• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

used car dealer

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

stilltryin

Junior Member
What is the name of your state?Maine
I bought a 4 wheel drive from a used car dealer and he told me that it had a new motor. With 222k miles on the odometer I figured a new motor would get me far. I explained to him that I drive approx. 700 miles a week , I need something and someone dependable to stand behind it. He said "we only want happy customers". One week after I drove it off the lot, I brought it back to have the oxygen sensor, brakes, steering, exhaust and fuel pump checked. Obvious problems I could decipher. They told me nothing was wrong with the car. The fuel pump went on my way to work. He wanted to charge me $330 to fix it. Along with $100 to have it towed to his place. Needless to say, it doesn't have a new motor, the brakes have been replaced but the master cylinder is gone. I went off the road with my daughter in the car because the brakes didn't work. I've been told that since the warrenty is over, there is nothing I can do. I want the money back and am planning on sueing for punitive damages. Where do I stand?
 


Crazed98

Member
First of all how do you know the engine is not new or atleast rebuilt???

Second the vehicle has 222,000 miles, how can you expect it to be reliable even with a brand new engine?

You bought the car and now the warrenty expired there is nothing you can do.

Unless, you have proof that work they did on your car made it unsafe to drive.

But either way you are still stuck with a 200k+ vehicle.
 

JETX

Senior Member
stilltryin said:
I want the money back and am planning on sueing for punitive damages. Where do I stand?
You stand way, WAY out in left field. So far out there you can't even see home plate! :D
You have NOTHING in writing about these 'claims'.
You have provided NO time setting. For all we know, this could have occurred over a years period.
In fact, you have provided no evidence whatsover to support your claims.

The only thing you have is a moderately interesting story.
 
Last edited:
new engine=new car?

The term "engine" can be somewhat enigmatic. In your case, it probably refers to the basics block, pistons and top end. All other parts, like the fuel pump etc , are taken off the old engine. Buying a vehicle with over 200,000 miles on and expecting it to run without problems is ridiculous. I sold a couple of toyota camrys with similar mileage to a cab company in town (he runs them up to about 500,000 before he retires them). The buyer knew exactly what he was doing, because he EXPECTED the cars to need frequent repairs, even though they were toyotas. On top of it all, you got a 4wd...can be very expensive to repair (transfer case!)

Chalk this one up to experience. Unless the dealer completely and demonstrably misrepresented the "new" engine, you're out of luck in terms of suing him.
 
Last edited:

stilltryin

Junior Member
used car dealership

Yes, I would definately say that he "misrepresented" the new enging. When I told him that I drive approx. 600 miles a week, he said "no problem" you 'll be fine. We want happy customers.They put the sticker on!
I realize that I'm not going to buy a used vehicle without having some problems, regular maintainence and at times other crap happens, but, I have witnesses of everything that he has said on the vehicle. Within one week of driving it, I brought it back to have the oxygen sensor, brakes, steering, exhaust and fuel pump checked. The car was NOT right. Accelerating on it's own, veering off when I stepped on the brakes and you can hear the exhaust. They had it for 1 1/2 days and said there was nothing wrong with it. He at one point said "they don't do brakes", I said it's still under warrenty. Then he told me they were backed up come next week. I went, then he said we're paving the lot, come in two weeks. He just jerked me around. The fuel pump went. (It was still under warrenty) I had it towed to them. They tried to bag me for the $100 tow charge and then said $330 to fix the fuel pump. Every week I went back and argued with this guy about fixing stuff that it's still under warrenty. Yes, there is something wrong with the brakes, called master cylinder. I had to be towed out of the ditch because the brakes didn't hold. In order to avoid rearending a car backing out of a driveway when he didn't bother to look before he leaped. Yes I have witnesses for that too. The vehicle now sits in my driveway after being towed tonight because it's the alternater this time. If this guy jerked me around the whole warrenty time, refusing to fix it unless I paid for the repairs, I believe that to be
misrepresentation, fraud. It's the work they DIDN'T do on the car makes it unsafe to drive.
Does this information give you a better time frame from beginning to end on what's been going on with this vehicle?
Thanks for all of your help and suggestions.
 
Last edited:

JETX

Senior Member
stilltryin said:
Does this information give you a better time frame from beginning to end on what's been going on with this vehicle?
Okay... with all of that... you might be about 6" closer to home plate.

Your ONLY option at this point is to file a lawsuit against him. If he doesn't show up, you have a chance of 'winning'. At least you will get a good experience of how the law works.... and how you are OBLIGATED to have the vehicle checked out by YOUR mechanic before you purchase.

Google 'caveat emptor'.
 
used car issues

While I sympathize with your situation, you haven't stated how the dealer misrepresented the "new engine".

