you are 100% covered by a statutory warranty. Honda is required by law to provide a remedy.

          I don't know if i can be clearer than this. You cannot agree to wave your right to the statutory warranty. I'm not talking about examples you can find on the internet, or what Honda says, these are irrelevant.

          Any attempt by Honda to say otherwise is now illegal.

        • KingArchibald on 04/06/2015 - 11:31

          @ChickenTalon:

          Forward all your info to the ACCC and make Honda change their ways then. Or if you are so sure of this, ask Honda to provide the form you sign and check what it has to say and have a solicitor look over it.
          What is the statutory warranty? 12 months? or what the Manufacturer deems? which is no warranty, 3 months on some bikes, 6 and up to 12 or 24 on others. Until you get that form and have it checked by a Solicitor nohting is going to change.

        • ChickenTalon on 04/06/2015 - 11:46

          @MickyH85:

          Forward all your info to the ACCC

          Foward the ACCC Australian Consumer Law? That's all the info I have. I have no info on Honda, nor do I need any to tell you that you have statutory rights when purchasing a new dirt bike from them.

          What is the statutory warranty?

          here you go: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Warranties%20and%20refu…

        • KingArchibald on 04/06/2015 - 11:50

          @ChickenTalon:

          From your link….

          How long do consumers’ statutory
          rights apply?
          Statutory rights are not limited to a set time
          period. Instead, they apply for the amount of time
          that is reasonable to expect, given the cost and
          quality of the item.

          So a service interval of 10 hours and they give you a brand new piston, one could argue that your warranty period is around 10 to 20 hours?

          Your link doesn't back up anything only points out that in fact Honda can sell a product with limited warranty.

        • ChickenTalon on 04/06/2015 - 11:55

          @MickyH85:

          in fact Honda can sell a product with limited warranty.

          Correct, but cannot sell with no warranty.

          The law is intentionally not being specific here. If it's reasonable to expect that a dirt bike would last 10 hours then yes, that would be the period where you are covered under statutory rights. (I honestly have no idea about dirt bikes, but I do know that real men don't need engines :)

        • KingArchibald on 04/06/2015 - 12:01

          @ChickenTalon:

          (I honestly have no idea about dirt bikes, but I do know that real men don't need engines)

          Wow..

        • Speckled Jim on 05/06/2015 - 10:25

          @MickyH85:
          Fact is, before you buy a 2-stroke motocross bike you should know what you're getting into.

          If your intention is to actually race it, I can guarantee to 90% certainty that the bike will be modified by the owner in several areas. Back in my day it was carb jetting (sometimes the dealer would sort this) and a power pipe at the very least.

          Inlet reeds, airbox and a port job were also very common. Suspension would be adjustable enough for most, but serious guys would spend big coin on Euro setups (WP/Ohlins).

          You'd barely even reach 6 hours to "run it in", and you'd re-engineered a good portion of the bike.

          So aside from basic manufacturing faults affecting the frame, swingarm, maybe forks and brakes, I fail to see why the manufacturer should warrant something that's intended to be a template which the owner customises to their riding style, class regs, terrain and climatic conditions.

          Unless people are suddenly racing bone-stock bikes now?
          [Shudder]

        • McFly on 05/06/2015 - 12:30

          How many times and how much more simply does it need to be said?

        • KingArchibald on 06/06/2015 - 16:56

          @mcmonte:

          Johny Walker's KTM 300 EXC isn't that far off stock actually apart from rekluse clutch. That's enduro, for motocross I know NSW's best female rider runs her bike stock, stock pipe and all.
          But I agree with you, however there are limited warranties on other parts of the bike not just the engine.

  • smpantsonfire on 02/06/2015 - 22:39
    +1

    Wouldn't even bother with your lawyer. Just a waste of everyone's time, and your losing out if you get a lawyer. You'll be paying for him, but you probably won't get the bike back.

