How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Alice H Your Own Question
Alice H
Alice H, Solicitor/Partner
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 2850
Experience:  Partner in national law firm
Type Your Law Question Here...
Alice H is online now

We have an ongoing incident with a motorhome we sold over year

This answer was rated:

We have an ongoing incident with a motorhome we sold over year ago, you may no the story as we were on this site a year ago.the case got thrown out of before it reached court in our favour,but this week it has come back to haunt us,apparently the person that tried to take us to court has got new evidence what will happen next.?
My name is ***** ***** I'm happy to help with your question today.
Could you clarify what the new evidence is please?
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Photos they have managed to get off the owners we purchased it off
They could start fresh proceedings but cannot re-litigate the points they made in the previous claim under the doctrine of issue estoppel.
Unless the photographs are particularly compelling you could apply to dismiss the claim.
Unfortuntaely it's difficult for me to go into any more detail with further information - your previous question is no longer accessible.
But it does sound like the other party is clutching at straws here.
Happy to discuss further but I will need more specific information from you.
Alice H and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
What do you mean by doctrine of??
It's legal principle that a person cannot sue in fresh proceedings and argue the same points over again.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Basicallt they said we have been lying about the motorhome condition ,they say we have sold them a damp one and we knew it was.... That's why they got in contact with the owners we purchased it off and managed to get photos of it before it had work done to it.
They should have raised that point in the last proceedings. It sounds like you have an argument to have any fresh claim dismissed.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
So how do we go about what to do to prevent it going to court again. They have told the previous owners that they stopped the case going to court because they managed to get this evidence,but my solicitor told us that the judge threw the case out, and do they inform the previous owners when they are needed to give evidence or does the court inform them baring in mind they have no one representing them they have represented themselves.
You should tell them in a letter that you will apply to have their claim set aside because they have already litigated the issue and lost. You should also make it clear that if they do commence proceedings and are unsuccessful you will apply for your all your costs incurred in defending the claim on the basis that they have aced unreasonably. Apart from putting them on notice of your intention there is nothing else you can do unless and until they actually start a claim.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
But they have got a better chance of winning this case has they have "evidence" now?
You haven't explained what the relevance of the photographs is or why this makes any difference to the claim
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
When we sold the van two of the wall boards were a diff colour because we had some cosmetic work done but did not tell the new owners, wfter a few days they discovered the van was rotten and neede a lot more money spending on it,so rang us to ask for money back hence the court case....we knew it was damp but not to the extent it was.
Did you know there was damp and did you disclose that at the time of sale?
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
We knew it was slightly damp but not to the extent it turned out to be.... So no we didn't disclose it.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
It is a 16 year old van but you couldn't smell damp and 9 out of 10 are usually damp these days that's why people check them with damp meters before they purchase,but these people didn't.
OK understood.
This was a private sale and as such the Sale of Goods Act 1979 does not apply.
Goods are sold as seen and the term "buyer beware" applies. It is the buyers job to check the goods before purchase and satisfy themselves that it meets their expectation.
The only real exception to this is if there was misrepresentation by you as to the quality of the van. If you downplayed the damp or knowingly did not disclose it then the buyer could have a claim for breach of contract.
If there was no misrepresentation then the buyer really has no claim against you.