legal question - advice - car accident

[Mik01]

No.  A panel beater estimated the damage was $1,800 and she accepted liability for this.   
It's none of her business what he does to his car and nothing to do with what he sold the car for.

She agreed to $1800 in repairs to the vehicle, which was an estimate of his loss when he owned the vehicle. Not to pay him $1800 cash.
She was willing to carry out the terms of the agreement, he sold the vehicle which could mean a termination of the agreement.
As a result, the contract is not able to be performed. Frustration by impossibility springs to mind.  Ie the performance of the contract is now impossible, or the contract is frustrated. Doesn't mean she would pay nothing, or is partly off the hook, but an interesting case and worth challenging in my opinion.

[oldmate]

She agreed to $1800 in repairs to the vehicle, which was an estimate of his loss when he owned the vehicle. Not to pay him $1800 cash.
She was willing to carry out the terms of the agreement, he sold the vehicle which could mean a termination of the agreement.
As a result, the contract is not able to be performed. Frustration by impossibility springs to mind.  Ie the performance of the contract is now impossible, or the contract is frustrated. Doesn't mean she would pay nothing, or is partly off the hook, but an interesting case and worth challenging in my opinion.

Thanks mate.. Like I said before, I give up.  It's not rocket science.   Take it to court, a judge will throw it out.

[barneys]

So you would be happy to pay for some thing that wasn't fixed?

yes I would and I have ,and I do not want to get into any argument's , if you have a older car and its damage and its a toll lose wich would not take much the insurance comp would pay you out and its up to you to what you do with the car ,and if you have dune damage to somones stuff you should pay  for it it the right thing to do

[MDS69]

Not that it matters anymore but the other driver should have accepted a payment plan from Mary, sold the car and pocketed the money which is well within his rights. Obviously the car had depreciated with the damage and the $1800 was the difference.

[kylarama]

Give the bloke his money.  She damaged his car and agreed to pay for it, what he does with it is up to him.  Give him $1500 and give the panel beater $300 for the stuffing around. 

You can get all legal about it and go a round of solicitor letter writing or mediation and maybe get out of it.  Or just pay up for your mistake.

If it only took her 6 weeks to save $1800.  Imagine how quickly she could save for 3rd party insurance and avoid any of this type of mess. 

If you can afford to buy a car you also need to be able to afford insurance.  I have little sympathy for uninsured drivers.

[prodigyrf]

No.  A panel beater estimated the damage was $1,800 and she accepted liability for this.   
It's none of her business what he does to his car and nothing to do with what he sold the car for.

jetcrew and mik01 had it right. A contract is an offer, acceptance and a consideration, verbally or in writing albeit a written contract is more easily proven but in this case the panel-beater is the corroborative witness so I doubt the owner will be able to slide out of the original contract.
Firstly hitting a stationary car legally parked you're 100% liable for the damage unless someone shunted you into it. Yes it was agreed to prepay the pb for the repairs awaiting the car to be produced for repairs and the contract completed and that would have been the end of it in the sense that the claimant and defendant had come to a mutual agreement as to compensation to return the vehicle to its previous state. Notice however that even insurers do not always do that but often write a vehicle off as too dear to repair in their estimation and only pay out market value less scrap value (indeed they will often offer the wreck to the owner at that scrap value if they so desire)
That's the rub here that once the owner reneged on the agreed contract to repair those bets were off and it now reverts to a question of the owner's economic loss under that new situation ie what lesser value did he get for the car with the extra damage and that's something he'll need to prove in any small claims court ultimately now, or else come to a new agreement. My bet is he'll be willing to settle for a lesser amount (in writing of course) rather than the hassle of small claims and on that basis I'd make a take it or leave it offer of $1000 to settle now or whistle for it. Small claims courts do not involve lawyers or lawyers costs but you should respond to a formal small claim lodgement with a formal counterclaim.  Otherwise a letter of demand only justifies a letter of reply headed 'without prejudice' with any denial or counteroffer.

[prodigyrf]

Or to put it simply the owner liked the car and hence wanted it returned to its original state for ongoing utility, not oh great here's my chance to get rid of the old banger and profit at this unfortunate woman's expense.

[Paul Mac]

A point I think has been missed here is......If Mary had been fully insured and provided her insurance details to the owner of the Commodore then it would have been up to the Insurance company to handle the claim. OK. Now the Commodore owner decides to sell the car and then attempts to get Mary's Insurance company to pay him $1,800.....yeah, I can just see Mary's insurance company doing that without the car actually being repaired.

In this case Mary is a self insurer therefore the same rules should apply.

Original agreement was not adhered to therefore unless the Commodore owner can prove a loss was incurred then Mary cannot fulfil the original agreement.

I'd be letting it go to QCAT. The advice regarding statements etc is sound.

As for saying Mary caused $1,800 damage therefore I'd be paying it regardless as to whether the other party has already sold the car is not on IMO. He must prove he incurred a loss.

Cheers.

[Patr80l]

He must prove he incurred a loss.
Cheers.

That he suffered a loss is no longer in dispute so there is no longer a burden of proof.
Both parties agreed that his car was damaged to the tune of $1800.   The panel beater gave a quote for repairs, so there is documentation that the car was damaged.   That sounds like a loss to me.
She broke it, she should pay.   It is absolutely none of her business what he does with the wreck.

[Sawed-Off]

In that case, why not have the buyer produce the car for repairs. Mary fulfills her obligation, the repairer gets paid, and Mr Smith can get stuffed.