  • adn on 03/06/2015 - 00:41
    +1

    i had to go to the NSW tribunal to dispute some car repairs.

    get ready to waste a full day. spend all day waiting for your turn to talk which is 5 mins.

    the judge/person in charge pretty much warns you to settle outside cause once it goes to hearing, there needs to be solid evidence. Can't just go off he says she says. Cause each party can deny.

    we went into a room to "negotiate for 15 mins" eventually the other business backed down cause it was wasting their time.

    The judge pretty much want you to compromise and meet in the middle.

  • juventino on 03/06/2015 - 02:16
    +6

    can you please reply his SMS with 10 lines of sentences ?

    throw in some foreign languages in each line

    intermezzo, menu du jour, putang ina mo, chao ni ma, ra's al gul, allahu akbar

    etc etc

    • DrStinge on 03/06/2015 - 09:08
      +1

      Throw in a bit of Simlish while you're at it

      Firby nurbs! Nicloske Ga Gloope!

    • KaTst3R on 03/06/2015 - 11:30
      +1

      ra's al gul….LOL !!!! Your Arrow addiction is showing…!

    • twinbag on 04/06/2015 - 13:38

      Only one line necessary

      "If the day comes when you would find me again, give that bike to any man from Victoria, and say these words to him—valar morghulis"

      • KaTst3R on 05/06/2015 - 11:49

        And he will reply….Valar dohaeris

  • bemybubble on 03/06/2015 - 12:31

    Had a similar issue but with a boat. Buyer beware. He doesn't have a hope in hell of getting anything out of you

    • ukmark on 03/06/2015 - 16:53
      +5

      Boats are notorious for costing a lot to repair. That is why boat stands for Bust Out Another Thousand!

  • theraque on 03/06/2015 - 23:23

    Ages quod agis. In vino veritas. Evidently Mr. Ringo's an educated man. Now I really hate him.
    https://youtu.be/6gSj1G4Vf0w

  • montorola on 04/06/2015 - 08:25
    -2

    OP should've bought a ninja 300, wouldn't have had any issues in the first place =p

  • KingArchibald on 04/06/2015 - 10:59
    -1

    http://hondampe.com.au/repository/owning_a_honda/product-war…

    No warranty on brand new competition motocross bikes.

    • Ughhh on 04/06/2015 - 13:14
      +2

      Irrelevant comment

    • ankor on 04/06/2015 - 19:06

      As explored in the previous page's comments, this seems to be quite a gray area because of the operation of the ACL. You will note that some of their motorcycles have 24m warranty, others have 12m, others 3m parts, and others NO WARRANTY.

      It would actually require someone taking Honda to the ACCC to challenge their warranty periods especially the ones that are within the nil to 12month periods since it is not certain whether those stated warranty periods by Honda are actually legal and recognised by our statutory authorities.

      At first appearance, bringing up the argument that Honda do not recognise warranties on new competition motocross bikes would be a weak argument and not persuasive to a VCAT tribunal due to the application of the ACL. The sitting tribunal's first response would be ChickenTalon's response to you on the previous page.

  • snook on 04/06/2015 - 15:32
    +2

    I sold a bike to someone and it broke down on his way home. NSW to Queensland.

    As I sold the bike in a certain 'going' state (there was nothing wrong with it) I asked him to take it to an authorised repairer and then the bill was sent to me and I paid it directly to the repairer.

    It was unfortunate for me that something really rare had gone wrong with it (something I can't remember now) and it cost me $1500 … however, I was very fortunate that the guy I sold it to was not the slightest bit of an arsehat like this guy is.

  • godofpizza on 04/06/2015 - 16:12

    this guy took a gamble, hoping that the only problem with the bike was out of fuel.
    he lost out and now want to pay him for his 'lost'.

    i don't think so.

    I once purchased a car that was advertised as having abs braking. when we went to collect the car, the friend we brought along mentioned that the car did not have abs brakes and showned me what
    an abs system looked like. Had we made the mistake after the sale, it would have been my fault for not confirming the details during the purchase. The same reason why the buyer should have check if you bike was a 2004 or 2006 model.
    The seller should have checked these details before coming to look at your bike.

