From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price, >although they claim the car was damaged.

Proof of which, they could and should be required to produce to the
Court; by way of paperwork

So that your potential costs should you lose, whatever they're going to be, will need to be weighed against this

Along with the grounds, in your own mind at least, for your 99% certainty.

So that basically you're betting on a 1/99 shot.

And if your stake (costs) is less that 1/99th of your potential gain (loss of bargain)
then there seem to be no grounds for you not to proceed.


bb










bb


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:116fqkt$29akp$1@dont-email.me...

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price, >>although they claim the car was damaged.

Proof of which, they could and should be required to produce to the
Court; by way of paperwork

So that your potential costs should you lose, whatever they're going to be, will need to be weighed against this

Along with the grounds, in your own mind at least, for your 99% certainty.

So that basically you're betting on a 1/99 shot.

And if your stake (costs) is less that 1/99th of your potential gain (loss of
bargain)
then there seem to be no grounds for you not to proceed.

Correction: If you truly believe this is a 1/99 shot and you are correct in that assumption, then your costs need only be less that u4,950 for it work out in the long term.


bb


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 23/08/2026 23:15, billy bookcase wrote:

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:116fqkt$29akp$1@dont-email.me...

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price, >>> although they claim the car was damaged.

Proof of which, they could and should be required to produce to the
Court; by way of paperwork

So that your potential costs should you lose, whatever they're going to be, >> will need to be weighed against this

Along with the grounds, in your own mind at least, for your 99% certainty. >>
So that basically you're betting on a 1/99 shot.

And if your stake (costs) is less that 1/99th of your potential gain (loss of
bargain)
then there seem to be no grounds for you not to proceed.

Correction: If you truly believe this is a 1/99 shot and you are correct in that assumption, then your costs need only be less that +U4,950 for it work out
in the long term.

The court fees are not all that high, especially if I scale my claim
back to below -u3k say. The problem I am trying to work out is whether
the court would say that I had successfully mitigated the whole claim,
and award me nothing at all.

bb

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:116h6h9$2ohu3$1@dont-email.me...

On 23/08/2026 23:15, billy bookcase wrote:

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message
news:116fqkt$29akp$1@dont-email.me...

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price, >>>> although they claim the car was damaged.

Proof of which, they could and should be required to produce to the
Court; by way of paperwork

So that your potential costs should you lose, whatever they're going to be, >>> will need to be weighed against this

Along with the grounds, in your own mind at least, for your 99% certainty. >>>
So that basically you're betting on a 1/99 shot.

And if your stake (costs) is less that 1/99th of your potential gain (loss >>> of
bargain)
then there seem to be no grounds for you not to proceed.

Correction: If you truly believe this is a 1/99 shot and you are correct in >> that assumption, then your costs need only be less that L4,950 for it work >> out
in the long term.

The court fees are not all that high, especially if I scale my claim back to below u3k say. The problem I am trying to work out is whether the court would say that I had successfully mitigated the whole claim, and award me nothing at
all.

You didn't mitigate anything at all.

You can produce a contract to buy a specific red model at a
certain price,

They broke that contract

Given you needed a car, then that left you with no realistic
alternative but to make a distess purchase of a less than ideal
alternative

If you weren't to walk, or use public transport

IOW you were left with no choice.

So that ideally you would wish to buy the red car at the original
price

While trading in the white car, at minimal loss to yourself

Although in addition this loss could be said to represent
*a consequential loss* directly resulting from your loss
of bargain. As you were left with no real choice

So this also should maybe be factored in.

Unless this dealer is willing to buy it back himself

As you probably already know, on claims under u10,000
there is still a duty of disclosure incumbent on both
parties, to exchange any documents which will be used in the case

Which as you probably have already worked out for yourself
in your case would be the original contract and any
communication from them,asking you to pay the extra u5000
These must be forwarded to their solicitors as early as
possible, just to be on the safe side

While on their part they must send you documentary proof
of some kind in relation to the damage; leaving you enough
time to check its veracity.



bb




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:116h6h9$2ohu3$1@dont-email.me...

On 23/08/2026 23:15, billy bookcase wrote:

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message
news:116fqkt$29akp$1@dont-email.me...

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price, >>>> although they claim the car was damaged.

