Used Car Purchase Question

[calamadee]

I live in California--I'll try to be brief. I went and looked at an 88 Camaro two days ago and test drove it around the block a couple of times. I spoke extensively with the man selling the car with regard to the vehicle's background. I told him that my main concern was overheating. He stated that he had been driving the car every day for a couple of years and that it had never overheated. I gave him a check for $1500 and took the car home. My brother drove it around the block, pulled up in the driveway, and the car boiled over. I immediately called the guy that sold it to me and told him what happened. He said he would be right over. We waited for an hour and he never showed up. He stopped answering his phone as well. I called the bank and stopped payment on the check. I left a message on his answering machine informing him that I had stopped payment on the check, not to try and cash it, and to come and get the car. I called him five times the next day and he kept hanging up on me.

I never signed an as-is statement. He didn't give me a bill of sale. He signed off on the pink slip, but didn't take the release of liability form, and I haven't signed my name to anything.

I finally got him to answer the phone today and told him we needed to talk about this sale. It isn't what he represented and I don't want it. I haven't told him yet, but I have also learned that the odometer has been rolled back in excess of 60k miles.

Am I stuck with this car???

 

[loku]

You are not stuck with the car. You can repudiate the contract because he lied about the heating problem to induce you to purchase the car. If you can not prove that, then the fact that the odometer is rolled back would also be enough to give you grounds to repudiate the contract.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

You are not stuck with the car. You can repudiate the contract because he lied about the heating problem to induce you to purchase the car. If you can not prove that, then the fact that the odometer is rolled back would also be enough to give you grounds to repudiate the contract.

My response:

Insofar as the issue of the "heating problem" is concerned, I must respectfully dissent from my friend, Loku's, conclusion.

On this issue, California follows the doctrine of "caveat emptor" in "private" sales. [See Smith Land & Improv. Corp. v Celotex Corp. (1988, CA3 Pa) 851 F2d 86, cert den 488 US 1029, 102 L Ed 2d 969, 109 S Ct 837]. Ergo, since California follows the "buyer beware" rule, our writer would not have a cause of action for rescission or repudiation of this "private" vehicle sale contract based upon that issue, alone.

Rather, it was incumbant upon our writer to have the vehicle inspected prior to its purchase. So, I would reverse the decision of the lower court on this issue, and remand this issue to the lower court with instructions to vacate its decision, and to issue a new judgment based upon this decision.

However, Loku is correct in regard to the odometer "roll back" issue. That issue, alone, is enough to give our writer grounds to rescind the contract based on fraud.

Take him to Small Claims court, and obtain the vehicle's history from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Bring that history with you to court.

IAAL