Deposit

[Fr J Hackett]

Hans Christian Andersen is waiting for his membership of YBW to be approved so he can post on this thread.

Bit Grimm.

Shouldn't you be at Cheltenham donating money to the Bookmakers benevolent fund?

 

[Irish Rover]

Bit Grimm.

Shouldn't you be at Cheltenham donating money to the Bookmakers benevolent fund?

I should indeed. As I posted on another thread yesterday, I've watched every race over the last 3 days and I haven't had a single bet. I would have lost my bo---x on Wednesday when El Fabiolo was pulled up if I had been punting.

 

[ari]

That's the problem with these scams and Facebook Marketplace seems rife with them. The police won't be interested, the banks won't be interested, so very little chance of getting your money back and people might just write it off.

Exactly. And £500 isn't enough for anyone to get too excited over. But of course if you get enough people to send you £500 deposits for a boat (or car or anything else) that you don't own... Happy days for the scammer.

 

[Tranona]

We know that A boat existed and that the person on the phone claimed to own it, that's all.

The buyer only spoke to him on the phone and never met him or saw the boat. He claims that he 'rang Hartlepool docks to check it was genuine' but there's no way they would have given out the owner's personal information so that seems unlikely. At best they might have confirmed that 'yes we have a boat called Searider 1 (or whatever) here'.

So it might have been a genuine owner, but we don't know that, and nor does the OP.

I would suggest that it is far more likely to be a scammer who's seen a boat called Searider 1 (or whatever) for sale in Hartlepool Docks on one website, taken the details and photos, listed it on another website for a bargain price and is harvesting deposits from gullible would-be buyers who think they're getting a bargain, as long as they're quick ('Lot of interest, but give me a £500 deposit and it's all yours mate'). It's a very common scam.

You can, of course, argue that I'm surmising, but no more so than 'we know the seller owned the boat'.

Hence my earlier qualification "if it is true"

Bloke comes on here asking for advice and explains his problem. One has to take it at face value and advise/comment accordingly. It can be answered in one response plus maybe asking for clarification or additional information to confirm or improve the advice.

Instead because people don't like simplicity we get nearly 200 largely irrelevant posts as imaginations run riot. Your post is in this vein and your last sentence is not correct - we "know" because the OP told us, so in the context of the advice it is "true".

However, as explained in post#189 it does not matter whether it turns out not to be true, the advice is still the same. A contract is in place and there has been a breach. It may turn out that other offences come to light as he attempts to get his money back, but again all guesswork.

 

[Seastoke]

It all seems bollkkkks , if a boat is a £1000 you would not send a deposit you would go and see it then buy it or walk away surely.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

It all seems bollkkkks , if a boat is a £1000 you would not send a deposit you would go and see it then buy it or walk away surely.

Depends on where the buyer is in relation to the boat and how much he believes there is someone else just about to snatch it from under his nose.

 

[Seastoke]

Depends on where the buyer is in relation to the boat and how much he believes there is someone else just about to snatch it from under his nose.

Well fag packet would you send half the cost of your boat as a deposit without seeing it.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Well fag packet would you send half the cost of your boat as a deposit without seeing it.

Who knows what some half brained Stoke supporter might do, I wouldn't though and we don't know the price of the boat it might have been £5K

 

[ari]

It all seems bollkkkks , if a boat is a £1000 you would not send a deposit you would go and see it then buy it or walk away surely.

Are we inventing values for the boat now, too?

You'd be amazed what people will do if they think they're going to get a bargain. Hence my feeling that it's a (very common) stolen boat details put up at a bargain price - 'get your deposit down to secure or I'll sell it to the next guy' - scam.

 

[ari]

Instead because people don't like simplicity we get nearly 200 largely irrelevant posts as imaginations run riot. Your post is in this vein and your last sentence is not correct - we "know" because the OP told us, so in the context of the advice it is "true".

Incorrect I'm afraid, we do not know that it's true, and common sense would suggest that it almost certainly isn't true. All we do know is that the OP believes it's true. And that is a VERY different thing.

 

[Seastoke]

Are we inventing values for the boat now, too?

You'd be amazed what people will do if they think they're going to get a bargain. Hence my feeling that it's a (very common) stolen boat details put up at a bargain price - 'get your deposit down to secure or I'll sell it to the next guy' - scam.

Sorry Ari I sent mashi a pm and he told me , I would post it but that is what a pm is.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Sorry Ari I sent mashi a pm and he told me , I would post it but that is what a pm is.

So what's the news has he got the £500 back?

 

[ari]

Sorry Ari I sent mashi a pm and he told me , I would post it but that is what a pm is.

Ah, then you have insider info and I bow to your greater knowledge!

I'd be curious to know how he knows for sure (as mentioned, people tend to believe what suits them), but as you say, a PM is a PM.

 

[Seastoke]

Ah, then you have insider info and I bow to your greater knowledge!

I'd be curious to know how he knows for sure (as mentioned, people tend to believe what suits them), but as you say, a PM is a PM.

You could pm him.

 

[LBRodders]

some half brained Stoke supporter

Very generous of you

 

[Tranona]

Incorrect I'm afraid, we do not know that it's true, and common sense would suggest that it almost certainly isn't true. All we do know is that the OP believes it's true. And that is a VERY different thing.

That is why it is in inverted commas. The only source of information is the OP and the response is to the OP. Does not matter what we think or what common sense (who's?) might tell us. Afraid it is you and others making assumptions to fit your view.

You do not need to know anything about Facebook Market Place, things that might or might not go on there. There is nothing unusual about disputes of this nature - there was a real life one on the PBO forum a couple of weeks ago where there was a dispute over breach and return of deposit.

All you need to do is look at the information provided and determine whether there is evidence of a contract using the normal tests then whether there has been a breach. As I wrote earlier this is just the sort of test we set first year students. no contextual knowledge or experience is needed and as we have seen here once folks start to bring this in it drifts away from the clear advice you can give the OP at this point.

 

[Seastoke]

Who knows what some half brained Stoke supporter might do, I wouldn't though and we don't know the price of the boat it might have been £5K

Mr Packet the boat was. £1000 , and he may well be a Stoke fan , as there are millions all over the world, unlike the Skates who have 2. Whom one is Del Boy Rodders.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

That is why it is in inverted commas. The only source of information is the OP and the response is to the OP. Does not matter what we think or what common sense (who's?) might tell us. Afraid it is you and others making assumptions to fit your view.

You do not need to know anything about Facebook Market Place, things that might or might not go on there. There is nothing unusual about disputes of this nature - there was a real life one on the PBO forum a couple of weeks ago where there was a dispute over breach and return of deposit.

All you need to do is look at the information provided and determine whether there is evidence of a contract using the normal tests then whether there has been a breach. As I wrote earlier this is just the sort of test we set first year students. no contextual knowledge or experience is needed and as we have seen here once folks start to bring this in it drifts away from the clear advice you can give the OP at this point.

The only real advice based on what information has been given is to forget it and put it down to one of life's hard lessons. As for persuing a disputed contract in the SCC from the information given he would lose and lose a further £81.

 

[Seastoke]

Take a mate and give him a visit, no need to pis about small claims.

 

[Greg2]

Is this thread ever going to end?!