Last Friday (Aug 5) my niece went to go look at a car she found on Facebook Marketplace. She fell in love it with and the guy selling it seemed nice (so she said), she decided to buy it despite being told not to unless someone was with her. She went to her bank and got a cashiers check for $12,000 dollars and picked up the car Saturday afternoon. Sunday we had a family get together and as we were looking over her car, it was more than apparent that the car had been in a major accident and the repair was poor at best. We went to her bank first thing in the morning, they confirmed the check had not been cashed yet but still refused to put a stop on it. This is wrong since she was lied to by the guy selling the car. We called the seller and told him we wanted to undo the deal and he refused, he did not cash the cashiers check till Wednesday day to the bank had plenty of time to stop payment. Now my 22 year old niece is out $12,000 for a lemon.

Most used car sales are "as is". I think your niece just learned a very expensive lesson.

A Cashiers cheque is guaranteed by the bank as its drawn from the bank's funds not your niece's account.

You could have stopped a personal cheque.

Chalk up an expensive lesson. Depending in your local laws you may be able to pursue a civil case based on the deception.

Man I feel bad for her, but once a cashiers check or a certified check is written up at my bank the funds come out of my account that moment and once handed over its done.
As an Auto Tech I can assure you, Facebook Market place is the worst place to find or buy a car unless you are extremely careful. Take one of the tech's I work with in need of a second car, saw the same car and picture 14 times all with different addresses and emails.. That alone should scare you, as well as a few we went to look at and the seller not knowing we worked on cars for a living you can scare the hell out of them as well as call them out.
Its come to a point now that anyone I know that's buying a car gets a Pre-Buy sort of inspection, lots of times that's enough to save you from being scammed or getting into something only to find out that black piece of metal holding the exhaust away from the suspension is really a painted 2x4... Ya its happend.

I hope she finds away to get it back I really do.
C.

Let's look from the otjer side of the field.

OP sells his car, which is in great condition. Purchaser turns up with a cashier's cheque. Does OP let him drive off in the car, or say ' you gotta wait for the cheque to clear.'? If the first, what does he do if the cheque is not paid because it has been stopped ?

Harsh as it seems, OP seems to want to have his cake and eat it.

Can't undo a cashier's cheque, unless it is stolen or damaged; you will then have to fill out forms attesting to the loss.

Only solution is legal action against the seller; you might have to file a lawsuit against the seller to recover your loss. Consult a lawyer.

Here in France to sell a car it needs to have passed the national/EU safety inspection, including 133 test items. A "badly repaired accident" wouldn't pass, in fact having a car tested in such a state would lead to its vehicle registration certificate being revoked, basically an instant trip to the junkyard.

People buying and driving "badly repaired cars" have had the police come to their home to let them know they have been scammed and they are prohibited to drive the car, it can't be insured, it can't be sold, and you risk death if you drive it.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

Last Friday (Aug 5) my niece went to go look at a car she found on Facebook Marketplace. She fell in love it with and the guy selling it seemed nice (so she said), she decided to buy it despite being told not to unless someone was with her. She went to her bank and got a cashiers check for $12,000 dollars and picked up the car Saturday afternoon. Sunday we had a family get together and as we were looking over her car, it was more than apparent that the car had been in a major accident and the repair was poor at best. We went to her bank first thing in the morning, they confirmed the check had not been cashed yet but still refused to put a stop on it. This is wrong since she was lied to by the guy selling the car. We called the seller and told him we wanted to undo the deal and he refused, he did not cash the cashiers check till Wednesday day to the bank had plenty of time to stop payment. Now my 22 year old niece is out $12,000 for a lemon.

I think other posters are correct. I just wanted to specify that what your "family gathering" thought about the transaction really is not important, and has no influence about a past transaction between other people.

She may feel regret about the transaction. But you have to understand that it was a transaction. She is the owner of the car, and the money belongs to the other guy. A bank is not a guarantor of used cars. If you think the guy did something wrong, your next step would be a lawsuit, and hopefully you have written proof, otherwise you are wasting the court's time.

This all really sucks and I feel great sympathy for people involved. Car stuff can be heartbreaking for women, to stereotype just a bit. BUT she did not listen to you. So oh well.

She's 0 for 2, she didn't do a good job of picking out a car and she also didn't understand what she was getting when she purchased the cashiers check.

ThePointblank wrote:

Can't undo a cashier's cheque, unless it is stolen or damaged; you will then have to fill out forms attesting to the loss.

Only solution is legal action against the seller; you might have to file a lawsuit against the seller to recover your loss. Consult a lawyer.

Well in this case, couldn't one claim it was stolen? In that it was taken under false circumstances? The sale was not honest with full disclosure. There is "theft", a taking against one will, in that.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

couldn't one claim it was stolen?

That would require a police report, and the police wouldn't write a report on a case like this. And fraudulently reporting a crime is a crime.

Tugger wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Can't undo a cashier's cheque, unless it is stolen or damaged; you will then have to fill out forms attesting to the loss.

Only solution is legal action against the seller; you might have to file a lawsuit against the seller to recover your loss. Consult a lawyer.

Well in this case, couldn't one claim it was stolen? In that it was taken under false circumstances? The sale was not honest with full disclosure. There is "theft", a taking against one will, in that.

Tugg

You're assuming that the seller knew the condition, which isn't always the case as a car could have changed hands between automobile laypeople more than once since the initial 'dishonest' sale, Next, reporting it stolen itself is a crime, as it wasn't stolen. And lastly, the girl was told not to buy a car on her own. Did she listen? No. The girl withdrew a cashier's check, not knowing it couldn't have a stop payment placed on it. As someone had mentioned above, 0 for 2.

People need to start taking more personal responsibility for their actions. I'd hate to make this about gender, but pretty much every female I know who decided to buy a used car on her own has ended up with a lemon. But I don't know a single one who repeated that mistake.A cheap mistake isn't a lesson. An expensive one certainly is.

Redd wrote:

Tugger wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Can't undo a cashier's cheque, unless it is stolen or damaged; you will then have to fill out forms attesting to the loss.

Only solution is legal action against the seller; you might have to file a lawsuit against the seller to recover your loss. Consult a lawyer.

