... but you get those back if you win

Not at all, the small claims track is specifically designed to discourage legal representation, and even if you turn up with a lawyer, he or she may find the judge gives them short shrift and just takes the case over.

But there isn't "a car" that exists which could "be awarded". By the date of any hearing the dealers will probably have turned over their stock many times. There's no chance that they would somehow "keep" the more expensive model and see what happens!

I actually think it is a case where specific performance could actually be the best remedy. The judgment would be I think that the defendants do provide the claimant with a 2.0L model within the spec at the contract price or alternatively pay him compo based on their own calculation of the loss: it is THEY who have conveniently taken a position that a 2.0L equivalent bought from them costs £X. If that is the case, and if the OP is happy to accept their assessment, then the value of his loss is simply the difference. That is based on the likelihood that being such a big dealership they would very likely have, or be able to easily get, another of the model he wanted.

If the OP did actually mitigate his loss as you say, then wouldn't he have achieved something which the dealer says is impossible, i.e. buying a 2.0L equivalent at a lower price than that quoted? It would make them look even more stupid.

By emphasising your friend is a solicitor, you seem to assume that a solicitor can't be a cock?

...and if you don't win you don't get it back. It's a risk.




Yes specific performance would be the [ibest[/i remedy for the Claimant. Very unlikely however.

The OP is hardly going to wait around 6 months in case the highly unlikely event occurs that 1) Judgment is entered for him and 2) Specific performance is ordered. He will just go out and buy another car and his claim will be for damages.



He has a duty to mitigate his loss as you well know. Whether it makes people look stupid is irrelevant.

Not at all. It's a matter of what you say and your rationale rather than having a big mouth that counts. Maybe you should try it sometime?

In my experience, people are quite happy to bad mouth solicitors, until they are sat in a police station going 5p 50p because someone has accused them of a criminal offence.

At which point the first thing they do is ask the police to get them a solicitor.

I'd be more impressed if the salesman simply dropped the nut on the ranting 2@

More a statement of the bleedin' obvious?



A court would be unlikely to give the best remedy to a successful claimant? Why on earth not? "Well, OP, you win, and the best remedy we could give you is specific performance. But we're not gonna give you that, but something less good..... because...????


Why? If he goes out and buys another car, that won't alter the fact that if the court grants specific performance, then he will get a 2.0L motor at a tidy price. There is no law to say he can't have 2 cars at one time, is there?


I do not "well know" that he has a duty to mitigate his loss. He has no such thing. It is entirely up to him what he does or doesn't do. What I think you are getting at is that if the court thinks a claimant could reasonably have reduced the amount of his loss by doing something he didn't do, then the award of damages will be correspondingly limited, that's all. The point you overlook is that we already know it is THE DEFENDANT'S claim that the 2.0L model is £1300 more. That figure cannot be disputed unless they at the same time make an admission that this is not true.

And making people look stupid in court, far from being irrelevant, is one of the best ways to win. In this case, try to think it through.
* if OP does not buy a replacement, the only way that fact becomes relevant is if the car dealer says he has failed to mitigate his loss, so less than 1300 damages should be awarded;
* but it is then up to them to put forward a case as to how OP could reasonably have mitigated his loss;
* to succeed in that, they would have to disprove their own case, that the reason the 2.0L car could only be sold at that higher price was, well, you can't buy one cheaper than that;
* but now they must not only prove that you can, but also that it is easy enough to do so, such that it was unreasonable not to do so!

So the case is that they made a big mistake in pricing the car up; and then they made another mistake in repricing the car when they realised their first mistake. Hearing a major car dealership trying to put [ithat[/i argument would be bloody entertaining, I'm cringeing even just thinking about it.

Because damages would be adequate.



Why on earth would he want to buy another car?

Not very practical is is?!



Your ignorance of a fundamental aspect of contract law is duly noted.

The OP wants [upractical [/ulegal advice - not an in-depth analysis of the legal reasoning behind specific performance which he probably has no understanding of or someone telling him that in 6 months be might be able to buy two cars - ridiculous.

A man of violence. Probably claims to be a socialist too? You can take the lad out of 'ull but not 'ull out of the lad. Still not civilised after all these years?

Just curious....of all those giving advice/arguing on this thread, who is a qualified lawyer?

The duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss is trite law.

