Rare Sport Moredoor on Fleabay ... ;)

[Ranchero]

Like what? Possession is still "nine tenths of the law", so far as I know.

[e30topless]

Like what? "Possession is still nine tenths of the law", so far as I know.

so if i let you borrow £10 from me you would keep £9 as your own and pay me back £1 ?

[magpie]

i've met them both.

Kieth you need to get a grip dude,left yourself wide open for liberty's .

@ max too fast to live,too young to die.

shrewd dude,

[Gortour]

Legally, I would have to say Max is in the right, as the plate belongs to the car, until the paperwork is done to change this.
There's nothing on paper to say the plate would be returned, just a verbal agreement, so nothing to stand up in law.
If Max is not prepared to give the plate back - for whatever reason, then I would have to say that Keith is royally f**ked, and can do nothing about it either through the courts or the police.

[Ranchero]

Don't get me wrong, from my point of view a gentleman's agreement is enough and I would abide by it.
Clearly that is not the situation here and it is down to the seller to prove there was such an agreement. Good luck with that.

[f4stjay]

I don't know either of these people but I would just like to say that if either of them are thinking of taking any of this further (legally I mean, not the leg breaking!) don't rely on the opinions given by the zoners who have posted commenst about verbal agreements, contracts, rights and legal title. Most of it is unfounded bollox.

It may be possible to bring an action for conversion of the plate if it was the intention of the parties that title remained with the original owner, evidence would need to be provided to convince a court that this was a term of the contract (a simple verbal agreement might be difficult to back up).

A second option would be to bring an action for breach of the terms of a bailment. The plate appeared to be bailed to the new owner on the proviso that it be returned, any loss caused by the breach of this agreement could possibly be claimed back from the new owner by the original owner.

The threat of the original owner reporting the plate stolen is potentially enforceable as consent is irrelevant as far as an appropriation is concerned, documentary intangibles are technically property for the purposes of the Theft Act, and the sale suggests an intention permanently to deprive...seller beware!

That advice any better?

Oh, and there's no reason why the Fraud Act wouldn't come into play either...Keith is very far from being fooked just yet!

[Ranchero]

There is some evidence to suggest that there was an agreement. Self admitted.

We did agree that the plate would be taken off by keith,

Binding in law? Dunno but there nevertheless.

[magpie]

There is some evidence to suggest that there was an agreement. Self admitted.

We did agree that the plate would be taken off by keith,

Binding in law? Dunno but there nevertheless.

the Max may do the right thing.nowts paved in sovereigns yet.

[clipper]

I don't know either of these people but I would just like to say that if either of them are thinking of taking any of this further (legally I mean, not the leg breaking!) don't rely on the opinions given by the zoners who have posted commenst about verbal agreements, contracts, rights and legal title. Most of it is unfounded bollox.

It may be possible to bring an action for conversion of the plate if it was the intention of the parties that title remained with the original owner, evidence would need to be provided to convince a court that this was a term of the contract (a simple verbal agreement might be difficult to back up).

A second option would be to bring an action for breach of the terms of a bailment. The plate appeared to be bailed to the new owner on the proviso that it be returned, any loss caused by the breach of this agreement could possibly be claimed back from the new owner by the original owner.

The threat of the original owner reporting the plate stolen is potentially enforceable as consent is irrelevant as far as an appropriation is concerned, documentary intangibles are technically property for the purposes of the Theft Act, and the sale suggests an intention permanently to deprive...seller beware!

That advice any better?

Oh, and there's no reason why the Fraud Act wouldn't come into play either...Keith is very far from being fooked just yet!

Swinging the thread back towards reality I'd say. I'd be keeping things away from criminal law in the first instance.

You may well be more qualified than me to advice, but I think you'll agree that giving detailed advice on a few facts on an internet forum isn't really useful to anyone, so I'll leave it to those who earn a better living than I at it.

[Ranchero]

... I think you'll agree that giving detailed advice on a few facts on an internet forum isn't really useful to anyone....

