Since when have we started listening to you then?I said ‘don’t ask’!
Something that bankers understand!!
Since when have we started listening to you then?I said ‘don’t ask’!
Something that bankers understand!!
Pardon?Since when have we started listening to you then?
So what happened???Sorry to disappoint, we left that behind when we sold the Smallholding.
We contacted the contractor & he said it’s a misunderstanding & he’ll sort it, not heard a thing since.So what happened???
Bullsh1t!!!!Same as if you buy a car with finance outstanding.
Unless the law has changed since I studied it I cry ‘bullshit with knobs on’.Bullsh1t!!!!
A car or bike bought on finance 'in good faith" is legally yours despite what the finance company or plod will tell you
Re plod in this situation a vehicle not stolen has feck all to do with them as its a civil matter so tell them to jog on
I used to be able to quote the exact law on this after being caught out a couple of times but its been a while so i suggest instead of relying on what Doris in Facebook says.... look it up
Does that include the clap..?You cannot get a better title to something than the person you obtained it from had.
First one that popped up on googleUnless the law has changed since I studied it I cry ‘bullshit with knobs on’.
Greenwood v Bennett being the most well known case that establishes the principle.
You cannot get a better title to something than the person you obtained it from had.
However, the court can over rule, the same as everything else.
I too Have been caught out; I remember the sinking feeling when I opened a letter from a finance company reclaiming a car I had bought. A gorgeous Mk V 2.3 Ghia Cortina. I had a detailed receipt from the ‘seller’ confirming, amongst other things, that there was no finance outstanding. Fortunately the finance company didn’t take it further (I suspect they recovered money from the ‘seller’)but based on the advice I got at the time I didn’t have a leg to stand on.
“Subject to this Act, where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.”
And section 27 of the hire purchase act that clearly states the law on thisHmmmmmm
A law student essay with a warning from 2021 vs current advice from the citizens advice, a bank and a reputable car magazine
If you read the ‘advice’ it is littered with ‘coulds’ Plus one vital aspect that nobody is picking up on.Hmmmmmm
A law student essay with a warning from 2021 vs current advice from the citizens advice, a bank and a reputable car magazine
You are correct in many but not all areas.The "advice" makes clear that if the finance company still persists you go to the industry ombudsman, if they recover the vehicle you go to court and recover the vehicle/all your monies/costs.
That "advice" is exactly that given by Natwest Bank - now exactly what is Natwest, oh yes, a bank that provides finance for buying vehicles!
The basic point is that you do have good title because you bought in good faith.
Your title is not transferred by the seller, it's established by your good faith in buying the goods.
In order to recover the goods the finance company must prove you did not act in good faith. For example you only paid half the market value and should have known something was wrong.
Not much difference from Derek's question about the seller of his garden slabs contacting him as the builder hadn't paid him and he wanted the slabs back or Derek to pay. DK bought in "good faith", has no contract with the supplier (or finance company!) so he has firm good title to the goods.
Like any other company, a finance company will push to and beyond the legal limits where they can.
In a previous role I had extensive dealings/advice with our legal department in contracting for goods/services/software etc.
At times I wanted to include restrictions/requirements into contracts and they would advise that while I could include whatever I wanted, it would be unlikely or at best 50/50 if it ended up in a court that I could sustain the position.
My experience was that those restrictions succeeded as it never ended up in court.
In the same way I was able to obtain advantage of poorly worded contracts by other organisations. By challenging, for example, licensing restrictions on software. Limits built into the software were removed when I pointed out I felt they weren't sufficiently identified in the contract.
Each time the legal advice was "you certainly can take that position, but it is unlikely to succeed should it end up in court".