Proof of which, they could and should be required to produce to the
Court; by way of paperwork

So that your potential costs should you lose, whatever they're going to be, >>> will need to be weighed against this

Along with the grounds, in your own mind at least, for your 99% certainty. >>>
So that basically you're betting on a 1/99 shot.

And if your stake (costs) is less that 1/99th of your potential gain (loss >>> of
bargain)
then there seem to be no grounds for you not to proceed.

Correction: If you truly believe this is a 1/99 shot and you are correct in >> that assumption, then your costs need only be less that L4,950 for it work >> out
in the long term.

The court fees are not all that high, especially if I scale my claim back to below u3k say. The problem I am trying to work out is whether the court would
say that I had successfully mitigated the whole claim, and award me nothing at
all.

Apologies.

Having finally got round to properly reading your post

The dealer wanted an extra u8000 to fulfil his side of the contract
while the white one cost you u700 less

To put you in position you would have been in by respraying the car will
cost you u10,000 (witn an estimate as proof)

I'd be tempted to go for u9,300 myself.

Anyway the real experts may finally getting out of bed shortly. It seems they often have a lay -in on Mondays.


bb
.

bb

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 24 Aug 2026 at 14:16:17 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:116h6h9$2ohu3$1@dont-email.me...

On 23/08/2026 23:15, billy bookcase wrote:

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message
news:116fqkt$29akp$1@dont-email.me...

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price, >>>>> although they claim the car was damaged.

Proof of which, they could and should be required to produce to the
Court; by way of paperwork

So that your potential costs should you lose, whatever they're going to be,
will need to be weighed against this

Along with the grounds, in your own mind at least, for your 99% certainty. >>>>
So that basically you're betting on a 1/99 shot.

And if your stake (costs) is less that 1/99th of your potential gain (loss >>>> of
bargain)
then there seem to be no grounds for you not to proceed.

Correction: If you truly believe this is a 1/99 shot and you are correct in >>> that assumption, then your costs need only be less that L4,950 for it work >>> out
in the long term.

The court fees are not all that high, especially if I scale my claim back to >> below -o3k say. The problem I am trying to work out is whether the court would
say that I had successfully mitigated the whole claim, and award me nothing at
all.

Apologies.

Having finally got round to properly reading your post

The dealer wanted an extra -o8000 to fulfil his side of the contract
while the white one cost you -o700 less

To put you in position you would have been in by respraying the car will
cost you -o10,000 (witn an estimate as proof)

I'd be tempted to go for -o9,300 myself.

Anyway the real experts may finally getting out of bed shortly. It seems they often have a lay -in on Mondays.

Presumably in this group you mean the real experts on Usenet moderation?
--

Roger Hayter
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8066140975.1f263114@uninhabited.net...

On 24 Aug 2026 at 14:16:17 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:116h6h9$2ohu3$1@dont-email.me...

On 23/08/2026 23:15, billy bookcase wrote:

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message
news:116fqkt$29akp$1@dont-email.me...

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price,
although they claim the car was damaged.

Proof of which, they could and should be required to produce to the
Court; by way of paperwork

So that your potential costs should you lose, whatever they're going to >>>>> be,
will need to be weighed against this

Along with the grounds, in your own mind at least, for your 99% certainty.

So that basically you're betting on a 1/99 shot.

And if your stake (costs) is less that 1/99th of your potential gain (loss
of
bargain)
then there seem to be no grounds for you not to proceed.

Correction: If you truly believe this is a 1/99 shot and you are correct in
that assumption, then your costs need only be less that L4,950 for it work >>>> out
in the long term.

The court fees are not all that high, especially if I scale my claim back to
below G3k say. The problem I am trying to work out is whether the court >>> would
say that I had successfully mitigated the whole claim, and award me nothing
at
all.

Apologies.

Having finally got round to properly reading your post

The dealer wanted an extra G8000 to fulfil his side of the contract
while the white one cost you G700 less

To put you in position you would have been in by respraying the car will
cost you G10,000 (witn an estimate as proof)

I'd be tempted to go for G9,300 myself.

Anyway the real experts may finally getting out of bed shortly. It seems they
often have a lay -in on Mondays.

Presumably in this group you mean the real experts on Usenet moderation?

Er no. Whatever makes you think that ?