Well in this case, couldn't one claim it was stolen? In that it was taken under false circumstances? The sale was not honest with full disclosure. There is "theft", a taking against one will, in that.

Tugg

You're assuming that the seller knew the condition, which isn't always the case as a car could have changed hands between automobile laypeople more than once since the initial 'dishonest' sale, Next, reporting it stolen itself is a crime, as it wasn't stolen. And lastly, the girl was told not to buy a car on her own. Did she listen? No. The girl withdrew a cashier's check, not knowing it couldn't have a stop payment placed on it. As someone had mentioned above, 0 for 2.

People need to start taking more personal responsibility for their actions. I'd hate to make this about gender, but pretty much every female I know who decided to buy a used car on her own has ended up with a lemon. But I don't know a single one who repeated that mistake.A cheap mistake isn't a lesson. An expensive one certainly is.

Actually, reading up on it, the seller does not need to know. Essentially being "reckless" or making a statement you cannot justify (selling a car as if it is in good condition when you have done no investigation to support such a statement) can be fraud.

And fraud is illegal.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-is-fraud-1

I doesn't allow you to stop payment on a cashiers check but at $12.000 that is a serious theft. It wouldn't be easy or fast, but the young woman could sue for fraud and see what she gets.

And to your point about women, if that is accurate then this young woman especially should sue and stand up to the jerk that took advantage of her.
He screwed her? Screw him back, make him pay. Teach him that HE needs to do better and be smarter.

I mean why not?

It may be hard to find him but serve him and see what he does. My bet is he'll want to return the cash rather than go to court. Of course getting a judgement doesn't mean you'll get the case either. Many judgements go unpaid. But again, why let someone get away with it? She needs to learn a lesson? She has. Why should that lesson cost her $12,000? Why not teach the other guy a lesson?

Make this guy take personal responsibility for his actions.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Actually, reading up on it, the seller does not need to know. Essentially being "reckless" or making a statement you cannot justify (selling a car as if it is in good condition when you have done no investigation to support such a statement) can be fraud.

Not sure I understand. If you buy a car, aren't a car person and nobody, including your service mechanics, ever tell you that the car has been previously accident repaired, it's perfectly justifiable to represent the car as in good condition. Representing it as such isn't reckless, or at least it doesn't seem so to me.

The fact is, it isn't easy to tell in numerous instances if the car has been in an accident or not. In this case, I'll reserve my judgment for the seller because his knowledge of the condition of the automobile is uncertain.

The buyer on the other hand, had been told not to buy a car on her own because things like that happen, and it did.happen to her. She should have paid for a PPI at an accredited shop, or taken somebody with her who knows and understands cars.

If you're told not to pet a dog, and you do it and get bit, whose fault is it?

Redd wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Actually, reading up on it, the seller does not need to know. Essentially being "reckless" or making a statement you cannot justify (selling a car as if it is in good condition when you have done no investigation to support such a statement) can be fraud.

Not sure I understand. If you buy a car, aren't a car person and nobody, including your service mechanics, ever tell you that the car has been previously accident repaired, it's perfectly justifiable to represent the car as in good condition. Representing it as such isn't reckless, or at least it doesn't seem so to me.

The fact is, it isn't easy to tell in numerous instances if the car has been in an accident or not. In this case, I'll reserve my judgment for the seller because his knowledge of the condition of the automobile is uncertain.

The buyer on the other hand, had been told not to buy a car on her own because things like that happen, and it did.happen to her. She should have paid for a PPI at an accredited shop, or taken somebody with her who knows and understands cars.

If you're told not to pet a dog, and you do it and get bit, whose fault is it?

I get it but you can't make a statement of condition without any support for it. And based on the OP's post, if the seller made improper statements that is fraud and one can be sued for such things. You don't get a free pass to screw people over with what you sell or provide to private party.

If the ad said "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" that would be on thing. But who would ever buy a car with that statement? Most sellers tend to talk up whatever they are selling. But you can't just do that without knowing you are making a fair representation (which takes us back to "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" being the safe thing to say).

If it was in an accident, and the seller presented as not (or said "good condition" in the ad), the person could very likely be liable. So why not at least try and sue? It is $12,000.00 that is a lot of cash. Not sure if it is felony level but it could be. Might as well ask a lawyer and if possible draft up a letter of intent to sue and send it to the seller to see how they respond. Filing a police report can be done and a claim filed if there is support for it.

Turn it back on the seller.

But of course there is no promise of a win or success. It might just be another cost. Small claims court isn't all that expensive, though it is limited to $10,000 in many states.

And to your dog bite analogy, the dog owner is the one at fault even if they told you not to pet the dog. Happens dumbly too often.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Redd wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Well in this case, couldn't one claim it was stolen? In that it was taken under false circumstances? The sale was not honest with full disclosure. There is "theft", a taking against one will, in that.

Tugg

You're assuming that the seller knew the condition, which isn't always the case as a car could have changed hands between automobile laypeople more than once since the initial 'dishonest' sale, Next, reporting it stolen itself is a crime, as it wasn't stolen. And lastly, the girl was told not to buy a car on her own. Did she listen? No. The girl withdrew a cashier's check, not knowing it couldn't have a stop payment placed on it. As someone had mentioned above, 0 for 2.

People need to start taking more personal responsibility for their actions. I'd hate to make this about gender, but pretty much every female I know who decided to buy a used car on her own has ended up with a lemon. But I don't know a single one who repeated that mistake.A cheap mistake isn't a lesson. An expensive one certainly is.

Actually, reading up on it, the seller does not need to know. Essentially being "reckless" or making a statement you cannot justify (selling a car as if it is in good condition when you have done no investigation to support such a statement) can be fraud.

And fraud is illegal.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-is-fraud-1

I doesn't allow you to stop payment on a cashiers check but at $12.000 that is a serious theft. It wouldn't be easy or fast, but the young woman could sue for fraud and see what she gets.

And to your point about women, if that is accurate then this young woman especially should sue and stand up to the jerk that took advantage of her.
He screwed her? Screw him back, make him pay. Teach him that HE needs to do better and be smarter.

I mean why not?

It may be hard to find him but serve him and see what he does. My bet is he'll want to return the cash rather than go to court. Of course getting a judgement doesn't mean you'll get the case either. Many judgements go unpaid. But again, why let someone get away with it? She needs to learn a lesson? She has. Why should that lesson cost her $12,000? Why not teach the other guy a lesson?