  • ankor on 04/06/2015 - 18:53
    +2

    Well it's now Thursday night, what did the lawyer say in that free 30minutes?

    • jlogic on 04/06/2015 - 20:40
      +7

      Something with "inter alia" in it.

  • TIKS on 04/06/2015 - 21:48
    +7

    Ha Ha well he laughed at all the "inter alia's" and thought there was quite a lot of issue with his case. He said that I should counter offer to attempt to let the other party believe they have won. Plus if it goes to VCAT it will favour me to have made contact and offered a remedy.
    I offered him either 300 to compensate for the model mix up which is the market value difference - or return the bike to me, pay me the extra 500 and with a 6 to 8 week turnaround I will have it repaired (been quoted 250 for repair) and then he must provide his own fuel, mechanical engineer to inspect and sign off. If after I repair it I cannot get it started and its due to the carburettor he pulled apart then I told him he must pay for all repairs and tuning for that also.

    Lawyer said no joy for him claiming both legal and travel also. Pretty much said with a little buffing up, my case file of details and photo's I took in would almost be bulletproof, and at least put enough doubt in anyone's mind that the case would just get dismissed, leaving the other party with their VCAT fee's.

    I know some of you will wonder why I even offered 300, but I just want this crap over and move on. Its become a bit time consuming for me and I just wanna get on with shit.

    Will update when I hear more.

    • strangeloops66 on 04/06/2015 - 21:55
      +3

      I just wanna get on with shit

      More fibre in your diet will help ;)

    • Logical on 04/06/2015 - 22:02
      -2

      looks to me that this lawyer was drumming up business for himself…. why the hell would anyone make a 'counter offer'… was the lawyer serious? or perhaps straight out of school? by you even contemplating putting in a counter offer shows some liability on your part. clearly here you have not breached any condition of the contract. This lawyer wants you to dig a big hole and then go to him at $300+ per hour to get you out of it.

      • ankor on 05/06/2015 - 12:56

        Not true at all.

        • Logical on 05/06/2015 - 14:38
          +1

          hey ankor, please shed some light as to why you think it is not true?

        • ankor on 05/06/2015 - 17:34
          +1

          @Logical:

          There's a lot of stuff on the net, and more importantly, in law libraries and law journals about 'without prejudice offers'.
          I won't repeat it here because it will bore you to tears.

          Here's a few to start.

          http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/WithoutPrejudice.as…
          http://www.tresscox.com.au/resources/resource.asp?id=1267#.V…
          http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/newsletters/litigatio…
          https://www.maddocks.com.au/reading-room/without-prejudice-n…
          http://www.wisewouldmahony.com.au/index.php?id=308

          In relation to lawyers trying to drum up business, yes of course they are!
          Those 30min free consultations by the solicitor are to try and get people through the door, with the hope that they can offer their knowledge, experience and legal professional skill to help a person solve their legal dispute.
          Yes, it costs $300-600 p/h since a lawyer will charge what the market can bear, but that also means that the dispute must be worth that.

          In the OP's case, it's up to him to weigh the cost of getting the solicitor to write such a letter vs doing it himself with a web template, since the risk on his matter is anywhere between NIL to $2500.

        • Logical on 05/06/2015 - 20:38

          @ankor: so what? please explain why OP should make a without prejudice offer? someone else damaged the goods while they had possession and you want OP to pay even more? how about you research breach of condition vs breach of warranty, and what constitutes a valid contract. Also research how a contract is formed.

        • ankor on 07/06/2015 - 10:49

          @Logical:

          I admit I should have been far clearer with my words. A without prejudice offer can be made without admitting liability. The insured's risk is NIL to $2500.00. If I were in the position of the OP, I would not make such an offer.