I was merely reflecting on the fact that certain posters are notable by their absence
on ULM


bb



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 24 Aug 2026 14:11:01 GMT
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 24 Aug 2026 at 14:16:17 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:116h6h9$2ohu3$1@dont-email.me...

On 23/08/2026 23:15, billy bookcase wrote:

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message
news:116fqkt$29akp$1@dont-email.me...

"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:116eqh0$1u7fs$1@dont-email.me...

. I am 99% sure they sold the car to a different buyer at a higher price,
although they claim the car was damaged.

[]

Anyway the real experts may finally getting out of bed shortly. It seems they
often have a lay -in on Mondays.

Presumably in this group you mean the real experts on Usenet moderation?

Not a lot of On Topic is there?

--

Roger Hayter

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:116jqgn$3l30c$1@dont-email.me...

Yes, you may be right that in practice the cost of trading my current car in for a red one may be around the u2-5k mark. You'd expect the dealer to have made that point, but they have said remarkably little. Perhaps, they think the
Ombudsman has their back, anyway.

While my previous posts on this topic may indeed have consisted largely
of largely irrelevant and hastily assembled verbiage, there are still one
or two points of interest IMO.

If the car was damaged then there should be documantary confimation
of this, if only by way of emails. Cars simplt can't dissapear off the
face of the earth without trace, even prior to registration; without
leaving a paper trail of some kind, unless they end up in a dodgy crusher.

While in the absence of any such paperwork, presumbly it could possibly
be fabricated sufficent so as to fool the more gullible at least.

I'm just wonderoing why you are so confident that the dealer won't
already have thought of this themseves. Which if they really are as
dodgy as you suppose, they surely would have done.

There is a case that mirrors mine quite closely.

Not really, with all due respect.

The choice of the extra depth could be considered relatively
frivolous; as was proven by the plaintiff's assertion that
he considered " it was irrelevant whether he chose to use
the damages for the re-building work."

Whereas the choice of red car over any other is possibly not.

The purchase of a red car could have possibly fulfilled a
lifetime's ambition. And posibly one never to be repeated.

Had only colour pohotography been available 60 or more
years ago, a creased photo of a tot in bright red pedal
car might have been of invaluable assistance, in this
regard

There is extensive literature linking colour pretences to
personality types. Which could also be linked to the above.
And unlike say, with swimming pool depths

That failure to purchase the red car could be an ongoing
cause of family friction. "You're never going to let that one
go, are you ?

Whereas as you've inadvertently realised many people buy white
cars as status symbols. Of the fact that either they spend
all their time driving back and from a car wash, or have their
assistant do it, or have two white cars; the other one being
in the car wash,

The PX seems the best option IMO FWIW; providing you're happy
with a second-hand car. Some people evidently aren't.

But that's assuming the dealer wasn't already running off the dodgy
paperwork, at the very same time they were telling you that the car
was damaged



bb

Ruxley Electronics & Constructions Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344

Ruxley agreed to build a swimming pool at Forsyth's home. The contract specified the depth of the pool was to be seven feet and six inches. Ruxley completed the pool to a depth of six feet and nine inches. Forsyth brought an action for breach of contract, claiming the cost of rebuilding the pool to the
specified depth.

Ruxley argued the pool was still safe for diving despite the breach and Forsyth had not, therefore, suffered any damage in terms of a loss to the value of his home. Given the cost of re-building the pool was u21,560, it would be wholly unreasonable and disproportionate to the loss Forsyth had suffered in not having the pool at his desired depth. He further contended that Forsyth had no actual intention of having the re-building work conducted and, therefore, he had not suffered any loss. Forsyth argued that Ruxley had failed to perform his specific obligations under the contract and he should, therefore, be entitled to damages which would place him in the position he would have been in had the obligations been appropriately performed. He asserted it was irrelevant whether he chose to use the damages for the re-building work.

Decision/Outcome
Forsyth could not recover the cost of re-building because this would be totally out of proportion to the loss he had suffered. He could recover u2,500
for loss of amenity but the law must cater for cases where full performance of
the promise would vastly exceed the loss which had truly been suffered. The pool was, in fact, worth no less because of the breach but to award nothing would render the contractual promise illusory, and so a nominal award was appropriate.

Theo

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2