No it says I agreed to buy a 2.0 litre car. They didn't have any at that branch so like I said he checked their group stock and sourced me one unfortunately it was a 1.6 not a 2.0 but he thought it was. It was me who spotted the mistake 2 days later while checking out the registration.
So all my paperwork clearly state a 2.0 litre

Subject to any terms and conditions (if any) which we haven't seen (including website t&c's), it does appear that a contract was entered into for the 2.0L vehicle for the lower price.

They may be able to advance some kind of 'mistake' argument or rely on their website t&c's which usually account for mistakes like this but frankly what are you going to be able to do?

Presumably you are not in possession of either the 1.6L or the 2.0L vehicle. They won't sell you the 2.0L unless you pay for the extra - even if this does amount to a breach of contract.

Your options are limited. Best to do what the poster above suggested and try and negotiate a discount or some extras for the inconvenience caused.

I think the OP has a case.

He did not especially want to buy that particular specific car, his requirement was to be supplied with a particular model of car, and as long as it had a 2.0 engine, it didn't matter which particular car. They could have sourced one from any of their stock anywhere. In this case, the contract and the pre-contract negotiations were all about a type of car and a specification, and not about one specific motor.

He should argue that they agreed to sell him a type of car at a 2..0 spec at an agreed price and so they should do so. The claim that they made a mix-up with their pricing is not his problem, since the price was not manifestly absurd. For example, if you were buying a 100K Roller which was mistakenly advertised in an ad for £1 then that wouldn't wash legally, as any reasonable person is taken to obviously know that a major mistake has occurred and no court is going to enforce it.

OTOH if you are selling loads of cars, and you do misprice one, but not by so much that it is blatantly obvious it's a mistake, then a court may well say tough luck, the deal stands.

The OP went to a car dealership - not to a sweet old white haired lady selling her runabout. It seems the salesman locally didn't know that a 2.0L model couldn't reasonably be sold at the lower price, and clearly if an experience car dealer doesn't immediately see it is an obvious mistake, then it can't BE an obvious mistake.

I don't think it's a certain win, but well worth a go - especially since it would be a small claims case so no costs risk if you lose. And the dealership wouldn't want to be dragged through court. You could also threaten them with Trading Standards.

Take the advice of the Bradford fan! Them being "legal eagles" an' all!



Sorry FA - Couldn't resist!

Just to pick up on this point as just yesterday I was in my local car dealer sorting out a car for my youngest - they sold the car that we really wanted but he has located on his clever cardealer-webby thing an identical spec, same year, lower mileage version for £500 less than the original. Part of the reason for this is because the cardealer-webby thing has the model listed wrongly, its one of those car name things that manufacturers do when they add alloy wheels one year and give it a fancy name - anyway, my dealer (who I've dealt with for a long time) spotted that they had it listed as a lower value model and so he's got it cheaper than it should be, showed me the web-page and everything.

We'll know for sure when it turns up this week of course but the point to make is that you are correct and incorrect, the dealer could easily have located a 2.0L model as they have huge dealer sources to pick from, but as for spotting the incorrect valuation, not so easy - by the way, one other thing I discovered yesterday, Glass's guide is not the bible in the trade anymore, in fact he laughed at the Glass's valuation on the car we were looking for yesterday saying "No-one goes by that anymore".

But it was an obvious mistake. It was an obvious mistake by the other dealer who has the car listed as a 2l when it is only a 1.6l.

The dealership where the OP was buying the car made a good faith attempt to find him the car he wanted. He seemed to have found the car. The OP like the sound of it, agreed to buy it and put down a deposit.

The OP then did some research into the car and found the clear error. He called the dealer, who after looking into it agreed that the OP was correct and obviously all interest in that car disappeared.

The dealership has his 200 deposit. That should be refunded.

But trying to hold that dealership responsible for the other dealers error is ridiculous.

You need to consider your position practically. Not just your legal position.

Whilst obviously a decision for you, there are some strong factors against issuing a claim.

1. You may not win;
2. It takes time - don't expect a hearing (if it gets that far before six months from now)
3. Initial cost - There is a claim fee and a hearing fee (£200 approx)
4. You may need to instruct a solicitor at further cost unless you know how to conduct litigation;
5. It is stressful for most people;
6.You are highly unlikely to be awarded the car at the lower price - you have a duty to mitigate your loss which means you can't sit on your hands for six months bemoaning the fact they didn't sell you the car. You need to actively source another car and your claim would then be for the difference in price, not £1300.

Litigation should be a last resort.

I get what you are saying but the dealership they sourced the car from is the same one just another branch.
The website show all cars from around the country but it's all one franchise. Funnily enough just been on auto trader and they are still advertising 1.6 cars as 2.0 although they must know after I kicked up a fuss.

Personally, if I was the dealership, I'd give you the option of having your deposit back, or supplying a similarly specced 2 litre model at the price agreed.

Unfortunately, at this price, the alternative car would have a substantial increase in the mileage etc, etc, but as you sound like the type of customer nobody would really want..... Tough titty.

And a final piece of pro bono advice. If the bargain seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It's a straightforward breach of contract.

You enquired about a 2.0L car. They said they had one. A price was agreed.

One delivery, and following payment, you discovered it was not a 2.0L car.

At law, they now have a duty to put you in the posision you would have been in, but for the breach of contract. I.e. they should supply a 2.0L car without you having to pay extra.

That said, you will probably find something in their Ts&Cs about mistakes.

Realistically, you probably have two options - return car and get cash back, or pay a sum to 'upgrade' to the 2.0L.

I believe FA is right when he says mispricing has to be blatently obvious before the seller is entitled to charge more or withdraw from the contract.

I would side with FA and argue breach of contact. The OP fulfilled his side of the contract but the supplier did not fulfil theirs, notwithstanding the OPs clear requirements and negotiations to that effect. With the correct level of confidence I am sure the OP could obtain a remedy. Whether that's a 2.OL car or set aside of the contract with full refund (plus I would argue inconvenience costs).

Take a copy and if its a sizeable dealership go in and rant when they are full of customers and say to the other customers "I wouldn't buy anything here because....." You'd be surprised how that can hone minds.

To be honest, whenever I've seen a scene like that, I always tend to side with the shopkeeper/salesman and tend to think the person ranting is just a big-mouthed cock, who also happens to have been a bit dim that they have resorted to making a scene in a public place.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to buy from there, especially if the salesman has handled the situation with the ranting imbecile, in a mature and admirable way.

No, you are thinking about the wrong thing. We need to decide whether it should have been obvious to a would-be purchaser that there must have been a mistake for the reason that a 2.0 could never reasonably be for sale at that price. And it doesn't seem we have that situation here.

My friend, a solicitor, does it with great success!

... 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?