        • Logical on 07/06/2015 - 17:20

          @ankor: lets say op did nothing and the buyer put in a claim. The Defence for the op would be clear 1. bike listed for $3K 2.Buyer test rode bike and it seized 3. Buyer was given 3 options with the sale (i), (ii), (iii) 4. Buyer accepted option 3 and took $500 discount on purchase with bike in a known 'seized/ broken' state. 5. Seller not a mechanic and could not have known full extent of damage to bike after it ran out of fuel. 6. Buyer knew Seller was not a mechanic and took the risk in purchase. 7. Buyer took bike home. 8. Bike suffered damage in the hands of Buyer 9. Seller has no liability for bike after damaged by Buyer. As such i would not give a without prejudice offer unless it said "I offer you to accept as is, otherwise i put you on notice that i will defend any claim and will furthermore claim all legal and out of pocket costs against you".

        • ankor on 08/06/2015 - 10:08
          +1

          @Logical:

          Let me reconfirm again, that I agree with everything else that you have said in relation to the OP's course of action. I do however, take exception the following comments:

          "looks to me that this lawyer was drumming up business for himself…."
          what's wrong with that? 30minute free consultations are one of many tools that a lawfirm has in order to try and drum up business.

          "why the hell would anyone make a 'counter offer'… was the lawyer serious? or perhaps straight out of school? by you even contemplating putting in a counter offer shows some liability on your part."

          Hence my reply about without prejudice offers. As stated previously, they can be made while still denying liability. I reiterate that I while the OP can choose to make a without prejudice offer, it would not be the course of action that I would choose if I were in the OP's position, and I refer to your post above for reasons why.

          "This lawyer wants you to dig a big hole and then go to him at $300+ per hour to get you out of it."

          As we've all heard, the lawyer said no further appointment necessary and good luck.

      • TIKS on 05/06/2015 - 21:31
        +2

        Good call, although the lawyer said good luck and see you later. No further appt required.

    • t_c on 05/06/2015 - 06:52
      -1

      Seems very fair and reasonable.

    • IamEzza on 05/06/2015 - 14:29
      +3

      If you offer the $300 you should specify that you are not admitting guilt on your part and are doing it purely in an act of good faith to help resolve this matter.
      I would probably only offer ~$150 because at least half of that should be on the buyer for not checking the year before he bought the bike and not after.

      • bobwokeup on 10/06/2015 - 19:19

        I 100% agree although it sounds like OP has already sent the offer to the f&*k head…

  • Wyzard on 05/06/2015 - 03:02
    +3

    Sounds like Saul Goodman drafted that sms/demand letter.

    My bet is this arrogant douche is a cop or ex cop. As someone who has worked in law enforcement, 'witness statements' and 'contemporaneous notes' are cop speak. Many of these guys start to think they're experts in law because they've been inside a court a few times.

  • TIKS on 05/06/2015 - 21:30
    +1

    People can call it what they will, I've offered a resolution and now the waiting game begins…..

  • dbun1 on 05/06/2015 - 21:31
    +1

    The guy is an A-grade douchebag.
    The term "inter alia" is completely out of context in the "letter" sent and makes no sense at all.

    He's just trying to bedazzle you with legal mumbo jumbo to come across as having a leg to stand on.

    If I were in your position I would've gone straight back and said, "it's inconvenient to me to wait until 5/6/2015 to commence legal proceedings. Can you bring it forward, please?"

    • TIKS on 05/06/2015 - 21:36

      And if he had of called my bluff then I look like the arrogant dick rather then him.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2015 - 21:45
    -7

    Hi TIKAS
    I feel for you but as this thread has had alot of folks posting on your behalf in order to help you, I just would like to see some evidence of a) the bike in question and b) something that proves that you have had the work done maybe a copy of the receipt for the service or a link to the gumtree ad you placed?

  • watts on 07/06/2015 - 00:02

    Thanks TIKS for the original post and all others for their comments. I've just had a very interesting and educating read.

    Clearly the buyer is a tosser, who doesn't have a leg to stand on and doesn't deserve the good will offered by TIKS. I can however understand why TIKS has made the offers so I just hope it gets resolved soon.

    The moral is certainly buyer beware, especially when theres a dirt bike involved!

