How annoying! I guess it is too late for this car but given that you may find yourself in a similar position again, may I provide you with some legal advice. Under contract law, an offeror may revoke (withdraw) an offer at any stage prior to its acceptance. Once it is accepted, the offer cannot be revoked. Here the offeror, the seller of the Mini K, was bound by the contract once you accepted the offer. According to your information, it would appear that your inspecting the car, negotiating with the seller and paying your $1000.00 constituted your acceptance of the seller's offer. Further, the seller then affirmed the contract by arranging the RWC as agreed and contacting you to advise that the vehicle was ready. Lack of any written terms does not entitle the seller to 'do what they want'. There is no obligation for any contract to be in writing (unless it concerns land) although I would recommend that written confirmation of any contract setting out clearly the obligations of each party is wise (evidence rather than just each person's verbal account).
When you attended to collect the car, you would have been entitled to insist on completion of the contract (the car/RWC in exchange for the balance of the purchase money). If the seller refused you could have taken action through Small Claims at the Victorian Civil & Admin Tribunal (VCAT). I gather that the seller was a private individual so the contract would not come within the Victorian Fair Trading Act. However, since you accepted the return of your deposit, you have suffered no financial loss just obvious (and apparently serious) emotional disappointment. Hope that this information has you well informed for the next time. Good Luck.

_________________
Never Before Has So Much Been Done By So Few!

Pink mini dont wanna sound like a dick but if you read beyound the introduction to business law chapter you'll quickly discover that

a) Yes a simple verbal contract is binding - but with no witnesses its very dificult to prove that it existed and courts tend to allow both parties an easy way out in those cases, especialy where neither side has suffered any financial loss because they relied on the contract
b) The courts regularly take a dim view of those deposit payments allowing both parties to rescind on the contract.
c) The commonwealth and subsequently all the states statutes place a cooling off period in most contracts for the sale of motor vehicles again allowing both parties to rescind.

d) for a more accurate definition of an "offer" and "offeror" see the landmark "Booths Chemist" case, which established the difference between an "offer" and an "invitation to trade" - so simply advertising the car for sale is probably not an offer and does not bind the seller to completion.

Wow I sound like a condescending text book.

Oh and what I'm saying is that obviously TimB is being screwed here, but I think its clear to most people that he really has no way to fight this (apart from burning that dudes house maybe).

Hi.. Its Pink_Mini again. I wrote my last piece in the hope that some clarification and understanding on matters of law would prevent "burning that dudes house"! I despair!. What do they say about a little knowledge?

Dear Mike,

My comments specifically related to Contract law and in relation to your points I make the following responses:
a) I believe that this was covered in my comment that it is wise to get things in writing - terms clearly set out. Otherwise it is only verbal accounts for evidence and it will come down to who makes the most credible witness.
b) With respect to your comment Courts 'regularly take a dim view' of deposits - give me an example? What are your authorities? (given that you state 'regularly' there must be quite a number). A deposit is viewed as consideration - a benefit flowing to the offeror and a detriment suffered by the offeree (here TimB). Offer, acceptance and consideration constitute a contract.
c) Cooling off periods apply to purchasers not sellers.
d) the 'land mark' case you refer to for your information is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401 commonly called 'Boots' not 'Booths' Chemist as you have written. This case dealt with the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat not 'trade' also as you have written. However in TimB's case the issues are beyond this preliminary point as evidenced by his attendance, inspection, negotiation and payment of deposit and the seller's subsequent contact re collection.

On the contrary, you do not sound like a condescending textbook but someone with an interest in law - maybe you should take it further.

On your final point, given that TimB has apparently suffered no financial loss (as he accepted the return of his deposit thereby bringing the contract to an end) there is not much that he can do. Most of these things are a matter of economics - how far will you go over a matter worth $5,000? However if the car was highly sought after or was just what you needed to complete your collection then you may well persevere with enforcing the contract.

On your last point - suggestions that infringe criminal laws will only involve TimB in even more (and more serious) emotional trauma.

Good Luck TimB with your next acquisition - you are likely to be better informed. Thank you for the discussion Mike.

Cheers.

_________________
Never Before Has So Much Been Done By So Few!

who put the what in the where now?

Holy crap. thats got to be the longest post that has even been writen in ausmini history that did not stray from a topic into stupidity

Interesting

I love it when lawyers go Montblancs at 20 paces!!
Seriously, some free legal advice is always helpful.

_________________
One should never skimp on the zip ties.

If the money is down, it should have been a done deal.
i have been caught out as a seller but have always honoured the price. Even if i wasn't 100% happy later.

_________________
Miniworx Centre 0883741299
Sooperdooperminicooperexpertengineering
Online BMW Mini Shop

Well from my point of view, if a buyer leaves me a deposit,
then i take it as my money.

If they pull out then fark them, the money is mine and they
are not getting it back.

but thats just me.

Timb i think that is a sucky story, i freel sorry for you.

I agree, unfortunately it isnt a perfect world though
I was going to look at a mini but it sold before i got a chance to see it, i was annoyed enough about that, so my sympathies TimB. There are other cars out there though, so all is not lost.

_________________
Keep Left <--

Pink Mini we are getting off topic here but just to defend my overinflated male ego:

1) My refference to "cooling off periods" were in response to the several coments made re: sellers being entitled to keeping the deposit.
2) Simply stating the fact that offer acceptance and consideration constitute a contract is easy and might be true in theory yet again the task of proving the existence of such and the fact that what was seen as offer and acceptance and indeed consideration to TimB were indeed such in law is far more difficult. Lord Goddard's opinion in the Boots Chemist case is an example as here you are stating in your first post that the seller has made an offer where in fact there was no offer on their part. but simply an invitation to treat.
3) Invitation to treat is indeed the common name but it is also often reffered to as invitation to deal and indeed invitation to trade. What proof is there here of an acceptance by the seller?