As is ain't when it's fraud?

[imaginarycat]

What is the name of your state? California

I am under the impression that an "as-is" clause in a bill of sale does not negate fraud perpetrated by the seller, am I correct? My particular situation (about which any advice would be greatly appreciated):

I bought a car from a private party. It was in good cosmetic condition. I asked if it had had any repairs. Buyer assured me that she had merely installed a sunroof and repainted the car (warning bell #1 that failed to sound--why repaint a 1998 vehicle?). The A/C doesn't work, but buyer implies that it probably just needs a recharge (failed warning bill #2--1998 and A/C shot?). Husband of seller, who appears to be a mechanic himself, says outright "it's a good car."

I take car in to get A/C repaired. "Did you know this car has been in a major accident?" asks the mechanic. Uh, no. "Frame damage. Needs new radiator. Can't install new radiator without damaging it due to frame damage. Frame damage. Missing lug nuts (!!!). Etc. etc. etc."

As-is doesn't cover fraud, surely?

Meanwhile I'm having a hell of a time getting a piece of paper that tells a court the actual value of my car, which is, ahem, significantly less than what I paid. I have an estimate for the non-body work that runs into the thousands, but can't get an estimate for the body work because tearing the car apart to see would cost too much. Advice on this? I mean, this was clearly fraud, the car has not (and cannot) pass a smog test (the check engine light has been, either intentionally or accidentally, disabled). So...

Thanks in advance,
Jessica

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And the next time you purchase a car you're going to run a carfax report on it aren't you. Just before you take it to a mechanic you trust for a thorough going over.

Because this is your car. Period. It's your responsibility to rely on facts, not representation of the seller.

Sorry, As-Is means As-Is.

 

[imaginarycat]

Ah, but I did run Carfax--nada. This is clearly a backyard fixup--and a pretty clear-cut case of fraud, I think, as does a friend's cousin, who is a lawyer; that is, either the seller knowingly sold me a wrecked car, or didn't look into it enough to know whether or not he was selling me a wrecked car. In either case, the transaction is fraudulent, and though obviously seller denies knowledge of the weck (duh, they're committing insurance fraud, after all, and breaking state law by not reporting this accident which obviously caused thousands of dollars in damage), I lean toward the first explanation, and can use the second one as an out.

I was wondering if anyone else had gone through this kind of thing--I'm taking seller to small claims, and am trying to find what a good way to establish my damages is.

 

[john123456]

This is interesting:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040710/news_lz1d10seller.html

 

[BelizeBreeze]

This is interesting:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040710/news_lz1d10seller.html

And of course our poster can PROVE that the seller lied. and PROVE as in a court of law with documentation that the seller now only knew the car had been in an accident, but also conspired to conceal that fact from the buyer.

Good luck with that. Just because the car had been in an accident doesn't prove the seller knows it was. Only that one mechanic's opinion is that it was.

 

[imaginarycat]

Ah, quite similar to my situation, except I can't prove the seller knew/caused/whatever the accident damage to my car... but it's nice to have confirmation that this is, in fact, fraud, and that as-is doesn't cover fraud. I wonder how I managed never to find that article through numerous google searches. I must be bad at it.

If only I could afford a lawyer, I could take her to real court.

Thanks,
Jessica