    I had a mildly similar experience when I sold my KX125. The buyer called the next day saying the bike stopped and stranded their kid in the middle of the bush. All I said was "sorry to hear that but I have no idea what the problem could be. It was running fine when you picked it up". Fortunately that's where the similarity ends. The buyer replied with "cheers, no problem" and I never heard from them again. some people are just sensible I guess

    • compound on 07/06/2015 - 10:28

      You just need your retard radar on in this day an age.

  • Lichen6420 on 07/06/2015 - 16:08
    +1

    I would follow the solicitors advice, it seems entirely reasonable and the best way to approach the matter. It shows you have been reasonable and tried to offer a resolution.

    • TIKS on 10/06/2015 - 21:22
      +8

      That is one of the most ridiculous posts I have read.

      • dcnguyen82 on 11/06/2015 - 08:50
        -5

        Obviously if you think it is ridiculous to sell people crappy bikes then accept the consequences. You might think that you didn't sell him a crappy bike but i am sure the buyer perceives you as a fraud and dodgy. All i am saying is try put yourself in HIS situation realistically. Be glad that he is not me because i would have no problems causing property damage to someone who ripped me off.

        • what on 11/06/2015 - 19:51
          +1

          Your comments were fair until you suggested that you would damage a sellers property.

          There is no need for that.

    • ozhunter on 10/06/2015 - 22:12
      +8

      I am going to try to be a devil's advocate.

      You did a horrible job of it.

      People will NEG this because they think that everything is fine and life goes on

      People will neg it because you're an idiot.

      • dcnguyen82 on 11/06/2015 - 08:51

        LOL yeah OK keep living in your bubble that not any normal person can go to extreme cases to get back at someone who has caused them grief.

        • ozhunter on 11/06/2015 - 11:16

          I never said they couldn't get back at you. I hope I never sell to any crazies like you. The buyer took the bike as is, which is why he got a $500 discount.

    • strangeloops66 on 11/06/2015 - 02:01

      Devil's advocate? Dude, you're the devil.

      • dcnguyen82 on 11/06/2015 - 08:54

        I agree with you, i am the devil. Just as everyone in us is. You keep pushing someone around and they will fight back. Its human instinct. Same as you harm another person's family they get back at you. Same as you purposely ripped someone off they will get back at you somehow. And what i mean by purposely is now WHAT the OP perceives but what the buyer perceives.

        The buyer here perceives that the seller was dishonest and a fraud.

        • 01011010 on 11/06/2015 - 13:00

          or the buyer perceives that he has stuffed up and wants to find a way to get out of it, rather than taking responsibility for his stupidity.

    • 01011010 on 11/06/2015 - 12:59

      what your saying is because the buyer didn't do his due diligence and inspect the purchase properly, or he did knowingly buy a bike that had a problem, that it should be the responsibility of the seller to fix it?

      And now that the buyer has realised that he stuffed him, its fair and just for him to get retribution by scratching cars and doing things to tyres (by the way, probably not a good choice in terminology)

      I hope I never have to sell or buy anything from you. Or in fact, any normal and sane person has to buy or sell anything from you.

      • dcnguyen82 on 11/06/2015 - 15:58

        You are correct that the buyer didn't follow due diligence, i am saying that from his perspective he might have bought it on good faith that the seller advertised as a 2006 reconditioned model and when they test ride it, the engine wouldn't start and was because of "fuel" not because it was a faulty bike, seller even wrote that because it run out of fuel thats why engine didnt start. Obviously the buyer took the bike rode around with his kid and boom, engine blew… i do not see how it was his fault for being stupid enough to buy a bike without checking the VIN.

        What ever you have to say about me i am a very honest person and do tell them exactly if it is wrong and if it did blow up i would ask the buyer to bring it so i can get it inspected and if it is because of a dodgy job i would go back to my mechanic and deal with him.

