Ekona

As long as the belts are done up correctly (i.e. very tight), I don't see an issue with that at all. The problems with setups like that is when people leave them loose for use on the road, they offer much less protection than a normal seat belt. That's the biggest risk.

He also be very unlikely to succeed, without giving fair chance to the seller to repair I think. Of course, I wouldn't trust the seller as far as I can throw him at this point. Tricky problem.

Crock of shite.

If there is, then I don't want to live any more.

Fine, let him try and fix it, but when he tells you the car needs X amount of repairs AT THAT POINT YOU MUST REJECT IT. One way or another, you're going to court at this point. If you don't want to go, then I suggest you save a few pennies and get the car fixed on your own.

Pretty sure, yes. They can refuse to take it, but realistically what are they going to do when the car is on their property and they have the keys? If they drive it without the permission of the owner they're stuffed. Once a letter of rejection has been delivered by the seller, then they've fulfilled their part of the statute: If the seller wishes to repudiate this, then they will have to do so via the courts. If the seller does something silly like drop the car back off, then at least when it goes to court the buyer can say that he did everything he reasonably could to return the goods. If he leaves them sitting outside his house, it looks a little more shaky.

You can't reject an item if you still have it, though.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/terrorismalert.asp Ahem

Can I be honest with you? This is never going to end happily for you, and you need to start being a bit more assertive matey. Even if he does fix the car, do you think it'll be actually fixed or just 'fixed'? It's going to be the latter, and then if you've paid half the cost you're taking some of the burden when then trying to get it properly fixed. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and run, and this is one of those times. Reject the car, and give it back to them. Send the letter. Start court proceedings. You have a solid case here, there is no way the result will go against you, so stand your ground. Yes it can take a while, but better that than being stuck with an utter lemon.

I feel sorry for the contractor, they're really going to get it in the neck

Yes. The right of rejection is a statutory one, which cannot be overridden by either buyer nor seller. I wouldn't even dream of going 50/50 though, and would retract that ASAP.

I get how religion was a powerful tool in the days of old, when mankind pretty much knew nothing. Now we do, I struggle with the concept that any person can have faith based on nothing more than what their parents taught them.

You don't need any more legal advice than what myself and Comrade are telling you. If you want to reject the car, then do so. Leave it with them, give them all keys, send rejection letter. It's as clear cut as it can be really, but you will have to go through court as I suspect matey boy will not roll over like he should.

It's contract law. The most boring of all law.

Well, in theory if you carried on driving it with no oil in and that caused the damage then that would be quite negligent, but we're not there yet in the slightest. Tbh, he'd be better off just giving you your money back and walking as the repair bill is going to lose him all his profit and then some.

Does make you wonder, doesn't it? I'm not entirely sure where we sit, if I'm honest. I read that last night quite late so it was a bit much to take in just before bed, but I found it very intriguing nonetheless.

Speaking of life on other planets, this is a very interesting article

He's right with regards to having his place fix it. You have to give him reasonable opportunity to solve any issues. Assuming you've not done that many miles since you picked it up and can prove that, and haven't done anything with the oil, then it should be pretty cut and dried that a car shouldn't use 4L of oil in a couple of thousand miles. I guess the actual issue could be down to an overrev or something like that, but it's far more likely to be related to lack of oil.

How? For the most part, they are complete opposites. I struggle to think of any examples where they complement each other, could you elaborate on this further? Thanks for joining in btw, I really do appreciate someone looking at this from the other side

I need to go back there too, when you're ready give us a shout and I'll see if we can tie a trip in together

Both. My driving style lends itself towards a very unsettled car, and I ran a similar setup on my 911 & MX5 as well as on the MR2. I also ran a fairly aggressive setup on my old Zed, but nowhere near what I use now. Again though, I appreciate that not everyone would find that natural to drive. As I said though, I used it on the 911 which was 99% a road car and I never had any issues at all: In fact, it brought the car to life at a time when I was struggling to gel with it. For Adrian, yes. For anyone else, maybe. What works for one, doesn't always work for everyone.

Nice vid matey, you seem to suffer a lot less from cabin noise than I do as well. Get that 2ZZ in and there's no way that 370 would be pulling away from you Nothing at all now, car is off the road and with no MOT. I still haven't traced my lack of brakes, so I'm replacing the BMC and booster this weekend to see if that makes a difference.

What did your insurance company say?

Are they any good? A system is only as good as the people using it, a bloke with a bit of string can sometimes give the best results. As for setup, that's up to you. Default factory is safe understeer, which is also boring as hell. If they're any good, you should able to explain to them what your after (sharper front end, more stable at speed, minimum tyre wear etc) and they'll know how to achieve that. There really isn't any setting as 'fast road', everyone will have their own different opinion on that. Personally I like plenty of camber up front, some toe out up front, and leave the rears pretty much standing straight. That's makes for a very twitchy car though, so isn't for everyone!

Right, let me put into words exactly how easy this is: Find venue that does ceremony & reception all in one. Use their caterer, pick meals. Pick best man. Delegate stag do. You just need to be told when to turn up. Decide on guest list. Don't think about who would be offended if they didn't get an invite, think about whether you'd give that person £50 for a meal out: Essentially, that's what you're doing. Let bride organise invites. You're not getting one, so it doesn't matter what they look like. Go to Next one Saturday with appropriate people (BM, FotG, FotB, etc). Pick a suit. Pick matching ties/cravats/bow ties (latter is only for the most awesome men). Give bride budget for dresses. Send her out one weekend to choose. ONE WEEKEND ONLY. Get local person to do cake/s. Cupcakes are easy, cheaper, and taste better. Use venue florist. Stick with simple cheap stuff: This kind of stuff really doesn't matter, so let bride choose. Choose honeymoon if you want. PROTIP: Spend more on the honeymoon than the wedding. The wedding day isn't that much fun, the honeymoon bloody well should be. Pick photographer. Get a recommendation. Decide beforehand if you want new-wave fancy or old-school traditional. Pick rings. Turn up. Get married. Never have sex again. Seriously, there's nothing to it. If you try and organise it to the nth degree then yeah, you're going to make life difficult for yourself. You're going to be spending a f*ckton of cash anyway, so let other people do the hard work.