crackur Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Did you write "As is " on the bill of sale? If yes you're golden if not...well you may have a bit of trouble on your hands. 209983[/snapback] thats an easy way to explain it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Retired from the US auto industry - process engineering, manufacturing, management, coatings systems and laboratory stuff. UAW plants. I see massive balance-of-trade figures that started in 1993 and continue. How long do you think this economy will fly if this continues? We see wage depression. We talk about outsourcing. We see people buying evrything Chinese. I'm going to be dead in ten years or so, and you will have to deal with the devastion of your purchasing decisions. No jobs for your kids, for one. Bon apetit. 209964[/snapback] That's great. I buy what benefits ME. It's my money. I earned it, and I get to choose how I spend it. Buying a car is not charity for US auto workers, and doing so would be an injustice to our way of life. There is no viable reason to buy an inferior product. I tried to do it, but found it strained my car maintenance budget too much. I prefer to take the macro view of things. In a capitalistic society, if people don't buy the best product, there's no incentive for the inferior ones to improve. This is basic economics (unless you belong to a union). Let me put this another way -- American cars have been steadily improving since the 80s. Do you know why? Do you think they would have improved if they weren't under tremendous pressure from other corporations building better cars? This is the way the economy works, man. I will never, ever, buy a product just because it was or wasn't built in a certain country. As soon as I see an American car I like and am confident in it's reliability, I will buy it. I haven't seen one yet. I don't buy a car because it was made in Japan, I buy a car because I feel it's the best, most reliable car for the $$. BTW - I worked for Kodak. I saw the "American way" all too well. Inefficiency, waste, sloth, poor products, etc. Kodak isn't sh!tting the bed because of the Japanese, Kodak is shitting the bed because it failed to compete in a global market. There is never any reason to buy a Kodak product unless you feel it is the best available. Buying a product just because it is American is stupid. It doesn't fit the model of what an efficient market really is. Get with the 21st century, man. This is a global economy. Make good products or get out of it. Bon appetit! PS: I don't have kids, and I'm not planning on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 thats an easy way to explain it lol 209988[/snapback] As is CYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 but he also has no knowledge of where they went they can deny they ever took it anywhere 209982[/snapback] The onus falls on the buyer, period. It would never make it to court. Again, BUYER BEWARE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 That's great. I buy what benefits ME. It's my money. I earned it, and I get to choose how I spend it. Buying a car is not charity for US auto workers, and doing so would be an injustice to our way of life. There is no viable reason to buy an inferior product. I tried to do it, but found it strained my car maintenance budget too much. I prefer to take the macro view of things. In a capitalistic society, if people don't buy the best product, there's no incentive for the inferior ones to improve. This is basic economics (unless you belong to a union). Let me put this another way -- American cars have been steadily improving since the 80s. Do you know why? Do you think they would have improved if they weren't under tremendous pressure from other corporations building better cars? This is the way the economy works, man. I will never, ever, buy a product just because it was or wasn't built in a certain country. As soon as I see an American car I like and am confident in it's reliability, I will buy it. I haven't seen one yet. I don't buy a car because it was made in Japan, I buy a car because I feel it's the best, most reliable car for the $$. BTW - I worked for Kodak. I saw the "American way" all too well. Inefficiency, waste, sloth, poor products, etc. Kodak isn't sh!tting the bed because of the Japanese, Kodak is shitting the bed because it failed to compete in a global market. There is never any reason to buy a Kodak product unless you feel it is the best available. Buying a product just because it is American is stupid. It doesn't fit the model of what an efficient market really is. Get with the 21st century, man. This is a global economy. Make good products or get out of it. Bon appetit! PS: I don't have kids, and I'm not planning on it. 209989[/snapback] Got you thinking, eh? And I "get" the global economy. Some time ago, being selfish was actually considered a negative trait. You seem to celebrate it, evrything a matter of money. Believe me, I know a lot about an efficient market. - more than you suspect. But you will do well to learn temperation of same. Material goods are not the be all and end all... We are not enemies, Todd - we have amicably conversed several times - but reflect on the future. Your friend, stuckincincy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 The onus falls on the buyer, period. It would never make it to court.Again, BUYER BEWARE. 