        You are all pretty much saying to a possible straight out honest guy (buyer)that "too bad you bought the bike and its faulty so sucks to you, haha" I put myself in his shoes and already can feel how ripped off i have been. I would sensibly dealt with it better than trying to get the seller to cover travel cost but if the seller didn't want to be sensible and thinks its my bad luck to buy his faulty bike then i have no problem screwing him over in other areas.

        Yes i take it to the extremes but i am sure a lot of people out there would take matters further than me… There have been cases where people die over a $20 loan.

        • McFly on 11/06/2015 - 21:55
          +1

          seller even wrote that because it run out of fuel thats why engine didnt start

          No. The seller wrote "WE presumed blocked jet due to running out of fuel" AND that - without any compulsion - he then took $500 dollars off and the buyer accepted the deal.

          i do not see how it was his fault for being stupid enough to buy a bike without checking the VIN.

          No? Who's fault is that then? Maybe it's yours?

          "too bad you bought the bike and its faulty so sucks to you, haha"

          Well, that's pretty much (a harsh) summary of the law.

          i am a very honest person
          I know i would do it this illegal thing without a second though if i felt that you have ripped me off

          Which is it? Can't be both!

  • TIKS on 11/06/2015 - 14:16
    +1

    Update: I have heard nothing since last Saturday when he said he was going to call me, but I asked him to "on advice from my lawyer - please limit communication to SMS or Email only, as it is much cleaner and simpler form of communication."

    Still heard nothing since then.

    Not sure at what stage I can bury this and move on.

    • lgacb08 on 11/06/2015 - 18:25

      seems like the guy thought he could bluff all the way to get the money back by using those nonsense latin terms and once he read that lawyer's advice line, he decided to cut his loss and move on, lol

    • bobwokeup on 11/06/2015 - 23:07

      I'm assuming you put a date he needed to get back to you by, just like he did for you, so go by that date and put it behind you then.

      You have done more than majority of people would do so feel good about the fact that you went above and beyond to come to an agreement.

      It's not your fault the guy makes stupid decisions (based on all the information you have given) so don't stress over it.

      • TIKS on 12/06/2015 - 09:21
        +1

        Theres my stuff up… I didn't put a date. Stupid me. Was thinking before of messaging stating it has been over a week and nil response therfore I presume this is not important anymore and I withdraw all offers and consider this issue resolved. Further contact may be made by way of VCAT official proceedings.

        • salem on 12/06/2015 - 09:31

          Solid plan.

  • Scorpiogirl on 11/06/2015 - 15:59

    That's the point. You didn't need to reply. I would have let him do whatever he wanted. If you did nothing wrong, there should be no issue. To me you admit guilt of wrong doing by offering money. My view not yours. Don't bite my head off.

    Are you any better off since it first started? You still are left wondering. If he wants to take action, you cant stop him. He may be full of it yes but also he may not want to deal with you any longer either. Again if you did nothing wrong his threats shouldn't bother you. Some people love to play games. Not much you can do.

  • TIKS on 11/06/2015 - 16:01

    yeah fair call. Only reason I offered anything was due to feeling bad for genuinely making the 04 - 06 mistake and if the whole ordeal was reversed I would be annoyed at that.

    • rompastompa on 11/06/2015 - 16:08

      Do you know for a fact it was 2004? or are you just assuming because the model was manufactured between 04-06 and they're claiming it?

      • TIKS on 11/06/2015 - 16:31

        assuming due to the vin number he quoted.

        • salem on 11/06/2015 - 17:36

          Wait. You don't know the vin from your own records, you're going off what the buyer is claiming? This sounds more and more like he's trying to scam you.

        • TIKS on 11/06/2015 - 18:11

          @salem: nah I never checked the vin against year model myself - yeah I am just going off what he has said, but I also figure there is no point him lying about that if he is willing to go to VCAT about it, as he will have to show proof which he obviously has.

        • salem on 11/06/2015 - 18:20
          +3

          @TIKS: except the vcat thing was likely pure bluff, and/or he's swapped out the engine with one he already had that was seized. My money's on him making a big show about him doing you a huge favour by not pursuing it further, and being such a great guy despite how you've "screwed" him, and he takes the $300.

