Purchase of caravan

[jaksensmummy]

I bid on a caravan and won. I rung the seller immediately to organise that I would be there to pick up item in a fortnight. There were no terms of the sale on eBay. The seller demanded a deposit to secure my purchase and I paid $500. In the description the caravan is REGISTERED UNTIL MARCH. I took my husband and father to view the caravan as we live just over an hour away. My husband and father took a look under the van and there is significant structural damage that is not mentioned in the description. The chassis is completely bent. In fact, from an engineer's point of view the whole structure would need to be rebuilt.

If I were to drive the van out of the driveway the police would put it off the road simply because it is unroadworthy. Therefore the caravan is not technically registered.

I had to ring the seller and tell him that I cannot purchase the van simply because of the unlisted damaged and the costs associated with restoring the van which was far more significant than described. The seller was incredibly rude and refuses to refund my deposit simply saying that he wrote "bidding is buying" on the bottom of his description. It's strange that he didn't respect that notion when I rang him to organise the logistics of picking up the van. Bidding obviously wasnt buying because he required money (and a substantial deposit I would say) to secure my purchase.

Now I am forced to take civil action in order to get my "deposit back" because he requested bank deposit. 😞

As a mother with a young family and a hearing impaired daughter on the Autism spectrum, we didn't have a lot of money to spend and the description was deceitful. I feel very flat!

[davewil1964]

---

@cq_tech wrote:
It seems to me that it's either a very brave or a very stupid person who rips-off $500 from somebody who knows exactly where they live, and may ultimately decide to turn up at some time in the future for a friendly, social visit, along with a carload of their big, hairy bikie mates.

---

I hope they're not in Queensland.

As a 15 (?) year impost is added to any bikie's sentence and they, by hanging around with bikies, are a bikie (guilt by association is now apparently legal in Qld), 0 + 15 = 15 years in the special clink.

I am eagerly awaiting the High Court challenge to this. I'm pretty sure it's in breach of the provisions in common law (the Magna Carta) about equality before the law.

[thecatspjs]

sigh - IMO in the real world, outside of a classroom or court room, mutual agreement by the trader and purchaser that contract is void due to goods perishing before risk passes to owner occurs far more frequently than pursuing legal pronouncement of same - as there are simply no or significantly damaged goods to deliver.

note: notwithstanding that the timing of perishables such as food, perishing may be more contentious, than a caravan.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@cq_tech wrote:

---

@my*mum wrote:

---

@cq_tech wrote:
Where's one of those grubby little 14yo arsonists when you need them? Hypothetically, If said caravan mysteriously burned to the ground prior to the completion of the contract, then the contract would immediately become null and void and the seller would have no option but to return the OP's $500 holding deposit.

---

QUESTION

when the contract on a house is finalized, you have to insure it even though you don't have possession of it yet... IF the caravan burned down prior to it being collected, who is responsible for it's loss? Which party should have insured it iykwim The person who has ownership or the person in possession?

I'm also thinking of when I buy a car - I only start my insurance from the day I actually collect it, not from the day I form the contract - it never occurred to me what would happen if something happened before then?

I'm thinking (after being forced to study the intricacies of Bailment by CatsPJ) that the seller is obliged to keep the item safe until collected, but does this apply here?

---

It's been 28 years since I bought my house, but I can distinctly remember at the time that the insurance was the vendor's responsibility only until the contract had been signed and witnessed, at which point the risk transferred to me and I had to take out household insurance immediately. I'd be very surprised if this still wasn't the case when it comes to houses.

If you sign a contract to buy a car, with delivery to be effected on a specific date, the dealer is responsible for the vehicle until said date arrives, at which point you need to organise comprehensive insurance before you drive away from the dealer's yard, as the moment you jump into your new car, the dealer's insurance responsibility ends at that point.

---

yes, that's what we did - but just cos we got told to, not because we understood why iykwim (although it is a grey area of law as tested during the vic bush fires - dif people got different results depending on the wording in the contract)

I wonder why it is different for a house and a car? Why do I have to insure a house before settlement and thus possession, but I don't have to insure a car until I take possession?

I wonder if it is different if the contract is unconditional? i.e. no subject to building inspections/finance etc

When does ownership of a house actually occur?

it's gotta have something to do with ownership and when it passes??

dunno, confused now LOL

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

sigh - IMO in the real world, outside of a classroom or court room, mutual agreement by the trader and purchaser that contract is void due to goods perishing before risk passes to owner occurs far more frequently than pursuing legal pronouncement of same - as there are simply no or significantly damaged goods to deliver.

note: notwithstanding that the timing of perishables such as food, perishing may be more contentious, than a caravan.

---

what are you talking about?

The Post where you trotted out the SoGA again?

[thecatspjs]

My understanding, and supported by a quick google search as it is difficult to express succinctly without this thread being hijacked further, is that it relates to the origins and development of the laws relating to ownership and transfer of real estate  compared to those that relate to goods or chattels.

[*crikey*mate*]

I'm not sure if you have noticed this, but the OP has left the thread...... yesterday.....

so what's it matter where this goes?

and if you were so interested in being succinct, why waste half your post by trying to take a shot at me? Infact why bother at all if you were so concerned about thread hijacking as you added nothing that we haven't already established.

[belindabargainhunter]

The op has left and everyone is talking legal matters.
I just find it suss for someone to use there daughters disability, to take partners and parents to see the caravan after purchase not before.
To not pick it up or talk to the seller then and there. But to go home then call and say u don't want it.
I think a lot of this is buyers remorse and should the deposit be given back, I believe that's a moral question the seller should ask them self but I just think there is more to the story than this. Would love to hear the sellers side

[thecatspjs]

---

@belindabargainhunter wrote:
The op has left and everyone is talking legal matters.

---

?? the OP has left ?? when, their last post was only yesterday.  They could be following this thread, but not posting as it has come somewhat off track with discussion of why posts frustrate others - including moi, or when risk passes.

Not everyone visits and posts to the Discussion Boards daily or hourly - IMO and experience most posters on the trading boards don't, nor should be expected to.