209999[/snapback] With a good enough lawyer, virtually anything can make it to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 We recently sold a car to a private party who is now threatening to sue, because, they say, we sold them a lemon under false pretenses. It was in excellent running condition, interior and exterior both very good for a 5 year old car with 106,000+ miles. The transmission was beginning to slip a little and the timing belt was due to be replaced. The buyer asked about the timing belt and we told them it had not been replaced yet. They took their "mechanic" for a drive in the car who told them it was a great deal. The buyer, concerned about the occasional slippage/hesitation, was told by the mechanic that it was common with the V-Tec engine. Nothing to be concerned about. Somewhat concerned, the buyer had wanted us to meet them at AAMCO for an inspection, but we told her we were not going to take the time to go to various garages for every interested buyer. We really didn't want to take the time. I also said to the prospective buyer that of course the transmission place is going to say you need a new one - that's what they do! They drove it, had their mechanic's opinion - take it or leave it was our position. BTW - we've also got the 4-door model of the exact same car. Same year and everything. It's ALSO had the transmission slippage problem. I've put about 40,000 miles on it since the problem began. When it goes, it goes. Now, 5 days after the sale, the buyer has left a message that the transmission will cost $2,400 to replace and were threatening to sue us. In my opinion, they shouldn't have bought the car if they didn't feel good about the deal. There were no warranties. We suspected the transmission might be in need of attention, but it's not as if we thought that would be a good selling point, so we didn't make an issue of it. We're we morally in the wrong? We're we wrong not to give every detail? I don't think the buyer has a legal leg to stand on. What do you think? What would you have done? Thanks for giving your view of this. 209835[/snapback] Not sure what State you are in, but, most lemon laws apply only to dealers, not private sellers. Usually as long as you haven't sold a certain number of cars in a year, you are considered a private seller (ussaully 5 cars is the number). I would say the buyer has no case and is just threatening. Buyer beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 With a good enough lawyer, virtually anything can make it to court. 210007[/snapback] What you say is correct, however, with whats been described in the initial post, the only one that would get any money out of this IS the attorney for the idiot that bought the car. So I doubt it'll go to court. Plus the court costs of course. DML, you have nothing to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
respk Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 This is pretty simple. If you wrote, "as is, where is" or something to that effect on the receipt the buyer has no case. If you did not, the buyer can make a case and you are at the mercy of the lawyers and the courts. You might win or they might win. One sure thing... The lawyers will talk alot, the lawyers will get paid and you will be several hundred dollars lighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Google is your friend. With the lemon law out of the way, standard contract principles apply. If the buyer relied on your assurance that the tranny was okay, then you're liable. The buyer didn't do so (and if I recall, you told him it was starting to slip). He took it to his mechanic. The mechanic said it was fine. I think you're going to be okay. That said, nothing prevents you from just giving his money back and taking back the car, although the administrative bs is a pain in and of itself (re-transferring title, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 So I'm selfish? Are you actually going to judge my entire economic opinions and personal worth on the merit of one post? You're trying to discredit my opinions, which is fine, but don't think that I feel that material goods are the be all and end all. Truth is you know very little about my thoughts, and whether or not I am materialistic. I've made certain decisions regarding my profession that might lead you to think that I am most certainly not materialistic or selfish! However, by making those decisions it's important that I don't throw $$ away on crap products. And by doing so, I can also tell the American auto industry that there is still work to be done before I return as a customer, which is actually doing them a favor. I am reflecting on the future, just not in a way that is equivalent to charity. Got you thinking, eh? And I "get" the global economy. Some time ago, being selfish was actually considered a negative trait. You seem to celebrate it, evrything a matter of money. Believe me, I know a lot about an efficient market. - more than you suspect. But you will do well to learn temperation of same. Material goods are not the be all and end all... We are not enemies, Todd - we have amicably conversed several times - but reflect on the future. Your friend, stuckincincy 210001[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 What you say is correct, however, with whats been described in the initial post, the only one that would get any money out of this IS the attorney for the idiot that bought the car. So I doubt it'll go to court. Plus the court costs of course. DML, you have nothing to worry about. 