Personally, if I was the dealership, I'd give you the option of having your deposit back, or supplying a similarly specced 2 litre model at the price agreed.

Unfortunately, at this price, the alternative car would have a substantial increase in the mileage etc, etc, but as you sound like the type of customer nobody would really want..... Tough titty.

And a final piece of pro bono advice. If the bargain seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It's a straightforward breach of contract.

You enquired about a 2.0L car. They said they had one. A price was agreed.

One delivery, and following payment, you discovered it was not a 2.0L car.

At law, they now have a duty to put you in the posision you would have been in, but for the breach of contract. I.e. they should supply a 2.0L car without you having to pay extra.

That said, you will probably find something in their Ts&Cs about mistakes.

Realistically, you probably have two options - return car and get cash back, or pay a sum to 'upgrade' to the 2.0L.

I believe FA is right when he says mispricing has to be blatently obvious before the seller is entitled to charge more or withdraw from the contract.

I would side with FA and argue breach of contact. The OP fulfilled his side of the contract but the supplier did not fulfil theirs, notwithstanding the OPs clear requirements and negotiations to that effect. With the correct level of confidence I am sure the OP could obtain a remedy. Whether that's a 2.OL car or set aside of the contract with full refund (plus I would argue inconvenience costs).

Take a copy and if its a sizeable dealership go in and rant when they are full of customers and say to the other customers "I wouldn't buy anything here because....." You'd be surprised how that can hone minds.

To be honest, whenever I've seen a scene like that, I always tend to side with the shopkeeper/salesman and tend to think the person ranting is just a big-mouthed cock, who also happens to have been a bit dim that they have resorted to making a scene in a public place.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to buy from there, especially if the salesman has handled the situation with the ranting imbecile, in a mature and admirable way.

No, you are thinking about the wrong thing. We need to decide whether it should have been obvious to a would-be purchaser that there must have been a mistake for the reason that a 2.0 could never reasonably be for sale at that price. And it doesn't seem we have that situation here.

My friend, a solicitor, does it with great success!

... but you get those back if you win

Not at all, the small claims track is specifically designed to discourage legal representation, and even if you turn up with a lawyer, he or she may find the judge gives them short shrift and just takes the case over.

But there isn't "a car" that exists which could "be awarded". By the date of any hearing the dealers will probably have turned over their stock many times. There's no chance that they would somehow "keep" the more expensive model and see what happens!

I actually think it is a case where specific performance could actually be the best remedy. The judgment would be I think that the defendants do provide the claimant with a 2.0L model within the spec at the contract price or alternatively pay him compo based on their own calculation of the loss: it is THEY who have conveniently taken a position that a 2.0L equivalent bought from them costs £X. If that is the case, and if the OP is happy to accept their assessment, then the value of his loss is simply the difference. That is based on the likelihood that being such a big dealership they would very likely have, or be able to easily get, another of the model he wanted.

If the OP did actually mitigate his loss as you say, then wouldn't he have achieved something which the dealer says is impossible, i.e. buying a 2.0L equivalent at a lower price than that quoted? It would make them look even more stupid.

By emphasising your friend is a solicitor, you seem to assume that a solicitor can't be a cock?

...and if you don't win you don't get it back. It's a risk.




Yes specific performance would be the [ibest[/i remedy for the Claimant. Very unlikely however.

The OP is hardly going to wait around 6 months in case the highly unlikely event occurs that 1) Judgment is entered for him and 2) Specific performance is ordered. He will just go out and buy another car and his claim will be for damages.



He has a duty to mitigate his loss as you well know. Whether it makes people look stupid is irrelevant.