Take your own advice. If the vehicle in question should sell via this forum, ebay or pistonheads et al, the original seller will have even less chance of retrieving that plate.
It all hinges on a verbal agreement between two people and whether or not one of them chooses to honour that agreement.

It's clearly not a simple matter as the buyer is now using the argument that the vehicle was not up to snuff, to justify withholding the plate.

[e30-EVN]

Its a tricky 1 I'll say that but I've made verbal agreements with zoners and stuck by my end of the deal, (magpie, danthe ect),, but I consider myself a gent. 1 of a dying breed so it seems

[Felix79]

This could be advoided if people answered the phone to each other

A bit unfair that after trying to do the gents agreement and no response that now Keith has suddenly responded. £80 may not be a lot to some people , but it's more than enough to be out of pocket when it's owed to you and theres no way knowing your gonna get it back.

[Gortour]

It's clearly not a simple matter as the buyer is now using the argument that the vehicle was not up to snuff, to justify withholding the plate.

The state of the car was known at the time of sale, hence the price Max bought it for. He knew it was hanging.

[clipper]

... I think you'll agree that giving detailed advice on a few facts on an internet forum isn't really useful to anyone....

Take your own advice.

I will indeed. I can see that making factual statements has no place on this thread.

[capri_rob]

The plate was bought for Keith by his dad who's now dead, so Keith is even less happy than he would be anyway, as the plate has sentimental ties as well as being his plate.

Max agreed to return it in front of Keith, Dave, (Gaszman), and another friend of Keith's.
Max also had a friend with him, but he'll probably side with Max, but there's 3 against 2...

If the plate meant that much to him he should have removed it before selling the car - end of. If he couldn't be bothered to do it/pay the retention fee or whatever thats his fault and his loss.

All this gentlemans agreement stuff is cobblers. Trusting people you don't really know when it comes to buying & selling cars will always end in tears.

So now in addition to the hassle of selling the car the current owner has the additional aggro of getting the transfer money off the previous owner and arranging the transfer ?

Selling cars is a pain in the ass as it is without having to p1$$ around sorting out stuff the previous owner should have done before he bought the sorry turd in the first place.

If I went to see a car with a private plate fitted that would be a key factor in doing the deal - if the seller wants the plate he removes it and pays the retention - if its still fitted when you turn up to collect the car and hand over your cash it goes with the car. Why should the new owner have the hassle of swapping the plates after the deal is done just because the previous owner couldn't be bothered ?

[Gortour]

Problem at the time was the need to get a working car asap, the moordoor had a blown engine, Keith needed a car for work.
Max was good enough to turn up the same day and take it away for cash so Keith could get himself something to get to work in quickly.
Hence the agreement to sort the plate later...

[f4stjay]

I don't know either of these people but I would just like to say that if either of them are thinking of taking any of this further (legally I mean, not the leg breaking!) don't rely on the opinions given by the zoners who have posted commenst about verbal agreements, contracts, rights and legal title. Most of it is unfounded bollox.

It may be possible to bring an action for conversion of the plate if it was the intention of the parties that title remained with the original owner, evidence would need to be provided to convince a court that this was a term of the contract (a simple verbal agreement might be difficult to back up).

A second option would be to bring an action for breach of the terms of a bailment. The plate appeared to be bailed to the new owner on the proviso that it be returned, any loss caused by the breach of this agreement could possibly be claimed back from the new owner by the original owner.

The threat of the original owner reporting the plate stolen is potentially enforceable as consent is irrelevant as far as an appropriation is concerned, documentary intangibles are technically property for the purposes of the Theft Act, and the sale suggests an intention permanently to deprive...seller beware!

That advice any better?

Oh, and there's no reason why the Fraud Act wouldn't come into play either...Keith is very far from being fooked just yet!

Swinging the thread back towards reality I'd say. I'd be keeping things away from criminal law in the first instance.