  • Scorpiogirl on 11/06/2015 - 16:09

    The reason why i said don't bite my head off is because on here sometimes if your opinion is different, look out lol Where as i welcome different opinions. I am not knocking you. I just thought you may find yourself in this position. If you can't change it or control it, not much point stressing. Ever sold anything on Gumtree? You come across some, shall we say, very interesting people.

  • Scorpiogirl on 11/06/2015 - 16:10

    Also he wanted you to react. I see that.

  • TIKS on 12/06/2015 - 09:57
    +2

    Finally got a reply!!!

    XXXXX, let me begin with saying that my only motivation is to see XXXX happy. He has been robbed of what should have been an exiting time in his life.
    When he arrived at his decision to sell a near new motor bike and buy a second hand two stroke bike I was against the idea. We had several conversations over a long period of time and I finally agreed to support him providing he took the primary role through the entire process. I thought that it would be a valuable lesson for a 15 year old to learn.
    Since the purchase of your bike XXXX has been on a roller coaster of emotion and he is now left with a bike he did not want ( being a 2004) and one that doesn't even run.
    He missed out on a long weekend away riding with his mates refusing to go as he had nothing to ride and as they have been ridiculing him over the now dubbed "shit box" that he bought.
    This was a major and important process for him and he is now left hating everything about the bike he was so keen and proud to own.
    His best mate said to him "what sought of dick head would by a 2004 motorbike with a blown motor"
    XXXX feels caught between following my advice due to the extra time it will take and fixing the bike which will take much less time.
    XXXX is the totally innocent victim in this situation. I and my Barrister (brother in law) are so confident that we have guaranteed him that a sitting member at VCAT and or a Magistrate will find in his favour.
    XXXXX, as you are aware I am retired and have lot's of available time.
    As I have stated XXXX is my only motivation, time and money is of no concern to me.
    As you so bluntly informed me that you have lots of money to fight your legal battle, I will advise you that I have more money than I will ever need so if things head down that path, I will purchase Matt a new bike and as the old saying goes, I will simply say to you "put on your dancing shoes and let's dance".
    I find your so called genorous offer and goodwill as totally amusing. An honest, decent man would stand up, take responsibility for his mistakes and correct them especially when dealing with a fifteen year old.
    Your comments regarding the carburettor are interesting given the fact that you worked on it in your shed before we did, so why would I accept full responsibility if something is wrong with it. I am sure that your CCTV footage in your shed that you were so keen to point out to me will show this.
    Despite my readiness to progress this matter, I will accept a transfer of $500 paid directly into my bank account as full and final restitution. Once the transfer is complete I will take no further action in this matter.
    If you agree to this I will provide you with my bank details.

    • salem on 12/06/2015 - 10:00
      +4

      I was close! big song and dance, and accepting $500.

      tell him you'll see him at VCAT. if he has so much money lying around, why does he care about $500?

      • ozhunter on 12/06/2015 - 11:34
        +6

        if he has so much money lying around, why does he care about $500?

        True, also why would he drive 400km roundtrip to buy a used bike off gumtree.

    • bobwokeup on 12/06/2015 - 11:11
      +4

      No way tell him that was not what you offered and unless you accept my offer by 19/7 (for example) I am not entering into any further conversations with you. I personally don't think you should offer him any money at all, especially given how he has dealt with the situation (not like an honest, decent man at all which in contrary to what he said I think you are going above and beyond what most men would do). Don't fall for his trick of trying to make you feel bad by using his son/grandson.

      His reply amused me, thinking the courts will rule in his favour. Clearly he has never bought a 2nd hand vehicle before retiring. Either that or he has been lucky enough not to have any issues.

      Plus what the kids best mate said and ridiculing him, tells me what kind of people they are and that is low life scum. Also letting a 15 year old take the primary role in buying a motorbike - what excellent parenting skills.

