Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Test ride agreement

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Fitty, Jan 18, 2011.

  1. I knocked this up today in preparation for someone to take a test ride. Obviously, getting a pile of cash as security is preferable, and if the test rider hasn't got two cents to rub together, you're up the creek. But, this is a bit of added security.

    Amending it to suit you is pretty simple, and you can add/subtract whichever clauses you want as appropriate for your situation. Just remember to have an independent adult (over 18) sign as a witness - and remember, witnesses have to actually witness the signature (or be prepared to lie in court one day).

    Also, I'd recommend informing your insurer before letting anyone take a test ride.

    This is just an example of the agreement I used. If you use it and it's unenforceable for whatever reason, don't look to me.


    I, [test rider's full name]
    of [test rider's residential address]
    [test rider's occupation]
    [test rider's licence number]
    on [date]:

    1. acknowledge that the [year] [make] [model] motorcycle, registration [rego] ("the motorcycle") is not comprehensively insured. ***delete if not required***
    2. I acknowledge that if, while using or controlling the motorcycle I crash or otherwise damage the motorcycle or damage the property of a third party I will:
    a. pay the sum of [asking price] to [your full name] of [your residential address] ("[your first name]"), in the State of [state] within seven (7) days of the date of this agreement;
    b. pay any insurance excess costs within seven (7) days of notification in writing by the policy holder; and
    c. be wholly responsible for, and indemnify [your first name] against, the payment of any other costs or damages arising from my use of the motorcycle of whatsoever nature and kind.

    SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED ) [test rider's signature]
    by ) …………………………………
    on [date] )
    at [location of signing]
    Before me:


    SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED ) [your signature]
    by [your full name ) …………………………………
    on [date] )
    at [location of signing]
    Before me:


  2. A few comments (if I may)...
    Firstly, to make this enforceable it needs to be a contract or a deed.
    At the moment it's neither.
    A contract needs "consideration" (payment) for a "promise" (whatever is sold) to be enforceable.
    (Easy fixed)

    I would add a new 1. worded as follows:

    1. I .......... acknowledge that as consideration for allowing me to test ride the motorcycle described as [year] [make] [model] I enter into this agreement. (this gives you consideration..... (entering the agreement) for the promise (the test ride)

    I would then delete "SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED" it's not used by individuals (only companies) and just say "Signed".

    Disclaimer: I CANNOT guarantee this is enforceable, or would be upheld by a court!
  3. Having something like this is a brilliant idea and will benefit so many people.
    just need to get the wording right and somebody who can say if will be enforceable.
  4. Each party must give consideration and so to have the other party claiming to "give" liability assumed won't work. They are merely stating then what is already blatantly obvious - liability assumed for one's own damages. This won't work, because alongside the liability for damage to the bike, you include damages that are assumed in any case, with exception to those arising out of a failure to meet any existing duty of care.

    There is also some uncertainty as to the extent, source and cause for damages. It needs to be fleshed out more. I may do this in the morning, or let you have at it first.

    This is why, to avoid an overly complex relationship of multiple deed and contract agreements, you just use a deed.

    If there is a failure in consideration the deed cures this.
  5. If the bike s comprehensively insured than all one would need to do is get the rider to sign for the excess
  6. You're right about a contract, but this isn't intended to be a contract. A deed of agreement can have anything as its subject matter. Also as to the SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED - my apologies, I was using a precedent execution clause from a commercial lease. Should be "SIGNED" as you suggest.
    Have a crack at fleshing it out, but the reason I left it so broad was that I was concerned about excluding situations by creating an apparently exhaustive list. Perhaps something like encompassing both damages for personal injury and destruction of property.

    I had the boss look over it the other day and he seemed to think it was OK for the purpose. I'll have a go at refining it when I get a chance and get back.
  7. No, you would not. In fact you may breach your insurance.

    This is because when you get comprehensive insurance, the insurance company 'owns' the rights to sue for damages to the bike.

    They would want to sue the idiot that crashed the bike - and would have expected you to have them sign for full liability to damages to the bike, not just the excess.

    If you have them signing for liability to pay the excess only, you may suffer the consequences;

    - No cover
    - Increased premiums
    - Loss of no-fault NCB
  8. It's also not a deed as it is worded.
    A deed has a "format" that needs to be followed as well as certain conditions that need to be met to be valid.

    Thats why I suggested the redrafts. It makes it a contract.
  9. Re-draft is done, can email it if you want to PM me your address and you can tune it up if you like.
  10. I've heard of people asking for a license and sum of money to be left behind when a bike has gone for a test ride... the usual resistance is, "Hang on, I need the license what if I get caught by the police."

    ... and the response from the owner should be, "True, but they aren't unreasonable. You're taking the bike for a test ride and you can tell them that you left your license with the owner, who's just a few kilometres **that way**... how far are you intending to go?"

    It also gives you clear details to report to the insurance company should they be involved in a prang... so long as they are insured to ride your bike (age limits etc).
  11. In which case anyone with half a brain would walk off (as a buyer) because their points and tax money is worth more to them.

    ...not to mention there are likely 20 other sellers out there.

    The old "you ride and I hold your license" rubbish is an old practice of the days of your father and grandfather. The details on the face of a license are ****ing useless when it comes to enforcing a debt owing by a person.