Make this guy take personal responsibility for his actions.

Tugg

How can we conclude that the seller was trying to screw her over with the information given? Likely the seller didn't repair the defects himself - maybe he is as unknowledgeable about cars as the buyer and simply trusted the wrong repair shop, thinking everything was all good. Maybe the damage didn't even happen while the seller owned it and the car went through multiple owners. You don't have to be a car expert to sell a used car nor should you have to be.

I need more information than my niece made a bad decision and the seller isn't refunding a 2nd hand nonrefundable purchase before assuming the seller is deliberately trying to take advantage of the buyer.

While I do think it's best to accompany an unexperienced car buyer it's also baseline common sense that a buyer needs to do some due diligence in buying anything expensive and 2nd hand. Its unfortunate the learning opportunity didn't take place until after the mistake - this is why you teach someone to fish / learn to fish rather than giving them fish / taking fish. As a teenager making my first used car purchase long ago I researched the hell out of the model I had in mind, made sure to have it checked out by a 3rd party mechanic, and got 2nd opinions from trusted adults. With all the information online and multiple mechanics readily available in every town my sympathy is low for anyone who feels blind sided because they didn't take the most basic and obvious precautions before blowing a bunch of $$.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

Last Friday (Aug 5) my niece went to go look at a car she found on Facebook Marketplace. She fell in love it with and the guy selling it seemed nice (so she said), she decided to buy it despite being told not to unless someone was with her. She went to her bank and got a cashiers check for $12,000 dollars and picked up the car Saturday afternoon. Sunday we had a family get together and as we were looking over her car, it was more than apparent that the car had been in a major accident and the repair was poor at best. We went to her bank first thing in the morning, they confirmed the check had not been cashed yet but still refused to put a stop on it. This is wrong since she was lied to by the guy selling the car. We called the seller and told him we wanted to undo the deal and he refused, he did not cash the cashiers check till Wednesday day to the bank had plenty of time to stop payment. Now my 22 year old niece is out $12,000 for a lemon.

This is an expensive lesson learned, putting stop payments on these cheques is hard as they are akin to cash and this is not something the bank should take responsibility for as they aren't at fault. Your niece got the cheque under her own will and was not put under duress. You niece's best bet is small claims court or any other legal action that she has depending on the local laws.

Is there not a certification process that needs to be presented to your state's/jurisdiction's department of transportation to allow for a car's ownership to be changed?
In Ontario a licensed mechanic has to certify the car and the buyer has to present that to the ministry to change the ownership. I think part of this the history is reviewed and mechanics can run the VIN to see if there has been a prior cash and a mechanic would be able to detect faulty damage and the mechanic would inform the buyer of this as well as any other faults.

Kno wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Actually, reading up on it, the seller does not need to know. Essentially being "reckless" or making a statement you cannot justify (selling a car as if it is in good condition when you have done no investigation to support such a statement) can be fraud.

And fraud is illegal.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-is-fraud-1

I doesn't allow you to stop payment on a cashiers check but at $12.000 that is a serious theft. It wouldn't be easy or fast, but the young woman could sue for fraud and see what she gets.

And to your point about women, if that is accurate then this young woman especially should sue and stand up to the jerk that took advantage of her.
He screwed her? Screw him back, make him pay. Teach him that HE needs to do better and be smarter.

I mean why not?

It may be hard to find him but serve him and see what he does. My bet is he'll want to return the cash rather than go to court. Of course getting a judgement doesn't mean you'll get the case either. Many judgements go unpaid. But again, why let someone get away with it? She needs to learn a lesson? She has. Why should that lesson cost her $12,000? Why not teach the other guy a lesson?

Make this guy take personal responsibility for his actions.

Tugg

How can we conclude that the seller was trying to screw her over with the information given? Likely the seller didn't repair the defects himself - maybe he is as unknowledgeable about cars as the buyer and simply trusted the wrong repair shop, thinking everything was all good. Maybe the damage didn't even happen while the seller owned it and the car went through multiple owners. You don't have to be a car expert to sell a used car nor should you have to be.

I need more information than my niece made a bad decision and the seller isn't refunding a 2nd hand nonrefundable purchase before assuming the seller is deliberately trying to take advantage of the buyer.

While I do think it's best to accompany an unexperienced car buyer it's also baseline common sense that a buyer needs to do some due diligence in buying anything expensive and 2nd hand. Its unfortunate the learning opportunity didn't take place until after the mistake but this is why you teach someone to fish / learn to fish rather than giving them fish / taking fish. Even as a teenager years back making my first used car purchase I researched the hell out of the model I had in mind and made sure to have it checked out by a 3rd party mechanic and get 2nd opinions from trusted adults before blowing a bunch of money - with all the information online and multiple mechanics readily available in every town my sympathy is low for anyone who feels blind sided because they didn't take the most basic and obvious precautions.

Again, we are talking $12,000 here. Why not take them to court to prove things out?

No harm in trying.

Why are people trying so hard to excuse the seller and only blame the buyer?

It goes both ways folks. I know that when I sell something like a car, I am clear as to what I am selling. If I represent it as one thing and it is not that thing, that is on me. The buyer may not find out, but I still am at risk.

And yes, I do fully agree with people that a buyer should and needs to be smart and careful. Caveat Emptor, people. Do your research. But there is no allowance for the other party to misrepresent things.

I am not supporting a frivolous lawsuit "to get out of something" I am saying, if what the OP states (I am accepting it "as is") is true, why not use the resources available to address the situation? It won't make it to court if there is no case.

And to end, let me ask you, would any of you who are saying "It's her fault, just lose the money." Ever accept such if you were mislead and out $12k? And don't say "I wouldn't let it happen." The question is if it DID happen to you, you did your research and ended up buying something that was not what the seller purported it to be (a work or art, a new stove, whatever). Would you sit back and just "take it" or do what you could to get your money back?

I know my answer.

Tugg

How bad is the car really?
Does it run? what is the age?

12 k for a running car isn't bad in this market. Is the crash damage superficial to the body, or was the engine involved?

