Black Horse

[missey123]

I bought a car, when I came to sell it, potential buyers checked me and it showed up a HPI with Black Horse which I never took out with Black Horse, I bought the car with my own money, no idea how Black Horse got my details from - where do I stand with this if I want to complain and who to??

[erimus1]

You lot arging about black letter law. As someone that has spent years studying Contract, Consumer, Tort law, and more importantly to this question 'The Law of Equity and Trusts', I think that you will find that your remedy is in equity (fairness) - "equity shall prevail over all else".

Too complicated to go into and I have already mentioned a few points in other questions today, that could well be valid to this question.

1) 'Bone fide purchaser for value without notice' - check it out - if they are then they will gain legal title.

2) Maxims in equity - check out this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity

Don't know why you're arguing - one of you is just guessing, and the other is just making quasi eduaceted guesses after reading a few pages on the net. I've studied law for 6 years in all, and still I feel like I am answering this question without propper referencing.

Regards,
Steve

[Oneeyedvic]

"Don't know why you're arguing - one of you is just guessing, and the other is just making quasi eduaceted [sic] guesses after reading a few pages on the net."

As stated in my previous answers, I have no law experience - just finance industry experience dealing with Hire Purchase agreements (amongst other things). Hence I am neither 'guessing' nor 'taking quasi educated guesses' and take great offense at you suggesting otherwise.

As to your answer - what exactly is it? missey has asked what to do? Have I misread your answer, or is her best bet to look at wikipedia?

[gammaray]

Vic. You can't leave it alone can you, you won't accept that your wrong even when your told it by a Lawyer! You naughty little Quasi educated guesser!

[Oneeyedvic]

"you won't accept that your wrong even when your told it by a Lawyer!"[sic]

Firslty, there is a difference between someone who has studied law for 6 years and someone who is a lawyer (they can be one and the same, but they can also be different).

Scondly, at what point has erimus said that I was wrong?

So anyway, gammaray, how are those links to websites that agree with you going?

Here are some for you:

hants council

brent council

jersey citizens advice bureau (who mention that the HP Act does not apply there)

how about the law commssion

HPI - a slightly misleading slant on the aforemtnioned Hudson / Shogun Finance case to quote Professor Iwan Davies, who holds the Sir Julian Hodge Chair in Asset Finance Law at the University of Swansea: ""As is widely known, there is a defence of "innocent purchaser" available in law under the 1964 Hire Purchase Act. However, this may not apply where the person selling the vehicle could never have obtained good title to it - as would be the case with a thief." - but then I beleive I mentioned that previously.

Still awaiting your links to back up your argument - guess it may well be along wait ...

[erimus1]

You are quite correct Oneeyedvic, I did not say that you were wron. All that I was trying to get at was that you are probably approaching the issues from one prespective (a financial one). In actual fact, there is far more to this proble than the Consumer Credit Act or the like.

This sort of problem would be given to second year law undergraduates in a moot (mock trial) - this is because both sides will have a good argument and it will hing on the correlation between relevant black letter law and the material facts of the case.

I brought 'equity' into the matter because this is where the purchaser would almost certainly go to for a remedy. Don't know if you if anyone looked at the link that I put up in my previous response, but please do and you may understand what the underlying purpose of 'equity' actually is - it's a moralistic outlook into matters but is enforceable, although it is considered as completely seperate to a 'legal' remedy'.

I apologise if I upset anyone in my deliberations(it is not intentional). I am additionally fascinated by the responses that I see. Be carefull to source internet in your answers - in law, much of this would be unacceptable as evidence.

Well noted also about me not being a lawyer (such an americanised term!) - quite correctly, I am not. Although my forte is criminal law, there is no money in it in this country, so I run my own business (nothing to do with law)

I like to assist if I can, but will never comment on something that I know nothing or very little of. If I am unsure about any point, I will express this in my answer.

Kind regards,
Steve

[paddy_36]

erimus1 - you are striving for credibility with your answers, but you can't spell careful, proper or separate correctly. How is anyone supposed to take seriously the argument of someone who can't even spell properly?

And what kind of authority does wikipedia have? No-one in their right mind is going to consult wikipedia on any kind of legal matter.

[erimus1]

Paddy_36 - your point is?? - I'm not the best in the whole world at spelling, although I think that my erros may well have been due to my typing more than anything. As far as authority is concerned - I think you will find that I have already noted the dangers in referencing authority from the net. I could quite easily have quoted from a number of equity books, but as this was for an introduction into the 'maxims of equity', I though that this would suffice. Obviously I checked that they were all correct before I gave the link - maybe you could double check them for me, or better still direct me to a mor reputable site - Sefton Bloxham, an ex senior lecturer of mine in Lancaster University has agood online blogg if you require any additional information with a little more credability.

PS sorry about the spelling, but I make no apologese for good law!
Regards,
Steve

[paddy_36]

My point is that you and one of your sources have no credibility. Is that so difficult to work out?

I deliberately ignored the spelling mistakes that were clearly typos. That excuse can't be used for everything you spelled incorrectly. If you take no care over your spelling, how are we to believe that you know the law accurately?

[gammaray]

I'm not sure now what is is i'm supposed to be backing up? One of your own links has pointed out that a stolen vehicle is always returned to it's original owner. For everything else Vic I accept your word!

[Oneeyedvic]

A car that is stolen is returned to the rightful owner - yes totally agree and have done all the time!

But how many times - a car sold on HP is not Stolen - can't you get that it to your thick head?

[gammaray]

No need to be rude Vic!

If a car is stolen and then sold on HP it's still a stolen car! Simply selling something on HP doesn't erase the fact that it's stolen property! One thing doesn't cancel out the other. That's all I'm saying. No web site on the planet will tell you that you can steal something and then sell it on HP to avoid prosecution.... Perhaps that's where I'm going wrong Vic, you not from this planet are you!!

[Hammer]

You know what, I think I know where the confusion is here.

Vic, you assume that the previous owner had the HP agreement but sold it on to missey123 anyway (that�s how I read the question too). Therefore your �innocent purchaser� stuff possibly applies, depending on the exact circumstances.

Gammaray, you assume that missey123 bought a (previously stolen) car on HP from a dealer, in which case you misread the question and answered something completely different.

Am I right???

[Oneeyedvic]

Correct on my part

[gammaray]

Yes...and no. I was extrapolating an idea based on the original question. In any event I think missey123 has probably had a gut full of me and Vic arguing!