![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glenatronWe went to Court today to try and resolve the car we bought earlier in the year that turned out to be rusted beyond repair. The previous owners of the car, who were nice people but grew very emotional when we suggested the vehicle they sold us was less than perfect and we wanted to swap it back for the money we had given them. The whole thing came to the point where we found ourselves at Oxford County Court waiting on a Judge to make a call on the situation.
He went through the paperwork thoroughly and in detail and asking us and the couple who sold us the car about various points we had made and our responses to them. Then he told us to go away while he looked at the law in question and suggested we sorted out a settlement. The other couple didn't want to talk to us really but when we offered them a (very good) deal they got all agitated again about how it was a matter of principle and that we had accused them of lying. We hadn't actually done that but when we originally passed on some of our mechanic's views on the state of the car they got a bit excited and assumed we were making fundamental accusations about their honesty, integrity, parentage and right to exist and I don't think they have ever realised we weren't.
After an awkward and increasingly nervewracking twenty minutes or so we were called back into the Judge's office where he went through the evidence and legal points on which he based his decision ( which seemed to be designed as a way of ramping up the tension ) and finally gave his verdict. We had no protection in terms of the Sales Of Goods Act, which was the law we thought stood in our favour, but they had misrepresented the vehicle when they sold it to us and they should take back the car and return our money, including the costs of filing the suit in the first place. Hopefully now the story of the 4x4 vehicle and our misspent 800 quid has reached it's peak and can rumble off into the past.
It's a mixed blessing- we couldn't afford to throw away that money and we couldn't afford to fix the car, so we didn't have a lot of choice but the previous owners were fundamentally good and honest people who were just too dense to see that the law stood against them and too proud to listen to us or to discuss it.
Aside from the terror (I would put it on a level with a driving test) it was a very interesting chance to experience a corner of the legal system. The judge was very diplomatic, thorough and fair in his treatment of the case- just as you would hope a judge would be - and Lou was absolutely magnificent; considering that of everyone I have ever met she is the most shy in front of an audience of any kind she was calm, clear and very competent, ready to respond to their claims and with all the relevant documents at her fingertips when they were needed. We had expected me to have to do much of the talking but in the end I hardly spoke the whole way through.
Happy Summer Solstice everyone!
He went through the paperwork thoroughly and in detail and asking us and the couple who sold us the car about various points we had made and our responses to them. Then he told us to go away while he looked at the law in question and suggested we sorted out a settlement. The other couple didn't want to talk to us really but when we offered them a (very good) deal they got all agitated again about how it was a matter of principle and that we had accused them of lying. We hadn't actually done that but when we originally passed on some of our mechanic's views on the state of the car they got a bit excited and assumed we were making fundamental accusations about their honesty, integrity, parentage and right to exist and I don't think they have ever realised we weren't.
After an awkward and increasingly nervewracking twenty minutes or so we were called back into the Judge's office where he went through the evidence and legal points on which he based his decision ( which seemed to be designed as a way of ramping up the tension ) and finally gave his verdict. We had no protection in terms of the Sales Of Goods Act, which was the law we thought stood in our favour, but they had misrepresented the vehicle when they sold it to us and they should take back the car and return our money, including the costs of filing the suit in the first place. Hopefully now the story of the 4x4 vehicle and our misspent 800 quid has reached it's peak and can rumble off into the past.
It's a mixed blessing- we couldn't afford to throw away that money and we couldn't afford to fix the car, so we didn't have a lot of choice but the previous owners were fundamentally good and honest people who were just too dense to see that the law stood against them and too proud to listen to us or to discuss it.
Aside from the terror (I would put it on a level with a driving test) it was a very interesting chance to experience a corner of the legal system. The judge was very diplomatic, thorough and fair in his treatment of the case- just as you would hope a judge would be - and Lou was absolutely magnificent; considering that of everyone I have ever met she is the most shy in front of an audience of any kind she was calm, clear and very competent, ready to respond to their claims and with all the relevant documents at her fingertips when they were needed. We had expected me to have to do much of the talking but in the end I hardly spoke the whole way through.
Happy Summer Solstice everyone!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 21 Jun 2005 15:38 (UTC)no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2005 03:43 (UTC)no subject
Date: 22 Jun 2005 05:37 (UTC)