Tugger wrote:

Kno wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Actually, reading up on it, the seller does not need to know. Essentially being "reckless" or making a statement you cannot justify (selling a car as if it is in good condition when you have done no investigation to support such a statement) can be fraud.

And fraud is illegal.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-is-fraud-1

I doesn't allow you to stop payment on a cashiers check but at $12.000 that is a serious theft. It wouldn't be easy or fast, but the young woman could sue for fraud and see what she gets.

And to your point about women, if that is accurate then this young woman especially should sue and stand up to the jerk that took advantage of her.
He screwed her? Screw him back, make him pay. Teach him that HE needs to do better and be smarter.

I mean why not?

It may be hard to find him but serve him and see what he does. My bet is he'll want to return the cash rather than go to court. Of course getting a judgement doesn't mean you'll get the case either. Many judgements go unpaid. But again, why let someone get away with it? She needs to learn a lesson? She has. Why should that lesson cost her $12,000? Why not teach the other guy a lesson?

Make this guy take personal responsibility for his actions.

Tugg

How can we conclude that the seller was trying to screw her over with the information given? Likely the seller didn't repair the defects himself - maybe he is as unknowledgeable about cars as the buyer and simply trusted the wrong repair shop, thinking everything was all good. Maybe the damage didn't even happen while the seller owned it and the car went through multiple owners. You don't have to be a car expert to sell a used car nor should you have to be.

I need more information than my niece made a bad decision and the seller isn't refunding a 2nd hand nonrefundable purchase before assuming the seller is deliberately trying to take advantage of the buyer.

While I do think it's best to accompany an unexperienced car buyer it's also baseline common sense that a buyer needs to do some due diligence in buying anything expensive and 2nd hand. Its unfortunate the learning opportunity didn't take place until after the mistake but this is why you teach someone to fish / learn to fish rather than giving them fish / taking fish. Even as a teenager years back making my first used car purchase I researched the hell out of the model I had in mind and made sure to have it checked out by a 3rd party mechanic and get 2nd opinions from trusted adults before blowing a bunch of money - with all the information online and multiple mechanics readily available in every town my sympathy is low for anyone who feels blind sided because they didn't take the most basic and obvious precautions.

Again, we are talking $12,000 here. Why not take them to court to prove things out?

No harm in trying.

Why are people trying so hard to excuse the seller and only blame the buyer?

It goes both ways folks. I know that when I sell something like a car, I am clear as to what I am selling. If I represent it as one thing and it is not that thing, that is on me. The buyer may not find out, but I still am at risk.

And yes, I do fully agree with people that a buyer should and needs to be smart and careful. Caveat Emptor, people. Do your research. But there is no allowance for the other party to misrepresent things.

I am not supporting a frivolous lawsuit "to get out of something" I am saying, if what the OP states (I am accepting it "as is") is true, why not use the resources available to address the situation? It won't make it to court if there is no case.

And to end, let me ask you, would any of you who are saying "It's her fault, just lose the money." Ever accept such if you were mislead and out $12k? And don't say "I wouldn't let it happen." The question is if it DID happen to you, you did your research and ended up buying something that was not what the seller purported it to be (a work or art, a new stove, whatever). Would you sit back and just "take it" or do what you could to get your money back?

I know my answer.

Tugg

Did the guy ever claim it was accident free?

You can’t start asking questions AFTER you present a cashier’s check. You’re asking questions about your own car, at that point. The seller is no longer responsible.

LCDFlight wrote:

Did the guy ever claim it was accident free?

You can’t start asking questions AFTER you present a cashier’s check. You’re asking questions about your own car, at that point. The seller is no longer responsible.

Again, this would be answered in a lawsuit. I would be curious to see the ad that was posted.

There is a lot of missing information, the type of car (who knows, maybe it was a $20k car being sold for $12, red flag right there folks!), any condition information noted in the ad etc. In the end the ad will be the key piece of evidence as the rest is a "he said, she said" situation.

I am not believing the girl is not culpable for her own failings, I am just offering an option to go to if it would apply.

Tugg

While there are very strict guidelines for rare coin condition, not so much for cars. One man's Very Good could be another's Fair.

Tugger wrote:

I get it but you can't make a statement of condition without any support for it. And based on the OP's post, if the seller made improper statements that is fraud and one can be sued for such things. You don't get a free pass to screw people over with what you sell or provide to private party.

If the ad said "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" that would be on thing. But who would ever buy a car with that statement? Most sellers tend to talk up whatever they are selling. But you can't just do that without knowing you are making a fair representation (which takes us back to "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" being the safe thing to say).

If it was in an accident, and the seller presented as not (or said "good condition" in the ad), the person could very likely be liable. So why not at least try and sue? It is $12,000.00 that is a lot of cash. Not sure if it is felony level but it could be. Might as well ask a lawyer and if possible draft up a letter of intent to sue and send it to the seller to see how they respond. Filing a police report can be done and a claim filed if there is support for it.

Unless details are specified in a sales contract, statements such as "car is in good condition," either face to face or in an ad, are considered puffing. A statement as to a car's condition by the seller is an opinion and most definitely not fraud because everyone will have a different idea as to what constitutes good condition. You might think good condition means the car is accident-free, but the seller might think good condition means the engine starts and the car has never been smoked in.

Without knowing more details from the OP like what's written in the bill of sale, it's hard to know for certain, but it seems extremely unlikely that OP's niece would have any chance of prevailing in court.

emperortk wrote:

it seems extremely unlikely that OP's niece would have any chance of prevailing in court.

It would be her chance to go 0 for 3. After she totals up the amount her lawyer bills her, she could easily be out $24,000 in total.

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

A car that has gone 90.000 miles is rarely in excellent condition

$12,000 Canadian for a 2012 Honda Civic with about 144,000km in good condition would be a fair price.

Buying a car is about the second biggest financial decision one could make. It's not something to buy on a whim; lots of research needs to be done beforehand to determine the right car at the right price.

With used cars, it's almost always caveat emptor; buyer beware. Used cars can hide a lot of defects and issues not obvious.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

Ultimately the world is not set up to protect people from making bad decisions - if you want to flush your money down the drain in this world you are free to do it. Buying a used car and the quality and value of said used car is very subjective.

I think the best support your family can offer your niece is making a learning opportunity out of this, having discussions about managing finances and making big purchases. There’s always more money to be gained and lost down the road.