210021[/snapback] Depends on the lawyer. My sister would do pro bono work for me - though not like this. If I tried to sue someone for a bad transmission in a car I bought from them, she'd just tell me "You shouldn't have bought the car, dumbass." But there's nothing precluding small claims court, I imagine. No lawyers needed there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 This is pretty simple.If you wrote, "as is, where is" or something to that effect on the receipt the buyer has no case. If you did not, the buyer can make a case and you are at the mercy of the lawyers and the courts. You might win or they might win. One sure thing... The lawyers will talk alot, the lawyers will get paid and you will be several hundred dollars lighter. 210023[/snapback] Not necessarily. Not even likely. A suit for $2,400 would probably be filed in small claims (no lawyers required) unless the buyer actually wanted to pay a lawyer. A simple contract dispute like this is really small potatoes. I'd either offer to give him back the money in exchange for the car, or call his bluff. Like as not, the buyer's just threatening to sue in order to get your attention. He may not have any idea of the legal principles involved, and he may realize that paying a lawyer is money out of his pocket without any guarantee of success (assuming he can even find a lawyer who thinks he has a case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Depends on the lawyer. My sister would do pro bono work for me - though not like this. If I tried to sue someone for a bad transmission in a car I bought from them, she'd just tell me "You shouldn't have bought the car, dumbass." But there's nothing precluding small claims court, I imagine. No lawyers needed there... 210043[/snapback] Ding ding. Exactly. And in small claims, the JUDGE will have no problem saying "You shouldn't have bought the car, dumbass." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardy Pyle Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I've been in small claims court before. And it's really a kangaroo court. Alot of times, the judges decision depends on what he had for breakfast. But I think your safe. Make sure the cheque has cleared. If you didn't get a certified cheque. Then let him take you to court. He had opportunity to get the vehicle inspected and you made no representations. Start now, document your conversation with this person. Time, dates. Key parts of the sales negotiations. It will look good in court if you need it. Bad transmissions happen. He test drove it. Had a third party conduct an inspection. He should be sueing the guy that inspected it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Depends on the lawyer. My sister would do pro bono work for me - though not like this. If I tried to sue someone for a bad transmission in a car I bought from them, she'd just tell me "You shouldn't have bought the car, dumbass." But there's nothing precluding small claims court, I imagine. No lawyers needed there... 210043[/snapback] My wife and I have the luxury of getting pro bono work also . I've been involved in cases that DML has described. They don't go to court, because an attorney would tell the client the same thing your sister would tell you. Though they'd still take you money if you insisted. As far as small claims courts go, been there too. Generally an arbitrator will try to mediate a settlement, if there is no agreeable closure, then it'll go to a judge. The cases I was involved with never got past an arbitrator. His case, the way its described, (of course only his side) he'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Not necessarily. Not even likely. A suit for $2,400 would probably be filed in small claims (no lawyers required) unless the buyer actually wanted to pay a lawyer. A simple contract dispute like this is really small potatoes. I'd either offer to give him back the money in exchange for the car, or call his bluff. Like as not, the buyer's just threatening to sue in order to get your attention. He may not have any idea of the legal principles involved, and he may realize that paying a lawyer is money out of his pocket without any guarantee of success (assuming he can even find a lawyer who thinks he has a case). 210051[/snapback] Maybe they'll agree to dismiss the case.....and have their dispute settled here.....in our forum......THE STADIUM WALL COURT!!! Tom will be the judge. NEF_in_Indiana can be the slow witted bailiff. Rich can conduct the post-case interviews ("You shouldn't hate") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Google is your friend. 210032[/snapback] It only took 50 posts before someone bothered to google the NY State Lemon Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Assuming that you put 'as is', or something similar in the contract, you probably are in good shape legally. Can they sue you, sure, & it'll likely cost you time & money defending yourself. Now depending on your level of guilt, might I suggest either a) buying the car back (if it's in NYS there's probably nasty sales tax ramifications), or b) offer to split the cost (i.e. give them $1200), whichever you prefer. That said, b4 I offered them any rebate, I'd suggest consulting a lawyer as this act might imply admitting guilt & make you more likely to be liable. Just my 2¢. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 It only took 50 posts before someone bothered to google the NY State Lemon Law. 210116[/snapback] No one wanted to pony up the $.02. So, the lemon law doesn't apply. Good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts