SergeyM

The only thing that was better in my 2002 540 Sport was the smaller and fatter steering wheel. E60's sport steering wheel is huge and not as soft, but is is heated and better looking. Fuel consumption is about the same on 550 as on the old 540, 545 was a little bit better in this regard. E39 was also more stable at higher speeds, probably due to the non-active suspension and non-RFT tires.

Dandle

I dont know if its the same thing but Whatcar voted the 5 series best executive car in the world in 04,05,06 and 07 and it was only knocked off that spot last year by the Jag XF.

Dr Dave

again im sorry mate, but you did not do your homework...all BMW E60's pull away in second gear (autos) unless you select "manual"
you should NOT have bought at a distance that is totally your fault
remember the latin..buyer beware.

340 miles is nothing compared with ????
you could have got a AA/RAC check for ?75

a deceint standard to the dealer is obviously a different standard to yours.
in court you would loose...fact. you have mitigation, but not a defence.

kadafi39

+1 Daves totally correct, caveat emptor is the basis of uk contract law, buyer beware unless you saw photos of the car that do not correspond with the car you purchased or if the dealer fraudulently lied about stuff you specifically asked him about you have no claim. Also all the stuff you described in that list of faults are conditions of the contract, not terms of the contract, you can only claim damages and repudiate the contract if the dealer breached a term of the contract, which i don't believe he has. My advice would be don't arrange anymore meetings or start proceedings against BMW as you won't win! Your lawyer obviously won't want to tell you this as he will get paid regardless of the outcome. Ask the solicitor to carry out the work on a conditional fee arrangement, i.e. if you win he gets paid.... and watch him run lol. I would reccomend you be reasonable with your dealership and talk to them without threatening legal proceedings and try and work out the problems, if you car is still under warranty.

chris f

Not sure where you guys get your information from but here are some excerpts of interest.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is the main piece of legislation helping buyers to obtain redress when their purchases go wrong. It is in the interest of anyone who sells goods or services to understand the implications of the Act for them and the responsibilities they have under it.

Essentially, the Act states that what you sell must fit its description, be fit for its purpose and be of satisfactory quality. If not, you - as the supplier - are obliged to sort out the problem.

The rights of customers: goods

If you sell your customers goods that don't conform to contract - that aren't as described, are unfit for their purpose or of unsatisfactory quality - you are legally obliged to resolve the problem if they seek redress.

The Sale of Goods Act states that if customers want to reject faulty goods, they have to do so within a "reasonable time". A legal definition of "reasonable" is not given though - it varies from case to case and could be just a few weeks from the date of purchase.

If a customer rejects faulty goods within this "reasonable" period, they're entitled to ask for their money back. All customers can claim compensation at any time if they choose. If you sell to consumers - not other traders - they can ask for a repair or a replacement immediately (instead of asking for a refund) at any time until six years after purchase.

If you're dealing with a consumer, any repair or replacement you arrange must not cause them too much inconvenience. You may have to pay for other costs such as transportation. However, if a replacement is impossible and the goods cannot be repaired economically, or vice versa, then you can offer a full or partial refund.

In law you have a responsibility to your customer for up to six years from the date of purchase (in Scotland, five years from discovery of the problem). During this period, you are legally obliged to deal with any claim of breach of contract.

Now I have given BMW 6 attempts to repair my car, still has the issue, so they have had ample opportunity.

as for quoting some Latin that was conceived more than 2000 years ago, and has no bearing on a product or service bought from a trader, maybe if I bought it down the pub for a fiver then yes.

Dr Dave

the "latin quote" was just to highlight common sence.and applys to what ever you buy, not just "down the pub"
and what have BMW not fixed? prehaps they dont think they have to/should? thats why they havnt done it. there must be a valid reason why they are taking this standpoint.

its your car, its your choice and more importantly its your money, so go for it pay a solicitor and try to go head to head with a major corp.
you will loose, but as i said, its your money.
the car seemed fit for purpose to me, baised on what you have said, yes there are problems, but you bought a used car blind, with no paperwork stating the faults or promise to fix. what do you think the judge would say about that?
the dealer has rights also.

try looking at it from his point of view and try to find some middle ground?
good luck anyway.

kadafi39

Chris my information comes from personal experience, my dad is a solicitor that owns a legal firm and i am a trainee solicitor, so as you can imagine we have been through this before, its your money, but believe me you have a very slim chance of a court making a judgement in your favour. The sale of goods act while it is applicable you have to remember you purchased the car 2nd hand, not new so you don't have the same rights, as the faults were present when you purchased the car. Had you said i will buy the car provided this is fixed etc then that would become a term of the contract and you would have a high chance of a succesful claim. But i don't think you did, so the only reason you have any chance of a claim is because you purchased from someone "acting in the course of a business", but even then you have next to no chance of getting a good outcome.

chris f

I did ask the salesman if there were any faults and he told me there were none, some of them I pointed out when collecting the car and they were sorted straight away.

The others developed after purchase and were not present at the time of sale.

The gearbox is the main issue, its still having the same problem. I have lost all faith in the reliability of the vehicle now as its gone wrong so many times.
The dealer has offered to buy the car back off of me at a trade price and then sell me another, but that is not acceptable in my opinion as its going to cost me more money.

This issue has more to it than meets the eye, and I know you guys are going on the brief description I have given, but I had a discussion with the dealer who originally told me they could swap my car and they wouldn't make any profit on the deal, this now seems to have evaporated.

z06bigbird

How and why did you buy car with obvious problems: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21? Judge Judy (ask others about her) would nail you for not checking car out prior to purchase.

You are most likely to make a case with #12 total airbag system failure. Other than that it appears that it was your responsibility to check out car, was it not? You are not a 16 year old. Even there, Judge Judy would tell the kid--life is tough.

Sorry, fellow.

z06bigbird

USA laws and regs are different, but I would venture that Caveat Emptor stands for used products. You even stated that you did not check out the car. You also stated that the vehicle should be in good shape particularly since you spent $$xx. Now if your neighbor bought a car with similar problems for 1/4th of what you paid, does your neighbor have fewer or different rights. You both have the same right AND RESPONSIBILITY to check out anything you two buy.

Man up; you screwed up.