[grafy82]

Is everyone forgetting the fact that its a 6 year old bommadore, he probably only got $2000 when he sold it 

[Oldandslow]

There are moral obligations and there are legal obligations. It is interesting to read how many people would avoid their moral obligations if they could do it legally.

[Patr80l]

There are moral obligations and there are legal obligations. It is interesting to read how many people would avoid their moral obligations if they could do it legally.

x2

[Mik01]

There are moral obligations and there are legal obligations. It is interesting to read how many people would avoid their moral obligations if they could do it legally.

Title of the thread says 'legal question'. Not moral question.

[oldmate]

There are moral obligations and there are legal obligations. It is interesting to read how many people would avoid their moral obligations if they could do it legally.

Let's look at it differently. I am john and just had my car hit by this girl, we came to an agreement, she paid the beater, in the mean time I sold the car as is, damage and all. Legally, as you say I have can get the money off the girl, but really, why does it matter to me now, car is gone, I'm not going to get it fixed, give the girl a ring and do a morally good thing and tell her to put the money towards insurance as I don't need it anymore anyway, and hope she learns a lesson. 

Each to their own though

[rotare]

Seriously, who really cares what he does with the money $1800 was agreed by both parties as a settlement. Whether the $1800 is spent repairing the car, or is spent by him buying new clothes, does it really really matter......? Why is the girl so hung up with what he does with the cash?  It's not like she's going to be out of pocket anymore or any less.

Just pay the $1800 that was originally agreed so you can move on and get back to living your life!

[MDS69]

The guy who sold the car has taken a hit no pun intended on its value through no fault  of his own. He had an asset worth x amount and sold it for y amount which is less so why shouldn't he receive the estimated  difference from the party that caused the damage in this case $1800.00

[alnjan]

There are moral obligations and there are legal obligations. It is interesting to read how many people would avoid their moral obligations if they could do it legally.

Either way she agreed to pay for the repair, vehicle has still not been repaired and now sold on, the original still gets nothing and the panel beater who was going to get paid is the one that has lost out has done the legally and morally right thing and given the money to the person it should go to.   Remember she is paying for the repair of the damage caused to the vehicle, not paying the owner of the vehicle, legally or morally.  If the original owner had of made arrangements with the buyer and the smash repair and the new owner continued with the repairs then she would still have to pay the repairs, not the owner. 

[Mik01]

The guy who sold the car has taken a hit no pun intended on its value through no fault  of his own. He had an asset worth x amount and sold it for y amount which is less so why shouldn't he receive the estimated  difference from the party that caused the damage in this case $1800.00

None of us know this.

As he sold the vehicle, he now has to prove he continues to suffer a loss caused by the damage.

What if he sold it and took off only $300 for the damage. Or $0? The law can only restore a person back to the state they were in prior to the event. You might not like it, but that's the law of equity.

So, for those of you saying he is owed the full 1800 - he is no longer owed it. He was never owed it. He was owed repairs to his vehicle. She could have found a dodgy panel beater who offered to do it for a slab.
If he didn't agree to the cheap repair, he could have sought his own quotes, and if she refused, they could go to court and argue what the actual damage was and what the actual cost was that she should pay.
She got lucky here. But as I said earlier, an hour with a solicitor will tell you your chances of fighting this. Get them to write him a letter stating your legal position as you see it.
 I reckon your chances of avoiding any payment are very good. Would love to hear the outcome.

[Jeepers Creepers]

Or, the owner of the car and the girl, could go to the casino with the $1,800 and attempt to double there money, while there, they both end up getting drunk, then get a room and have wild kinky monkey sex, fall in love, get married, have kids and live happily ever after.

There endth the lesson. 

Yeah, i know...... Who ever lives happily ever after where marriage is concerned.

[oldmate]

Lol

[RedProw]

People complain about it and it can be expensive, but this is why you should have insurance, even if it is only TPO, then you don't have to worry about this nonsense.

[Bird]

Lol

[Rumpig]

People complain about it and it can be expensive, but this is why you should have insurance, even if it is only TPO, then you don't have to worry about this nonsense.

cost me $180 for third party insurance  for my work ute (probably could have gotten cheaper if I'd shopped around), why would you not have it at that price.

[rotare]

The more I think about this, the unusual part of all this issue is actually the involvement of the panel beater.

Typically the negotiations / discussions / agreements would have been between Mary and the guy that owned the car - no-one else.  The panel beater had become involved because Mary couldn't afford to pay for the repairs so she cut a deal with the panel beater for a payment plan.  For six weeks he collects the money thinking that in the near future he's going to get an nice $1800 cash job.  At the end of the six weeks the guy that owned the car decides he wants the cash instead of having the car fixed.  My bet is that he hasn't sold the car, but probably thought by saying he had it would make the situation easier, which it hasn't.

So the interesting thing to me is what's really motivating the panel beater - morals?  I doubt it.  More likely he's bitter he collected the money over six weeks and now isn't going to see any of it so has decided if he isn't going to get any cash, neither is the guy that owns the damaged car.  He hasn't done himself out of $1800 cash either as someone suggested, because when he decided to inform Mary of the situation he wasn't going get the repair job anyway. 

Would this be any different if the guy with the damaged car said at the end of the six weeks he would like his car repaired at another panel shop (for whatever good reason)?  You reckon the guy holding the $1800 would freely hand it back?  Call me cynical.....