Sure it’s nice to say, we intended to help her look at the car before buying, but even better for her to have an understanding of how to best facilitate these common big financial decisions in life as an individual. The ol’ teach em to fish vs give ‘em a fish saying.

Mortyman wrote:

A car that has gone 90.000 miles is rarely in excellent condition

A Honda Civic can drive forever and that mileage is nothing for it.
I had one from 2008-2020 that had 304,000km when I got a new car. That car could have run for another 5 years or longer.

You just have take care of it and complete the regular maintenance.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

Again, if it is egregious then pursue it in court. If you are afraid of costs, then just use small claims court where the cost should be below $1000 (below $500 probably). It is pretty straightforward and she potentially can recover at least the value difference of what was promised versus what she received.

The important lesson to impart to your niece is to never sit back and allow yourself to be taken advantage of. It's her money, she needs to fight to not lose it. People that say to just accept the loss and "the lesson" are doing so from the safety of it not being their money so they don't care.

Fighting fer herself is the best lesson she could learn. It will also make her more careful in the future.

Again this is assuming it was an egregious taking advantage of. That she didn't sign a salvage title etc. Suckers are born every minute, but it doesn't mean one has to remain one. I say cause the other person just as much of a problem as they have caused you. Don't sit back and just "take it".

For me personally, even if I had no chance of winning, I would send letters and then sue (in small claims court if cost were an issue) just so the person that took advantage of me paid for it. Without wasting too much of my own money just keep annoying them. Make them spend time and money, mental energy and worry at being pursued. Teach that other guy a lesson that in some way addresses what it cost me. I work hard for my money, you will too if you screw me over.

And just so you know, I am not sue happy. Only done it once and it was settled prior to out of court. Every other issue I have had has been settled without any need for court. But if you don't fight for yourself, no one will care.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Redd wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Actually, reading up on it, the seller does not need to know. Essentially being "reckless" or making a statement you cannot justify (selling a car as if it is in good condition when you have done no investigation to support such a statement) can be fraud.

Not sure I understand. If you buy a car, aren't a car person and nobody, including your service mechanics, ever tell you that the car has been previously accident repaired, it's perfectly justifiable to represent the car as in good condition. Representing it as such isn't reckless, or at least it doesn't seem so to me.

The fact is, it isn't easy to tell in numerous instances if the car has been in an accident or not. In this case, I'll reserve my judgment for the seller because his knowledge of the condition of the automobile is uncertain.

The buyer on the other hand, had been told not to buy a car on her own because things like that happen, and it did.happen to her. She should have paid for a PPI at an accredited shop, or taken somebody with her who knows and understands cars.

If you're told not to pet a dog, and you do it and get bit, whose fault is it?

I get it but you can't make a statement of condition without any support for it. And based on the OP's post, if the seller made improper statements that is fraud and one can be sued for such things. You don't get a free pass to screw people over with what you sell or provide to private party.

If the ad said "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" that would be on thing. But who would ever buy a car with that statement? Most sellers tend to talk up whatever they are selling. But you can't just do that without knowing you are making a fair representation (which takes us back to "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" being the safe thing to say).

If it was in an accident, and the seller presented as not (or said "good condition" in the ad), the person could very likely be liable. So why not at least try and sue? It is $12,000.00 that is a lot of cash. Not sure if it is felony level but it could be. Might as well ask a lawyer and if possible draft up a letter of intent to sue and send it to the seller to see how they respond. Filing a police report can be done and a claim filed if there is support for it.

Turn it back on the seller.

But of course there is no promise of a win or success. It might just be another cost. Small claims court isn't all that expensive, though it is limited to $10,000 in many states.

And to your dog bite analogy, the dog owner is the one at fault even if they told you not to pet the dog. Happens dumbly too often.

Tugg

I'm not saying you don't have a point. But from my perspective, the buyer bears responsibility as she took no precautions, even though she had been told and offered help from what I understand.

There are people out there that will rip you off, and buying a used car is a minefield. That's pretty much common knowledge. The buyer could have avoided the whole mess by getting a PPI or taking someone knowledgeable with her to look at that car.

If the seller was knowingly dishonest, I fully agree he should have to pay the money back. But I strongly believe in taking responsibility for your own actions. The buyer needs to do that, as she dropped that ball big time.

Redd wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Redd wrote:

Not sure I understand. If you buy a car, aren't a car person and nobody, including your service mechanics, ever tell you that the car has been previously accident repaired, it's perfectly justifiable to represent the car as in good condition. Representing it as such isn't reckless, or at least it doesn't seem so to me.

The fact is, it isn't easy to tell in numerous instances if the car has been in an accident or not. In this case, I'll reserve my judgment for the seller because his knowledge of the condition of the automobile is uncertain.

The buyer on the other hand, had been told not to buy a car on her own because things like that happen, and it did.happen to her. She should have paid for a PPI at an accredited shop, or taken somebody with her who knows and understands cars.

If you're told not to pet a dog, and you do it and get bit, whose fault is it?

I get it but you can't make a statement of condition without any support for it. And based on the OP's post, if the seller made improper statements that is fraud and one can be sued for such things. You don't get a free pass to screw people over with what you sell or provide to private party.

If the ad said "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" that would be on thing. But who would ever buy a car with that statement? Most sellers tend to talk up whatever they are selling. But you can't just do that without knowing you are making a fair representation (which takes us back to "car for sale, as is, I have no idea of condition" being the safe thing to say).

If it was in an accident, and the seller presented as not (or said "good condition" in the ad), the person could very likely be liable. So why not at least try and sue? It is $12,000.00 that is a lot of cash. Not sure if it is felony level but it could be. Might as well ask a lawyer and if possible draft up a letter of intent to sue and send it to the seller to see how they respond. Filing a police report can be done and a claim filed if there is support for it.

Turn it back on the seller.

But of course there is no promise of a win or success. It might just be another cost. Small claims court isn't all that expensive, though it is limited to $10,000 in many states.

And to your dog bite analogy, the dog owner is the one at fault even if they told you not to pet the dog. Happens dumbly too often.

Tugg

I'm not saying you don't have a point. But from my perspective, the buyer bears responsibility as she took no precautions, even though she had been told and offered help from what I understand.