You may well be more qualified than me to advice, but I think you'll agree that giving detailed advice on a few facts on an internet forum isn't really useful to anyone, so I'll leave it to those who earn a better living than I at it.

I'm just suggesting that contrary to the idea that the transfer of the documents into the new keeper's name is the final nail in the coffin English law will enforce equitable principles and uphold the idea that the intention of the parties should override.

The promise to return the plate (by way of verbal agreement) is not, of itself, enforceable (binding) in law but as I mentioned before, there are ways to circumvent that.

The criminal law, in my opinion, would not be a good solution!

[capri_rob]

Problem at the time was the need to get a working car asap, the moordoor had a blown engine, Keith needed a car for work.
Max was good enough to turn up the same day and take it away for cash so Keith could get himself something to get to work in quickly.
Hence the agreement to sort the plate later...

fair enough but how long ago was this ? If max handed over a wad of cash there and then why did he not just hold back enough to cover the retention fee and switch the plate straight away ?

[Gortour]

Deal at the time was Keith needed the cash, and was going to pay for the plate transfer later...
Admittedly that would have been a far better way to do it, and the way I would have done it, though I would have got my plate off first anyway, given time.

[capri_rob]

Deal at the time was Keith needed the cash, and was going to pay for the plate transfer later...
Admittedly that would have been a far better way to do it, and the way I would have done it, though I would have got my plate off first anyway, given time.

This is just the sort of woolly "deal" that was asking to go wrong from day 1.

Lesson to be learned here for all sellers - if you're selling a car and something isn't included in the sale ( plates, ICE, wheels etc etc ) to avoid ANY aggro it needs to be removed before being advertised - that way everyone knows where they stand and it avoids any of this crap.

[Gortour]

Agreed, but as Keith and Max know each other, the trust was assumed.

[mercdriver]

like i said, gone sour!

Why can't we get an acoustic kum by ya on the go here!

World peace man

[ivqii]

Agreed, but as Keith and Max know each other, the trust was assumed.

Like some of us I know both parties and rate them both as decent lads

It would be very sad if either of them were to prove me wrong

[DanThe]

It seems to me Max wants the car sold and Keith doesnt have the money to pay for the reg transfer, if the plate means that much to him he ought to get a loan to sort it, and quickly.
If he does have the money for the transfer and Max is being an arse about it he needs to get round there and sort it face to face, all this law/police/courts spouting is just a waste of words, taking somebody to court is far from cheap and the time and stress involved wouldnt be worth a £400 number plate!

[e30-EVN]

This ^

[gaszman]

DIDNT MEET THE RESERVE

[Gortour]

Winning bid £1,701.51

Can't see a 'reserve not met'... Looks sold to me...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 244wt_1139

And my question never did appear on the auction...

[magpie]

Winning bid: £1,701.51
[ 12 bids ]


looks like it's sold Dave,nothing in the title that says res not met ?

[Gortour]

Winner has 114 wins too, so doubt it's Keith himself. He hasn't got an ebay account, unless he's got someone to bid for him.

Looks like it's gone...

[Gortour]

Still on Pistonheads too...

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2870172.htm

[Steve-E30]

I reckon he had a mate running it
No use verbally putting you want £2250 then it making less with no reserve
In my eyes thats sold but bet its not

[Gortour]

Really don't know Steve.
Tempted to agree with you, for the reasons you've given, but knowing what he paid for the car, he's still made a good screw on it.
Certainly can't see any mention of reserves, though can't remember if there was one at the start.

[ivqii]

Was there a Buy it Now figure to begin with - that would then wipe on the 1st bid

[Steve-E30]

Wasnt ever a reserve and would have hoped keith or someone he knows would have bid on the car to save the plate , All they had to do was whack in 5k and they would own the car and could re-negotiate the plate with max as the plate makes the car worth more money and wasnt part of the original deal !

[Gortour]

Wasn't a buy it now Richard, it went to the line.