    I'd like to see it posted here for feedback. I've been criticised for being over-critical and creating 'agreements of frightening complexity' but the reality is my work is comprehensive and leaves little to fall into the trap of uncertainty, all the while preserving the breadth, universality and catch-alls one would require but couldn't otherwise put into words. I don't mean to be offensive or "pick on you".
  12. Walk off as in not go for the test ride at all simply because the license was requested? :? So are you implying that a buyer would be more inclined to hang about and wade through a lengthy agreement?

    ...implying the buyer will go to the next seller whose less likely to throw up red tape issues, rather than hand over their license? :? Are you saying a lengthy agreement wouldn't send them to the next buyer??

    If you have the identity and address of the test rider and they crash the bike, or accrue points, the enforcement is up to the insurance isn't it and the stat dec sends the police their way. What's the issue?

    You know Smokie, just cause you have shit on your liver, doesn't mean you have to take to con to any suggestion made by me. :roll:

    The license idea isn't fool proof, nor was it offered as such. An agreement has the same key flaw - it's useless without the identity of the buyer being confirmed. Both methods, or combining them, are good ways to let the buyer know you're serious and that the bike isn't being sold by a mug.
  13. By the way, most bike shops where I've ever tested a bike ask to hold your licence, and quite a few ask you to sign a test agreement that commits you to paying the insurance excess.
    This DOES NOT invalidate thier insurance.
  14. Why not just go to a bike shop and ask for a copy of their test ride indemnity? then blank out their details, insert your own and away you go!
    Just bear in mind that at the end of the day, most such documents are so difficult to enforce that any good solicitor can shoot them down in flames.
    And if the test pilot has no money to start with you are left with a judgement debt and no money.
  15. All good... haven't finished my degree yet, so I'm more than happy to accept that my drafts have room for improvement. The last draft I did is saved at work, I'll put it up on Monday.

    As a side point, your issue with the "signed sealed and delivered" clause being for corporations: it escaped my attention at the time I responded, however it's commonly used with powers of attorney. I'm not sure whether that's a necessary consequence of the Instruments Act or similar (because I haven't bothered to check it out).
  16. Not if a good solicitor drafted them. People rely on written agreements for most business and many personal transactions; they're not inherently vulnerable by any means.
  17. Darlings I have a simple rule which I have observed in unrelenting fashion, this little biscuit does not allow "Test Pilots".

    Sweeties those road devotees may be interested to know that many race bikes/trackies are traded via online/telephone information only. Sugarplums, I sold a deliciously modified roadie to a lovely fellow from Wagga 16 months ago, upon receiving said bike he was so delirious with joy that he rang me extolling his appreciation.

    Lovelies, I on the other hand I still lament that itis not ensconced at my place of residence.
  18. I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive; I fail to see why a bike should be any different.
  19. Every bike and car I've sold there has been an agreement in place and signed without any qualms whatsoever.

    Really depends on the policy I suppose, I've never read one of their policies. The basic idea, although subject to modification in practice, is that they own any chose in action arising - and hence some people get screwed when they 'admit' liability.

    Experience says yes. Good legal practice lends itself to this practice also, it's also logical and any reasonable person should understand it, as both a buyer, and a seller.

    Length is not a requirement, just clarity, consistency and binding effect. Its up to them to walk - but I've found if they make the trip, they're serious about it in any case.

    I dealt with this already, I have found that repeating myself for you lends little benefit either to your capacity or willingness to understand, so, I won't.

    Only suggestions which are dangerous and in topics where I clearly know better. So no, not any suggestion. I don't have a problem with you.

    Holding onto a person's license won't help you evidence an agreement as to liability. The written agreement will.

    As to liability, initiating and enforcing proceedings, viewing a person's license in either case is a necessity and there really is no way to be absolutely certain of a person's residence.

    The agreement ensures things will go smoother, should shit hit the fan. Without it you face a difficult task should the other person decide to be difficult.

    Actually, asking to hold onto the license, I suspect, stems from a practice of actually citing a valid license, for the purposes of s25 ROAD TRANSPORT (DRIVER LICENSING) ACT 1998, which states in part;

    If it lets them know you are not just another mug, and 'serious' about them taking care, you must surely be placing a huge amount of trust in any person not known to you for more than 5 minutes...
  20. Smokie, as an apparently astute individual, I can't believe how you structure your thoughts so myopically.

    That law you cited and bolded, the key point is that one must be appropriately licensed, it doesn't say one must carry a license. A simple police radio check would confirm a driver's correct license status. However since the copper might not be happy about proof of ID, they may issue an infringement or require that the person produce a copy of their license to a near by cop shop within a specified period of time - well, at least that's the Vic practice. So that's your key point obliterated. Holding onto a test rider's license while they take your bike out of your sight has zero to do with that paragraph 25.

    Most of your other points are counterable too... Your black and white anti license / pro agreement stance doesn't hold water mate... but I don't want to labour the issue.

    On your point about the superiority of the agreement, how would you confidently enforce it if you've not required or relied on some kind of proof of id? If they absconded with your bike and gave you a false address and/or name, what then? If the address on the license is so possibly unreliable as you say... then how do you rationalise that what they state, write or say verbally is likely to be more reliable? :-k

    Oh and if the legal requirement is that you cannot allow someone to drive a vehicle they're not licensed for, how would you meet that requirement if you don't sight their license??

    Nah, this isn't a black and white deal. Grab the license AND have them sign something... at least that way it gives you something solid for the stat dec when the camera fine lobs in the mail.