There are people out there that will rip you off, and buying a used car is a minefield. That's pretty much common knowledge. The buyer could have avoided the whole mess by getting a PPI or taking someone knowledgeable with her to look at that car.

If the seller was knowingly dishonest, I fully agree he should have to pay the money back. But I strongly believe in taking responsibility for your own actions. The buyer needs to do that, as she dropped that ball big time.

Absolutely yes, I fully agree with you. The woman was... unwise (I'd say stupid) for doing this.

Hopefully she does learn from this. At $12,000 dollars and how the OP describes her, this can be a life altering loss. If others in her family just step in and take care of things, replace her loss, she will never learn. Honestly, from what is being posted I am concerned that she will be coddled and let others solve her problem. If the family does step in, I hope that they make sure she is the primary one who does what is needed. Goes to the mechanic herself, learns about the cars, if loaned money to make it usable, she pays it back, etc. My own kids have to do the work, I help but they have to do it.

What I suggest, if it applies, if it is fraud/she was mislead etc., is a lesson in and of itself. The more you stand up for yourself the more you are taking responsibility for your actions. It needs to come from her not others.

Tugg

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

So is it illegal to sell a car to a woman with a baby?

She wanted the car and she bought it. Now, it’s her car. You don’t get to “return” private party used cars, and no, there isn’t “protection” like the ability to undo adult decisions like this. If she wanted a car with a warranty, or a new car, she could have chosen that.

Im on the side of “adult responsibility” here.

Excellent condition has no meaning legally. I don’t see where the seller did anything you can take action against. No, he does not need to answer phone calls about it.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

What state are you in?

Perhaps you can lobby your representative to ensure that all private sales of cars can only be completed when an independent certification is done on the car to ensure that there are no issues. This seems like common sense and should be a universal practice.

LCDFlight wrote:

[...]
Excellent condition has no meaning legally. I don’t see where the seller did anything you can take action against.

I can only imagine a judge would challenge you on that. And that if it was you making that assertion on a salvage or a car that turned out to be badly damaged from a prior accident, that you would be uncomfortable to say the least to respond to the judge
Judge: "So you state the vehicle was in excellent condition? And you determined this how?"
You: "Well I just said it was in excellent condition. That doesn't mean anything really".
Judge: "Then why did you state that? That is a qualifying statement, one implying knowledge of the condition of something. What made this car to be in 'excellent condition' to you?"
You: "The interior? It was really nice and in excellent condition"
Judge: "But you stated the car was in excellent condition, not just the interior. Why?"
You: ".... uh"


It would be fun to watch. Judges really don't suffer idiots well. The buyer would certainly be admonished for being so lazy in the purchase but a qualifying statement like "excellent" is a verbal contract. Don't say something you do not know to be true and factual. Ignorance on the part of the seller is no excuse either.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

[...]
Excellent condition has no meaning legally. I don’t see where the seller did anything you can take action against.

I can only imagine a judge would challenge you on that. And that if it was you making that assertion on a salvage or a car that turned out to be badly damaged from a prior accident, that you would be uncomfortable to say the least to respond to the judge
Judge: "So you state the vehicle was in excellent condition? And you determined this how?"
You: "Well I just said it was in excellent condition. That doesn't mean anything really".
Judge: "Then why did you state that? That is a qualifying statement, one implying knowledge of the condition of something. What made this car to be in 'excellent condition' to you?"
You: "The interior? It was really nice and in excellent condition"
Judge: "But you stated the car was in excellent condition, not just the interior. Why?"
You: ".... uh"


It would be fun to watch. Judges really don't suffer idiots well. The buyer would certainly be admonished for being so lazy in the purchase but a qualifying statement like "excellent" is a verbal contract. Don't say something you do not know to be true and factual. Ignorance on the part of the seller is no excuse either.

Tugg

No, saying a car is in excellent condition is not a verbal contract. Not even close. What you are saying is potentially harmful to future car buyers if they believe that a statement like "car is in excellent condition" is somehow legally pertinent and believe that somehow guarantees anything.

If there is a bill of sale, that is the written contract between buyer and seller, and any verbal exchanges or statements of opinion written in an ad are irrelevant. Saying that a "car is in excellent condition" is not a statement of fact. It's an opinion and nothing more. Puffing, rightly or wrongly, gives sellers huge leeway.

OP's niece can sue, and who knows, the seller may even be intimidated into making an accommodation of some sort, but unless some kind of protection is written in the bill of sale or other potential written contract between buyer and seller, she is going to lose.

emperortk wrote:

Tugger wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

[...]
Excellent condition has no meaning legally. I don’t see where the seller did anything you can take action against.

I can only imagine a judge would challenge you on that. And that if it was you making that assertion on a salvage or a car that turned out to be badly damaged from a prior accident, that you would be uncomfortable to say the least to respond to the judge
Judge: "So you state the vehicle was in excellent condition? And you determined this how?"
You: "Well I just said it was in excellent condition. That doesn't mean anything really".
Judge: "Then why did you state that? That is a qualifying statement, one implying knowledge of the condition of something. What made this car to be in 'excellent condition' to you?"
You: "The interior? It was really nice and in excellent condition"
Judge: "But you stated the car was in excellent condition, not just the interior. Why?"
You: ".... uh"


It would be fun to watch. Judges really don't suffer idiots well. The buyer would certainly be admonished for being so lazy in the purchase but a qualifying statement like "excellent" is a verbal contract. Don't say something you do not know to be true and factual. Ignorance on the part of the seller is no excuse either.

Tugg

No, saying a car is in excellent condition is not a verbal contract. Not even close. What you are saying is potentially harmful to future car buyers if they believe that a statement like "car is in excellent condition" is somehow legally pertinent and believe that somehow guarantees anything.

If there is a bill of sale, that is the written contract between buyer and seller, and any verbal exchanges or statements of opinion written in an ad are irrelevant. Saying that a "car is in excellent condition" is not a statement of fact. It's an opinion and nothing more. Puffing, rightly or wrongly, gives sellers huge leeway.

OP's niece can sue, and who knows, the seller may even be intimidated into making an accommodation of some sort, but unless some kind of protection is written in the bill of sale or other potential written contract between buyer and seller, she is going to lose.

