geoff shep
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 07:45 PM |
|
|
Original builder's liability?
So I have a car that I built, that I really need to let go. I have only kept it for sentimental reasons and it is just taking up space.
It was built by me and registered prior to IVA/SVA, so has not had the benefit of that as an independent check of construction. It has always passed
its MOTs without incident while it was on the road. I am fairly confident about its build standard and have been happy to drive it at my own risk -
although I suppose that even by doing that I am exposing other road users to risk too. Incidentally, does SVA actually check build standards or just
compliance?
What is the situation if, having sold it, someone has a accident and the construction of the vehicle is brought into question? Is there any comeback
on the builder?
Given that it is a Sierra-based monocoque Robin Hood, built with no frills (20 years ago), on a fairly small budget, it owes me no money. In its
current 'unloved' condition it would fetch very little. I now feel that I would rather have it dismantled than worry about future
liability - either legally or morally. I know I could sell some of the parts, and I am sure there are people around who would love a correctly
registered car (for whatever reason), but I can't help feeling I would rather see it in the crusher.
So does anyone know about liability? Opinions are fine - but factual answers would be useful, or pointers to the legal position, or previous examples
would be even better.
Or am I being unduly paranoid?
[Morose mode=OFF]
|
|
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 07:54 PM |
|
|
Paranoid
You can buy a lot of dangerous cars for £100 !
|
|
|
big_wasa
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 08:01 PM |
|
|
Sell it to me for a modest sum and then I can have some fun this summer. I promise not to "ring it" You can sleep safe knowing there is no
come back and as I've built one from scratch I am more than capable of making it road worthy. 
Edit... Please....
Oh yeh, How can there be any liability on any 20 year old car but I did have the same feeling when I sold mine even though it went through Iva.
[Edited on 2/2/17 by big_wasa]
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 08:08 PM |
|
|
Same liability as any second hand car.
When you sell use the words "sold as seen" when you hand over the documents.
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
geoff shep
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snapper
Same liability as any second hand car.
But it's not is it - because I built it, unlike most other second hand cars which would have been built by a proper manufacturer.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 09:36 PM |
|
|
Hmmmm interesting conundrum. Although we're not in America, I could foresee you being sued for any injuries or damage.
the mechanic was held liable for issuing MOT certificate for unroadworth lorry, see here
http://workshopmagazine.co.uk/2017/01/30/mechanic-jailed-five-years-fatal-bath-truck-crash/
Can you not partially dismantle it? Or how can it be proved you were the original builder?
|
|
|
chillis
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 09:55 PM |
|
|
'sold as seen' counts for nothing legally. You must state on the receipt 'amateur built' and 'all known faults
declared' as well as 'no warrenties offered or inferred' and make sure the buyer is aware of these statements and what they mean.
Of course it goes without saying you must declare all known faults (this is a legal requirement when selling any car secondhand - don't ask me
how I know I still have the nightmares)
Never under estimate the ingenuity of an idiot!
|
|
|
geoff shep
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 10:03 PM |
|
|
We have all done work on cars which we have sold on. But it seems different for a manufacturing defect.
When Zafiras burst into flame, Vauxhall were held to account. If the front end falls off my Robin Hood in some random crash, due to poor workmanship
my part, what happens. I'd rather dismantle the car now than lose my house later - or at least spend a lot of time worrying about it.
I'm sure there must be some record of me being the builder when I first registered it.
|
|
|
big_wasa
|
| posted on 2/2/17 at 10:08 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Nickp
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 06:04 AM |
|
|
Why not sell it for 'off road use only'? Stating this clearly on the advert and also no liability on your part if the new owner chooses to
ignore this. Have them sign a copy of the advert along with the usual 'sold as seen' receipt. Seems a shame to scrap a working car IMO
|
|
|
SJ
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 08:18 AM |
|
|
Is there a way of checking if there have been any similar cases in the past? i.e. where a buyer took action against a builder. If not the risk to you
seems low.
I'm sure as others have suggested if you sold the car complete and working but stated in the ad something like 'for parts only - no
warranty as to the safety of this car for use given or implied', and kept evidence of this you should be OK.
Obviously this will affect the price you get though.
Stu
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 10:00 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by geoff shep
quote:
Originally posted by snapper
Same liability as any second hand car.
But it's not is it - because I built it, unlike most other second hand cars which would have been built by a proper manufacturer.
but who knows what kind of doggy repairs or modifications might have been done to an old car, regardless of who made it
its the new owners liability to make sure the car is roadworthy while they drive it (even between MOT's)
unless you are selling it as a motor trader then there isn't much that can come back to you....
[Edited on 3/2/2017 by mcerd1]
-
|
|
|
pewe
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
I'm no legal eagle but I think you're being overly cautious (read paranoid).
It was Lord Denning Master of the Rolls who coined the phrase "the man on the Clapham omnibus".
This is a hypothetical, ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as
a reasonable person would – for example, in a civil action for negligence.
If the car has been on the road for a number of years, passed MOT's and not suffered any mechanical issues then it's caveat emptor when
it's sold.
Any prospective purchaser is, presumably, at liberty to carry out his own checks to satisfy themselves it's road worthy so the emphasis is on
them not you, providing you've told no porkies.
Anyone buying a kit car must also be aware that it's not the same as buying a run-of-the-mill tin top so needs to view that prospective purchase
accordingly.
My case rests - flog it whole and let someone-else lose sleep over it.
Cheers, Pewe10 
|
|
|
computid
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chillis
'sold as seen' counts for nothing legally. You must state on the receipt 'amateur built' and 'all known faults
declared' as well as 'no warrenties offered or inferred' and make sure the buyer is aware of these statements and what they mean.
Of course it goes without saying you must declare all known faults (this is a legal requirement when selling any car secondhand - don't ask me
how I know I still have the nightmares)
Hmm not really. If you're a dealer then sure you can't sell "sold as seen" since the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies, but as a
private individual making a private sale you need not pass on any information what so ever, so long as you don't actually Lie.
The law generally follows the principle of Caveat Emptor or "Buyer Beware". If the buyer asks a question "e.g. is this car a write
off" and you say no when in fact it's Cat B then sure you've broken the law and opened yourself up to possible litigation. If you
know it's a Cat B but don't state it and the buyer never asks then it's their tough luck. The only time you as a private seller are
required to disclose anything at all is if there is a latent defect (e.g. a defect which a buyer could not reasonably find out for themselves). In
Common Law however, there is no automatic right for a buyer to claim against a seller for such latent defects if they are found unless there is an
agreement in the sales contract. It's actually a little more complex then this, and there is some wiggle room for buyers who obtain defective
property. If it is determined that through reasonable (i.e. non-destructive testing) the defect could have been discovered then the buyers claim will
fail. If however it can be proven that a seller has/had taken steps to make inspection impossible or has actively lied to the buyer then the case will
almost certainly err on the side of the buyer.
If a latent defect is in fact found, it as default does generally go against the seller when a claim is made, as it is presumed that the seller knew
about the defect. As such the seller is generally required to show that they could not have known about the defect, rather than the buyer having to
show that the seller did know about the defect. If it can be shown the seller could not have known about the defect then the buyer's claim will
likely fail.
In effect, in law (as far as I know anyway), if you provide a fair description of the car and you don't know of any defects that you don't
state to the buyer (and put in writing really) then there is very little recourse a buyer can take against the seller. I'd just sell the car as
is. Any reasonable judge would realise that a person buying this type of car is aware that it was built by a man in his garage and if you explicitly
state that in the sale contract then you should have no issues.
Hell, if this wasn't the case then nobody would sell cars privately as you'd have no end of litigation!
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 10:42 AM |
|
|
The OP has expressed both moral and legal concerns. The two are completely distinct.
A contract of sale not made in the course of a business contains no implied term as to quality (including fitness for purpose). Accordingly it is
(theoretically) unnecessary to spell that out with an express term such as "sold as seen". Having said that most sales follow on from a
description of the goods in an advert or on e-bay. Generally words of description will become contractual terms or representations (something
different) upon which the purchaser is entitled to rely. Adding the words "sold as seen" is unlikely to displace a description of a car as
say being in good condition or having a specified milage or being of a particular year. It is not impossible to agree that prior descriptions shall
not be actionable but not entirely without risk.
The builder/seller may owe a duty to the purchaser in tort (negligence) in the same way as a professional mechanic does or any other manufacturer (but
the duty may be lower in practice). The duty is to use reasonable skill and care (the man on the clapham omnibus was not coined by the Lord Denning
actually but was used much earlier (I am not a fan)). That duty is likely to be discharged by disclosing any known problems and stating in terms that
the car was constructed by an amateur with no professional qualifications and training and should be checked by a qualified person before any use.
As said above the greatest risk of liability is failing to disclose known faults. Doing so may be considered fraudulent it is almost certainly
negligent (Langridge v. Levy if you are interested in ancient cases...).
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 10:48 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by computid
quote:
Originally posted by chillis
'sold as seen' counts for nothing legally. You must state on the receipt 'amateur built' and 'all known faults
declared' as well as 'no warrenties offered or inferred' and make sure the buyer is aware of these statements and what they mean.
Of course it goes without saying you must declare all known faults (this is a legal requirement when selling any car secondhand - don't ask me
how I know I still have the nightmares)
Hmm not really. If you're a dealer then sure you can't sell "sold as seen" since the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies, but as a
private individual making a private sale you need not pass on any information what so ever, so long as you don't actually Lie.
The law generally follows the principle of Caveat Emptor or "Buyer Beware". If the buyer asks a question "e.g. is this car a write
off" and you say no when in fact it's Cat B then sure you've broken the law and opened yourself up to possible litigation. If you
know it's a Cat B but don't state it and the buyer never asks then it's their tough luck. The only time you as a private seller are
required to disclose anything at all is if there is a latent defect (e.g. a defect which a buyer could not reasonably find out for themselves). In
Common Law however, there is no automatic right for a buyer to claim against a seller for such latent defects if they are found unless there is an
agreement in the sales contract. It's actually a little more complex then this, and there is some wiggle room for buyers who obtain defective
property. If it is determined that through reasonable (i.e. non-destructive testing) the defect could have been discovered then the buyers claim will
fail. If however it can be proven that a seller has/had taken steps to make inspection impossible or has actively lied to the buyer then the case will
almost certainly err on the side of the buyer.
If a latent defect is in fact found, it as default does generally go against the seller when a claim is made, as it is presumed that the seller knew
about the defect. As such the seller is generally required to show that they could not have known about the defect, rather than the buyer having to
show that the seller did know about the defect. If it can be shown the seller could not have known about the defect then the buyer's claim will
likely fail.
In effect, in law (as far as I know anyway), if you provide a fair description of the car and you don't know of any defects that you don't
state to the buyer (and put in writing really) then there is very little recourse a buyer can take against the seller. I'd just sell the car as
is. Any reasonable judge would realise that a person buying this type of car is aware that it was built by a man in his garage and if you explicitly
state that in the sale contract then you should have no issues.
Hell, if this wasn't the case then nobody would sell cars privately as you'd have no end of litigation!
A much more concise way of saying what I was about to write!
Which was private sale = no liability. lol
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 11:26 AM |
|
|
I am sorry but the answer above is just not correct or perhaps more fairly correct only in part.
There are two distinct branches of the law - contract and tort. Liability of a private seller in contract is very restricted.
Here the risk is as a manufacturer/builder to subsequent users or persons who might be injured by defects in the build and not just a seller. If I
build a car which I know will be driven whether on the track or road I will owe a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid injury. The duty of
an amateur is less than that of a skilled professional but woe betide the amateur who takes on work without any of the skills to do it (look at some
of the welding pictures on this site).