    • McFly on 12/06/2015 - 11:29
      +1

      Certainly the most important thing is to ignore all the crap and pretend his message starts with "I will accept a transfer…"
      My advice would be to ignore the rest too.

    • montorola on 12/06/2015 - 12:30
      +2

      Lol, I love how the tone of the message changes at the end!

      OP - just send him a one-line text: "Put on your dancing shoes mate, and let's dance…"

      • bobwokeup on 12/06/2015 - 12:46

        ROFL except take out the "mate" he would take it the wrong way :)

    • Ughhh on 12/06/2015 - 12:57
      +4

      All that talk about his 15yo son is irrelevant. Trying to make op feel like a child bully.

    • Speckled Jim on 13/06/2015 - 10:45

      I find your so called genorous offer and goodwill as totally amusing.

      I find his well thought out response peppered with spellos and poor grammar totally amusing.

      So he expected a private seller to hold his hand and take full responsibility for HIS purchasing decisions? What is he, an effing retard?

      Private sale = buyer inspecting the goods and confirming it's what they want to buy. Acceptance of the bike in that state and payment for it makes the sale final.

      He's trying to treat you like you're a bike shop or something.
      Which makes him a scamming tosser.

  • TIKS on 12/06/2015 - 10:02

    I could go either pay the money and have it done, or state that my offer to him was full of facts, this new reply from him is full of heart string pulls and that's about it - If his son hates the bike so much why is it his background on facebook?? I feel like re-offering the 300 that he can accept by 5pm today or see you in VCAT.

    • newozbargainermelb on 12/06/2015 - 10:50
      -4

      @TIKS,

      If I were you, I would just ask him for his bank account details and transfer the money to his account and send him a text asking him to confirm that he received the money. That's it.

      It doesn't mean that you are scared of him or whatever. You were already prepared to pay him $300. It's just the extra $200 that he is asking. Your time is more precious than that $500. You need not spend another 30 minutes with another lawyer or you need not take time off from work to go to VCAT and prove it to the magistrate there. Instead, you can take some time off and spend that quality time with your family.

      Think of it as you couldn't sell it for $3k and it was sitting in your garage for a year or so and you just wanted to get rid of it and you sold it for $2k. I'm very confident that you can get that $500 back through the ozbargain deals. If not you can live peacefully once this matter is over.

      It's just my opinion.

    • ozhunter on 12/06/2015 - 11:09
      +6

      I wouldn't offer anything. Sure it could make the problem go away faster, but it would also seem that you are admitting that you are in the wrong.

      • bobwokeup on 12/06/2015 - 11:18
        +2

        Totally agree and for me in more about the principle of the matter. I wouldn't care about the time or money to go to VCAT (if it goes to that) but I would want to put this old fellow in his place. I know how you feel about wanting to put it to bed but you are 100% in the right and you should not back down. It sounds like this guy is used to bullying people and getting away with it - don't let him!!

        PS like ozhunter said you would be admitting you are wrong if you paid the $500.

        • newozbargainermelb on 12/06/2015 - 12:23

          I agree with you both on "admitting that you are in the wrong part" but my time is more valuable for me than anything else and hence I wouldn't waste my time on putting that man in his place. I'm sure some people will never change no matter how many times I try to put them in place.

          I'm not arguing here but as I said before it's just my opinion. That old man will have bad karma anyway.

          I don't know who negged me but I didn't expect that :)

        • bobwokeup on 12/06/2015 - 12:36
          +1

          @newozbargainermelb: Yeah that is a very good point. "A leopard never changes it's spots" so the saying goes. I personally wouldn't pay him unless the courts told me too but OP has said a few times he just wants to put it behind him. Given that I would offer $400 to meet in the middle and also not admit you are wrong, but it's a fair compromise. If you do decide to do that give him 7 days to decide (that's being overly generous).

          PS who cares who negged you, they obviously didnt have the guts to say they didnt agree so it was easier to neg you for having an opinion.

        • newozbargainermelb on 12/06/2015 - 13:59
          +1

          @billybob1978: Perfect :)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join