Judges do find "excellent condition" to be a qualifying statement. Insurance companies everyday deny "excellent condition" and when taken to court win if the policy holder cannot sustain that statement.

If you state to someone that something is in "excellent condition" I agree that "verbal contract" is too far but it is a statement to implies knowledge on the condition of something. No intimidation needed, the question is very simple "Why do you claim that"? You need to back it up or don't make it.

Again, these are all just examples and suppositions based on a limited posting. I cannot say what would win or be valid at this point. I am just saying that if one is ripped off, even due one's own gullibility, there is recourse and the courts are there for such things. The beware must beware but the seller cannot mislead or fail to disclose known issues and be expected to be easily forgiven if taking to task over such things. You have an obligation to be fair and truthful when dealing with others.


Tugg

StarAC17 wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

What state are you in?

Perhaps you can lobby your representative to ensure that all private sales of cars can only be completed when an independent certification is done on the car to ensure that there are no issues. This seems like common sense and should be a universal practice.

It is common sense, and guess what, we don’t need state reps to enforce it. You simply take said used car, to a mechanic of your choosing, to inspect it for issues before buying.

I don’t want my state reps wasting their time on arbitrary regulations that protect people from their own lack of common sense.

Kno wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

My nice trying so hard to be independent, and so trustworthy of everyone, I don't think she even asked. Considering many of the door panels, hood don't align properly and the repaint is very poor, lots of orange peel etc. We are taking it to a mechanic tomorrow and putting it up on a rack to take a look at it. From what I can see it should be a salvage/rebuilt title. The seller won't take any of our calls. He listed the car as "excellent condition". Its a 2012 Honda Civic 90,000 miles. I think the seller saw a young female with a baby and took advantage of her. We would have returned the car had we been able to stop payment on the cashiers check. Just really sucks there is no protection for buyers in situations like this.

What state are you in?

Perhaps you can lobby your representative to ensure that all private sales of cars can only be completed when an independent certification is done on the car to ensure that there are no issues. This seems like common sense and should be a universal practice.

It is common sense, and guess what, we don’t need state reps to enforce it. You simply take said used car, to a mechanic of your choosing, to inspect it for issues before buying.

I don’t want my state reps wasting their time on arbitrary regulations that protect people from their own lack of common sense.

That's what we do here in Ontario, there was also a post similar for what happens in France.

The certification report from the mechanic is required to change the ownership, there is no extra bureaucracy and regulations placed on the mechanic from the government. If the car fails certification either repairs have to be made or the sale is null and void.

Tugger wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I can only imagine a judge would challenge you on that. And that if it was you making that assertion on a salvage or a car that turned out to be badly damaged from a prior accident, that you would be uncomfortable to say the least to respond to the judge
Judge: "So you state the vehicle was in excellent condition? And you determined this how?"
You: "Well I just said it was in excellent condition. That doesn't mean anything really".
Judge: "Then why did you state that? That is a qualifying statement, one implying knowledge of the condition of something. What made this car to be in 'excellent condition' to you?"
You: "The interior? It was really nice and in excellent condition"
Judge: "But you stated the car was in excellent condition, not just the interior. Why?"
You: ".... uh"


It would be fun to watch. Judges really don't suffer idiots well. The buyer would certainly be admonished for being so lazy in the purchase but a qualifying statement like "excellent" is a verbal contract. Don't say something you do not know to be true and factual. Ignorance on the part of the seller is no excuse either.

Tugg

No, saying a car is in excellent condition is not a verbal contract. Not even close. What you are saying is potentially harmful to future car buyers if they believe that a statement like "car is in excellent condition" is somehow legally pertinent and believe that somehow guarantees anything.

If there is a bill of sale, that is the written contract between buyer and seller, and any verbal exchanges or statements of opinion written in an ad are irrelevant. Saying that a "car is in excellent condition" is not a statement of fact. It's an opinion and nothing more. Puffing, rightly or wrongly, gives sellers huge leeway.

OP's niece can sue, and who knows, the seller may even be intimidated into making an accommodation of some sort, but unless some kind of protection is written in the bill of sale or other potential written contract between buyer and seller, she is going to lose.

Judges do find "excellent condition" to be a qualifying statement. Insurance companies everyday deny "excellent condition" and when taken to court win if the policy holder cannot sustain that statement.

If you state to someone that something is in "excellent condition" I agree that "verbal contract" is too far but it is a statement to implies knowledge on the condition of something. No intimidation needed, the question is very simple "Why do you claim that"? You need to back it up or don't make it.

Again, these are all just examples and suppositions based on a limited posting. I cannot say what would win or be valid at this point. I am just saying that if one is ripped off, even due one's own gullibility, there is recourse and the courts are there for such things. The beware must beware but the seller cannot mislead or fail to disclose known issues and be expected to be easily forgiven if taking to task over such things. You have an obligation to be fair and truthful when dealing with others.


Tugg

But the simple answer to your simple question of "Why do you claim that?" (assuming we're talking about a car's condition) is "It's my opinion." Unless someone is testifying as an expert witness, their opinion of a car's condition doesn't have to be based on anything at all. Condition is subjective. On a moral level I generally agree with you, but in court, all that matters is what's in writing if there is a written contract (usually a bill of sale in the case of a used car sold between individuals).

Condition adjustments in the insurance business are not relevant to private car sales unless they are somehow accounted for in writing.

My advice for anyone planning to buy a used car: 1) never buy from a private seller; 2) if you decide to buy from a private seller, remember point number one; 3) if you absolutely must buy from a private seller (or even a random dealer, or any dealer really), check the car's history from something like carfax and have it inspected by a qualified mechanic; 4) you can put anything you want in writing if the seller agrees to it (don't rely on anything verbal), and if you can't come to terms you can live with, walk away.

emperortk wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Judges do find "excellent condition" to be a qualifying statement. Insurance companies everyday deny "excellent condition" and when taken to court win if the policy holder cannot sustain that statement.

If you state to someone that something is in "excellent condition" I agree that "verbal contract" is too far but it is a statement to implies knowledge on the condition of something. No intimidation needed, the question is very simple "Why do you claim that"? You need to back it up or don't make it.