What you'll find in the world of automobile "warranties", or any warranties for that matter is their specificity. In a situation such as yours, I would imagine that the dealer offered a limited (ie internally lubricated parts of the motor etc). Brakes are an entirely different issue. In California for instance, there is no rule or regulation as to, say, the amount of wear left on the brakes. It can be metal to metal, as long as it slows the vehicle. In the unlikely event that a dealer would sell you a vehicle with defective brakes (knowingly), you would have an issue. Guess what, though? They MAKE money by fixing such problems, so there would be absolutely no incentive to sell a vehicle that they knew had problems.

Would you care to share what kind of vehicle it is (year, model)? And, whether you purchased it from a new car dealer? These are important issues.
 

JETX

Senior Member
cjbrown929 said:
WIn California for instance, there is no rule or regulation as to, say, the amount of wear left on the brakes. It can be metal to metal, as long as it slows the vehicle.
WRONG again!!

I suggest you read the 'Brake and Lamp Adjuster' Exam requirements and you will see that brake pad and shoe/caliper thickness is a VITAL part of the CA vehicle safety inspection:
http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/ftp/pdfdocs/brakelamphdbk.pdf

Also, the California Vehicle Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=26001-27000&file=26450-26458.5
 
wrong? or time for an apology?

JETX: how's it going? You sound like you're in a bad mood. "Required pad thickness" refers to the minimum thickness required to receive a safety certification. Safety certifications are not required on simple trade-in vehicles that are simply resold such as in the case here(smog certifications, on the other hand, definitely are, except for motorcycles and diesels), although as I noted, the dealer makes money by doing the repair and simply adding the cost to the vehicle. He also risks being sued if there is a problem, but I defy you to show me a law that requires a dealer to replace brake pads that are thin or even metal to metal on a trade-in before he sells it. All the brakes have to do is stop the vehicle within certain parameters, pads or not.

I await your apology.
 
Last edited:

JETX

Senior Member
cjbrown929 said:
JETX: how's it going? You sound like you're in a bad mood.
If being frustrated at having to continually correct stupid and incorrect posts on a LEGAL advice forum is being in a 'bad mood'.... yep.

"Required pad thickness" refers to the minimum thickness required to receive a safety certification.
Gee.... how long did it take you to come up with that wonderful wisdom???

Safety certifications are not required on simple trade-in vehicles that are simply resold such as in the case here(smog certifications, on the other hand, definitely are, except for motorcycles and diesels)
Generally correct. HOWEVER, that is NOT what you said ("In California for instance, there is no rule or regulation as to, say, the amount of wear left on the brakes. It can be metal to metal, as long as it slows the vehicle.").
Where does that say ANYTHING about "simple trade-in vehicles"???
Clearly, your post is WRONG as.... California DOES have rules and regulations as to the amount of 'wear' left on the brakes!!!

I await your apology.
Hope you are still waiting.... since you, once again, are NOT correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lets get technical

"Where does that say anything about 'simple trade in vehicles'" you ask. The answer? One sentence before, the one that begins "In a situation such as yours...."

I was discussing laws that were directly applicable to this person's case; you are nitpicking about issues that clearly did not apply here.. As you yourself said, I was "generally correct". More to the point, I was SPECIFICALLY correct, while you are out in left field ie the law (if it exists) you cite does not apply here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
cjbrown929 said:
JETX: why don't you share your wisdom instead of your wit. What law are you referring to, the one that would apply directly to this situation?
Well, actually the law of negligence would apply if a dealer knowingly sold a used car with the brake pad backing plate doing the stopping. The same law would apply if the dealer sold the car knowing that it had a leak in the exhaust system that vented into the cabin, or that it would shoot flames through the vents under hard acceleration. (They also can't sell a car with known problems to the SRS system as well, although that is a statutory violation rather than common law).

Does it mean that every dealer warrants that the brakes on a used car are perfect? Of course not. Does it mean that a dealer could be liable for selling cars that are dangerous to use? Absolutely. Does any of the mean squat to the OP? Probably not, unless they have a lawyer and a forensic engineer on retainer.
 

JETX

Senior Member
cjbrown929 said:
JETX: why don't you share your wisdom instead of your wit. What law are you referring to, the one that would apply directly to this situation?
You said "In California for instance, there is no rule or regulation as to, say, the amount of wear left on the brakes."
Of course, that is NOT correct. I already provided sufficient PROOF that thickness of brake shoes/pads/rotors IS a part of the California safety/smog inspection requirements. And yes, thickness is "amount of wear left on the brakes".

Spell it out, jetx, you are usually quite a champion at quoting the specific rule, law etc
Already have.... . The fact that you can't.... says enough. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top