Follow up on broken timing belt

[PaulMass]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

I spoke with an attorney today, and brought a printout of my previous thread.

He suggested getting legal advice from professionals, not laymen. He actually laughed at the idea that not changing the belt withing the first fifteen miles of ownership could be considered negligence by anyone with any understanding of the law.

I guess you get what you pay for after all. Bye-Bye freeadvice (worth every cent)

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

I spoke with an attorney today, and brought a printout of my previous thread.

He suggested getting legal advice from professionals, not laymen. He actually laughed at the idea that not changing the belt withing the first fifteen miles of ownership could be considered negligence by anyone with any understanding of the law.

I guess you get what you pay for after all. Bye-Bye freeadvice (worth every cent)

Funny thing is that, what you ended up with before you deleted your thread, was two very valid points of view. One saying you were on the right track and one saying you weren't. As such, you did what was advisable and sought legal counsel. I'm not sure why you have such an attitude about it

 

[justalayman]

Since that was obviously pointed at me, without proof of your big win, it is meaningless. Be sure to post up the proof you have returned the car and received a full refund.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Funny thing is that, what you ended up with before you deleted your thread

The thread wasn't deleted. It appears to have been edit and locked by M.

 

[Zigner]

The thread wasn't deleted. It appears to have been edit and locked by M.

Yes, I realized that after I posted - I intended to edit it but flubbed it

 

[Willlyjo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

I spoke with an attorney today, and brought a printout of my previous thread.

He suggested getting legal advice from professionals, not laymen. He actually laughed at the idea that not changing the belt withing the first fifteen miles of ownership could be considered negligence by anyone with any understanding of the law.

I guess you get what you pay for after all. Bye-Bye freeadvice (worth every cent)

I've seen laymen with better advice and more common sense than many lawyers have. So its your loss.

 

[PaulMass]

Funny thing is that, what you ended up with before you deleted your thread, was two very valid points of view. One saying you were on the right track and one saying you weren't. As such, you did what was advisable and sought legal counsel. I'm not sure why you have such an attitude about it

I came here seeking 'legal advice'. Instead, I was told I was negligent because I didn't anticipate that a catastrophic engine failure would occur within fifteen miles.

I spent some time reading other threads, and found a similar theme. People asking for advice are uniformly blamed for whatever situation they are in.

 

[PaulMass]

Since that was obviously pointed at me, without proof of your big win, it is meaningless. Be sure to post up the proof you have returned the car and received a full refund.

I'll do that if you will provide a link to any case in the United States where a buyer was found to be negligent for failing to change a timing belt within fifteen miles of purchasing the car.

I don't expect a court date for a few months, so you've got plenty of time.

 

[Willlyjo]

I'll do that if you will provide a link to any case in the United States where a buyer was found to be negligent for failing to change a timing belt within fifteen miles of purchasing the car.

I don't expect a court date for a few months, so you've got plenty of time.

Whenever one buys a car and it is an "AS IS" purchase and it has over 100,000 miles on it, the first thing that should come to mind is the timing belt/chain. If you don't get it checked out, what happened to you could happen. It happened to me--I ate the loss.

I didn't see your thread, but I'd be surprised if your purchase wasn't "AS IS" and the car had less than 100,000 miles on it. You are a victim of bad luck and carelessness in not updating the timing belt. Due to my experience, I've subsequently purchased 2 cars that were 20 years old and I replaced the timing belt after each purchase.

 

[swalsh411]

OP: The advice you allegedly received from this attorney means diddlysquat until you are successful in recovering from the seller of the car. Be sure to post back with proof when that happens so everybody who told you that you are SOL knows they were wrong.

 

[PaulMass]

OP: The advice you allegedly received from this attorney means diddlysquat until you are successful in recovering from the seller of the car. Be sure to post back with proof when that happens so everybody who told you that you are SOL knows they were wrong.

If advice from an attorney means diddlysquat, that makes the advice received here worth less than diddlysquat.

The entire argument revolves around the Massachusetts law (below) permitting a buyer to return a car if it fails the Massachusetts safety and emissions inspection, unless the failure is due to abuse of negligence on the part of the buyer. The senior members here have stated that failing to replace the timing belt immediately upon purchase of the vehicle constitutes negligence. My attorney does not agree.

You have stated that I am under some obligation to report back after my case is decided. I am under no such obligation. I have offered to post back if (and only if) someone posts any case in the US where failure to immediately replace a timing belt upon purchase of a used vehicle constitutes negligence.

MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS

PART I ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
(Chapters 1 through 182)

TITLE XIV PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS

CHAPTER 90 MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT

Section 7N Voiding contracts of sale

Section 7N. Notwithstanding any disclaimer of warranty, a motor vehicle contract of sale may be voided by the buyer if the motor vehicle fails to pass, within seven days from the date of such sale, the periodic staggered inspection at an inspection station licensed pursuant to section seven W; provided, that the defects which are the reasons for the failure to issue a certificate of inspection were not caused by the abusive or negligent operation of the motor vehicle or by damage resulting from an accident or collision occurring after the date of the sale; and provided, further, that the cost of repairs necessary to permit the issuance of a certificate of inspection exceeds ten per cent of the purchase price of the motor vehicle.

In order to void a motor vehicle sale under this section the buyer shall, within fourteen days from the date of sale, notify the seller of his intention to do so, deliver the motor vehicle to the seller, provide the seller with a written statement signed by an authorized agent of such inspection station stating the reasons why the motor vehicle failed to pass the safety or combined safety and emissions inspection and an estimate of the cost of necessary repairs. The buyer shall be entitled to a refund of his purchase price unless the buyer and seller agree in writing that the seller may make the necessary repairs at his own cost and expense within a reasonable period of time thereafter. This section shall apply only to motor vehicles purchased for the immediate personal or family use of the buyer.

 

[John_DFW]

What is the recommended interval to replace the timing belt for this vehicle, and what was the mileage at the time of purchase?

Did seller make any claims regarding maintenance of the vehicle?

Unfortunately it is not practical to inspect a timing belt prior to purchase. Due to the amount of labor involved, might as well replace it instead of inspect.

 

[justalayman]

PaulMass;2841439]If advice from an attorney means diddlysquat, that makes the advice received here worth less than diddlysquat.

the point wasn't that neither was worthless. It's just that until a court determines you win, it is an opinion.

The senior members here have stated that failing to replace the timing belt immediately upon purchase of the vehicle constitutes negligence. My attorney does not agree.

Then go with his advice and drop the car off at the sellers house and start the process of getting your money back.

You have stated that I am under some obligation to report back after my case is decided. I am under no such obligation.

of course you aren't. Not sure how such an obligation would be enforced but obviously, there isn't one to enforce.

I have offered to post back if (and only if) someone posts any case in the US where failure to immediately replace a timing belt upon purchase of a used vehicle constitutes negligence.

Failure to maintain a vehicle as specified by the manufacturer is negligence. If you believe otherwise, try ignoring the maintenance schedule and make a warranty claim from the manufacturer for a damaged engine or some other item that has a scheduled maintenance period. You will be soundly rebuffed.

My point is: if the belt had not been changed within the time specified by the manufacturer, that is negligent. If there is damage caused by a failure of the belt, it is due to negligence.

and let's make this clear; I believe I am the only one really standing on this point. Others have clearly rejected my position. My point is; if I was the seller, here is what I would argue:

the car worked fine when I sold it. It would have passed inspection when I sold it. Only due to actions by the buyer was it damaged. There is no way to prove you abused the vehicle but the fact it was running just fine when you purchased it and there is obviously no proof the seller acted to commit fraud by hiding some defect, the resulting damage was caused by the buyers actions, or lack of i.e. negligence.

Failing to put oil in the car would be no less negligent, in my opinion. It's easier to check the oil but you still know it is required to make the car operate properly. Since you did fail to inspect the timing belt for wear (not suggesting you tear down an engine just to do so), once you accept the car as ok to purchase, the maintenance requirements are now on you and a failure to provide proper maintenance is negligent.

Honestly, I don't know if you would win or not in court. If the seller disagrees with your position, that's where it will end up though.


and back to my argument about you being liable for the engine:

even if you may be able to reverse the sale, you still caused damage to the engine. The seller did not sell it to you with a damaged engine. At most, he sold it to you with a worn out timing belt. Your use caused the damage and as such, you cannot simply rescind the sale. You are liable for the damages you caused.

again, that is the tack I would take if defending myself as a seller. Whether it flies or not would be up to a court because I would not refund the money without a courts order to do so.

 

[Andy0192]

I'm picking up what you're puttin' down JAL. That's exactly the position I would take as a seller.

 

[Zigner]

Driving a vehicle is not negligence.