As someone else said earlier, the obvious thing to go for here is specific performance. I.E you want the car you thought you were buying, not one with a smaller engine.

A large dealer group should be able to locate a 2.0L model no problems.

Send a letter. If the dealer doesn't play ball with you, represent yourself in court. Judges are very skilled at dealing with litigants -in-person on the small claims track.

Once you issue your claim ACAS will be contacting you and the dealership. It will settle before it gets to a hearing.

Are you suggesting that I was bad-mouthing solicitors, if so, you need to read what I actually said.....

That would be no-one legally qualified then....?
I would suggest the OP should be very careful about that.

No-one who is legally qualified and values their practising certificate is going to own up to being legally qualified when giving 'informal' advice over the internet. Or if they do, they are putting themselves in the line of fire.

Advice given, even informally, can result in a professional negligence claim. There have been cases where lawyers have been sued off the back of advice given at parties.

There was also a case where a trainee solicitor's firm was sued because she gave some 'off the cuff' advice in a 5 minute interview to someone who stuck their head round the office door. Advice turned out to be wrong, the person who relied on it lost a considerable sum of money, and the firm got sued.

You'd think this much at least would be plainly obvious!

Oh bollox. If he sues for specific performance and wins the argument then he will get specific performance.

Well, he might follow your advice.

You think being without a car till trial/settlement is more practical, then. What do you recommed - horse and cart? Hire a coolie?







Practically no danger of getting that from you, is there! But seriously, he wants advice. The OP is presumably not so stupid as to think he could get LEGAL ADVICE from an internet chat room. If he wants that, he is I reckon smart enough to know that he'd need to consult a solicitor.

Well the point is he is highly unlikely to 'win the argument' for SP.




No he should buy another car and if he still wants to litigate his claim will be a simple claim for damages based on the difference.

My point exactly, just in more detail. It is beyond me why people purport to give legal advice/explanation on a site like this. It is even further beyond me that people raise issues where it there is obviously a legal aspect. Perhaps I should realise that planet RL Fans is a world on its own...

Its a discussion forum, for people to, well, discuss things - like they might do in, well, a pub for instance - back in the old days when people went to pubs to meet other people and, well, discuss things.

I'm pretty sure that the OP wasn't expecting a fully itemised statement to give to a small claims court, merely pitching a thought out there into the virtual tap room of opinion and see what the sympathy vote was like, not very sympathetic as it happens but still some useful suggestions offered - lets call it discussion eh ?

The OP, who must be feeling somewhat bemused by this diversion, originally said:


Now, I'm struggling to see how anyone could deduce from that, that the OP was expecting, let alone asking for, yer actual formal legal advice? As the Chicken says, it really is just a modern equivalent of casting around your mates and regulars down the pub or club, isn't it?

I don't think a solicitor would be required if the dealership is of a decent size. Just persistence, facts, giving the impression of knowing the law and a bit of legalese should do it (especially IF they may be using false advertising to hook customers in).

I had a problem with a national dealership many years ago where they tried to keep my deposit on a new car when I cancelled due to their non-performance. When I asked for the money back they refused. Effectively, they tried to claim I had changed my mind on a particular day rather than them having lied to me about the availability of said car. I persisted and local management wrote to me saying they had discussed with the salesman and looked at the paperwork and I could get stuffed. When they had given me their timetable of lies in writing I then forwarded in a fax they had sent me (which had the time and date recorded on it) and which proved my version of events was correct and theirs a complete lie. Not surprisingly, I got the cheque by return of post!

They even try it on with loyal customers. I know a guy who had bought a brand new top of the range Porsche every year for about 20 years from the same dealership. One year there was a big problem - it was not fit for purpose. He gave it them back. They tried to keep his deposit (which was significant!). He got it back eventually and needless so say he shifted over to Mercedes, Aston Martin, McLaren, etc rather than ever buying a Porsche again. That cost them!

At what point is a contract entered into here? Is it the initial deposit payment, payment in full or when signing up to finance?

My guess would be right up to payment being made then any paperwork would be full of disclaimers and would be what is an invitation to treat rather than to a binding contract.

Jerry, I am not going to get into one of those interminable "discussions" that go back and forth on here, but I will point out that discussions in the pub are not published or on record for others to read. If you can't spot the issues around people publishing what purports to be legal advice on a public forum then I will leave you to it. Good luck with the "discussion".

Which post "purports to be legal advice" ?