Again, these are all just examples and suppositions based on a limited posting. I cannot say what would win or be valid at this point. I am just saying that if one is ripped off, even due one's own gullibility, there is recourse and the courts are there for such things. The beware must beware but the seller cannot mislead or fail to disclose known issues and be expected to be easily forgiven if taking to task over such things. You have an obligation to be fair and truthful when dealing with others.


Tugg

But the simple answer to your simple question of "Why do you claim that?" (assuming we're talking about a car's condition) is "It's my opinion." Unless someone is testifying as an expert witness, their opinion of a car's condition doesn't have to be based on anything at all. Condition is subjective. On a moral level I generally agree with you, but in court, all that matters is what's in writing if there is a written contract (usually a bill of sale in the case of a used car sold between individuals).

Condition adjustments in the insurance business are not relevant to private car sales unless they are somehow accounted for in writing.

My advice for anyone planning to buy a used car: 1) never buy from a private seller; 2) if you decide to buy from a private seller, remember point number one; 3) if you absolutely must buy from a private seller (or even a random dealer, or any dealer really), check the car's history from something like carfax and have it inspected by a qualified mechanic; 4) you can put anything you want in writing if the seller agrees to it (don't rely on anything verbal), and if you can't come to terms you can live with, walk away.

All your points are valid, however when you are making a statement another person will rely on, even if it is subjective, still counts and still matters. Great, it's your opinion... So the thje judge asks "why is that your opinion." "I don't know." "Then why would you say that?" "I wanted to sell the car." Was it a fair representation of the car?" "I don't know." "Then why would you say it?"

See? Judge's don't like stupidity or people playing stupid. There is a reason why one makes a claim. In this case to sell car. You cannot make improper statements in order to sell that car as the buyer presumes... and there is a fair presumption of knowledge that can be applied to a seller... the information is accurate and a fair representation. The assumption is that you are "innocent", that the seller is honest and accurate and not trying to defraud. And god forbid if this person has sold other cars. Which if that is the case in this situation, adds even more expertise/knowledge to the seller.

The court and a judge will suss out whether it is an innocent statement or it is an attempt to encourage someone to make the purchase. There is a difference. Again, if this is innocent then that is that, but the OP presents this as someone being taken advantage of by someone else. And I am approaching it that way and offering an option to address such. It is not an absolute but I say if you feel wronged the fight that and push back and stand up. The court's offer a way to do thatin a fair and considered way.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Judges do find "excellent condition" to be a qualifying statement. Insurance companies everyday deny "excellent condition" and when taken to court win if the policy holder cannot sustain that statement.

If you state to someone that something is in "excellent condition" I agree that "verbal contract" is too far but it is a statement to implies knowledge on the condition of something. No intimidation needed, the question is very simple "Why do you claim that"? You need to back it up or don't make it.

Again, these are all just examples and suppositions based on a limited posting. I cannot say what would win or be valid at this point. I am just saying that if one is ripped off, even due one's own gullibility, there is recourse and the courts are there for such things. The beware must beware but the seller cannot mislead or fail to disclose known issues and be expected to be easily forgiven if taking to task over such things. You have an obligation to be fair and truthful when dealing with others.


Tugg

But the simple answer to your simple question of "Why do you claim that?" (assuming we're talking about a car's condition) is "It's my opinion." Unless someone is testifying as an expert witness, their opinion of a car's condition doesn't have to be based on anything at all. Condition is subjective. On a moral level I generally agree with you, but in court, all that matters is what's in writing if there is a written contract (usually a bill of sale in the case of a used car sold between individuals).

Condition adjustments in the insurance business are not relevant to private car sales unless they are somehow accounted for in writing.

My advice for anyone planning to buy a used car: 1) never buy from a private seller; 2) if you decide to buy from a private seller, remember point number one; 3) if you absolutely must buy from a private seller (or even a random dealer, or any dealer really), check the car's history from something like carfax and have it inspected by a qualified mechanic; 4) you can put anything you want in writing if the seller agrees to it (don't rely on anything verbal), and if you can't come to terms you can live with, walk away.

All your points are valid, however when you are making a statement another person will rely on, even if it is subjective, still counts and still matters. Great, it's your opinion... So the thje judge asks "why is that your opinion." "I don't know." "Then why would you say that?" "I wanted to sell the car." Was it a fair representation of the car?" "I don't know." "Then why would you say it?"

See? Judge's don't like stupidity or people playing stupid. There is a reason why one makes a claim. In this case to sell car. You cannot make improper statements in order to sell that car as the buyer presumes... and there is a fair presumption of knowledge that can be applied to a seller... the information is accurate and a fair representation. The assumption is that you are "innocent", that the seller is honest and accurate and not trying to defraud. And god forbid if this person has sold other cars. Which if that is the case in this situation, adds even more expertise/knowledge to the seller.

The court and a judge will suss out whether it is an innocent statement or it is an attempt to encourage someone to make the purchase. There is a difference. Again, if this is innocent then that is that, but the OP presents this as someone being taken advantage of by someone else. And I am approaching it that way and offering an option to address such. It is not an absolute but I say if you feel wronged the fight that and push back and stand up. The court's offer a way to do thatin a fair and considered way.

Tugg

The substantiation of the opinion doesn't matter. Even if a judge goes down the line of questioning you suggest, the outcome won't change. The seller's opinion of the car is considered puffing.

Judges know that sellers say things to enhance the appeal of what's being sold and encourage buyers... that's what puffing is, and that's what protects sellers in such circumstances. Puffing doesn't protect against false advertising, fraud, or lying to a buyer about factual information, but virtually any subjective statement is protected. The "art" of advertising wouldn't be possible if the legal concept of puffing did not exist. Can you recover damages from the makers of Red Bull if you don't grow wings after drinking one?

A judge is much more likely IMO to question the buyer on why she didn't do her due diligence and why a court should bail her out for that failure of responsibility.

Now if the OP's niece feels she can demonstrate that the seller either knowingly lied or committed fraud, then sure, she should sue. But that's an awfully high burden of proof, and based on the information OP has provided, it's just not there.

emperortk wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Now if the OP's niece feels she can demonstrate that the seller either knowingly lied or committed fraud, then sure, she should sue. But that's an awfully high burden of proof, and based on the information OP has provided, it's just not there.

* knowingly lied about factual information