The consumer’s issue:
“I saw this limited edition car on the internet and expressed my interest to buy it. The dealership contacted me and I arranged a date to visit the business. However, when I went there, they did not know where this car was, and instead offered me another vehicle at a higher price. It seems the business is using unrealistic offers to lure customers to their premises and bind them into a higher rate sales contract. I want them to supply me with the car that I wanted, or for them to pay me compensation equivalent to the difference in the value.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have not formed a contract of sale with this customer to supply the goods and the customer failed to put down a deposit for the purchase of this car.
- Another of our customers expressed an interest in that car and paid the deposit. The vehicle was sold to them at the price advertised, so the sale of the limited edition was not a means to lure customers to our business and coerce them into entering a higher rate contract.
- We have tried to source a replacement car for this customer, but without success.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the case, and as the general principles of contract law have not been satisfied, they could not force the business to supply the car.
- Furthermore, the case appeared to be built on verbal discussion, and as The Motor Ombudsman is impartial, it is not able to comment on these conversations.
- As no contract was formed, there was no breach in legal terms, and therefore a remedy could not be awarded to the customer.
- The adjudicator did investigate the claim about the tactic to lure customers to the premises, but with evidence of the sale of that vehicle at the price at which it was advertised, there was no cause to believe this contention.
- The case was therefore not upheld in the consumer’s favour, but the parties were nevertheless encouraged to see if an alternative vehicle could be found.