Have a google for WELLS V COOPER [1958] 2 QB 265 for a discussion of the scope of duty owed by a person doing DIY in their own home.
Think about it. I drive my car myself and my suspension bracket which I welded wearing sunglasses with a hangover falls off and I kill a child am I
liable in negligence - obviously. If I sell you the car and you have the same accident am I liable to the child? Yes I am.
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 03:31 PM |
|
|
It is an individual build ratified by the government through the IVA process
Nowhere does it say on the V5 your name, if any one was liable it would be the kit manufacturer
FFS how many kit cars have been built and sold and I've never heard of anyone being sued
If your that worried break it for parts as you have argued yourself in to no other option.
As for the other bar room lawyers...,,,
[Edited on 3/2/17 by snapper]
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
If the "bar room lawyers" is a dig at me it is misconceived
I completely agree with you on a practical basis - such things are thankfully rare. There is a difference between acknowledging a risk and going on to
take it and pretending that there are no legal risks at all.
Yes people get sued all of the time because of their shoddy work which causes injury to others. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean it
does not happen. I attached an example to my last post.
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theshed
I am sorry but the answer above is just not correct or perhaps more fairly correct only in part.
There are two distinct branches of the law - contract and tort. Liability of a private seller in contract is very restricted.
Here the risk is as a manufacturer/builder to subsequent users or persons who might be injured by defects in the build and not just a seller. If I
build a car which I know will be driven whether on the track or road I will owe a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid injury. The duty of
an amateur is less than that of a skilled professional but woe betide the amateur who takes on work without any of the skills to do it (look at some
of the welding pictures on this site).
Have a google for WELLS V COOPER [1958] 2 QB 265 for a discussion of the scope of duty owed by a person doing DIY in their own home.
Think about it. I drive my car myself and my suspension bracket which I welded wearing sunglasses with a hangover falls off and I kill a child am I
liable in negligence - obviously. If I sell you the car and you have the same accident am I liable to the child? Yes I am.
Your quoting Wells v Cooper incorrectly - the judge/appeal found in favour of the homeowner, not the visitor who was injured.
To add to the above mention of the sales of goods acts, its since been replaced by the Consumer rights act, however, the act still has limited weight
against a private sale still - in other words the car does not have to be fit for purpose.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
ArthurR
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 04:14 PM |
|
|
Sorry, haven't read all the other replies but how about selling it "spares or repair"
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 04:20 PM |
|
|
I have set out the law entirely accurately. In particular I have explained the difference between the law or contract and tort. Which by your post you
clearly have not understood. I am not quoting Wells and Coper incorrectly at all. The DIY owner was subject to a duty of care it was just that he had
not breached it - I had already explained the different standards for an amateur and professional. The fact that he won does not alter what I said at
all.
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 04:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theshed
I have set out the law entirely accurately. In particular I have explained the difference between the law or contract and tort. Which by your post you
clearly have not understood. I am not quoting Wells and Coper incorrectly at all. The DIY owner was subject to a duty of care it was just that he had
not breached it - I had already explained the different standards for an amateur and professional. The fact that he won does not alter what I said at
all.
Your quoting laws that are relevant. There is no case law to show an amatuer built vehicle being sold by the builder is any more liable for any risk
involved in its future use than anyone selling any other 2nd hand vehicle privately.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 04:41 PM |
|
|
I probably should not have bothered responding to this thread at all. If you think my explanation of the law of tort is incorrect you are most welcome
to your opinion. I really do not think that caselaw which as I clearly stated discusses the scope of the duty of care imposed on an amateur diy
enthusiast when discussing the duty of care imposed on a diy car builder is irrelevant but hey what would I know I have only been a barrister for 21
years and I am still learning.
|
|
|
SJ
|
| posted on 3/2/17 at 05:03 PM |
|
|
I can't see that the risk is any greater than selling a mainstream car that you have either worked on yourself or allowed a garage to work on
without checking their credentials, in other words very little indeed.
Personally I wouldn't give it a second thought.
|
|
|
