CA Used Car Lemon Law

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? CA
I just recently purchased a used car from a fairly large dealership. Upon the process of hagling the process I asked the salesman if the car was ever in an accident. He told me no. Two weeks later it broke down. I took it to the original manufacturer to get it repaired. Upon them looking at it they claim that the car WAS in an accident and the damage was due to it. They found many after market parts on the car. Unfortunately I did not ask for the CarFax report so all I have is the word of the salesman that sold me the car. Both him and his manager are convenietly never in and I am told that I have to deal with them only. No one else can help me. Does anyone have any suggestions? Comments? Past experiences?

Lemon law applies to new cars only.

You bought a used car and took the word of a used car salesman. You should have had it inspected by an independent third party mechanic prior to purchasing it. Take it as a lesson learned...

Carfax reports don't always show every accident anyway.

But, the dealership not revealing prior accident damage to you is a material breach of the contract (or, should be considered so). As a licensed professional auto dealership they have a higher duty to know about, and therefore reveal (especially when asked) , major defects. First, I would contact the previous owner to see if they know whether or not the dealer was told of the damage. If the dealer reduced the price that the former owner got because of the damage, then you got them by the short hairs.

disclosure of damage

While EVERYONE knows that car salespeople are liars and cheats, you would have to work at a dealership for a while to discover an amazing fact: buyers can be liars, too. That's why dealers generally have the owner of a trade-in sign a statement that says basically that to their knowledge, the vehicle has never been in an accident. Or, if it has, the extent of the damage. If they were the only owners of the vehicle, or if it can be demonstrated that they were aware of problems, and they signed the statement, it provides for recourse.

The dealer has no duty, in the course of checking out the vehicle for resale, to determine conclusively that the car has never been in a wreck. Naturally, if significant issues arise as the car is being checked out, they will almost certainly resolve the issue before (and IF) the car is put up for sale, since its value for resale will be affected.

If a trade in is found to have significant damage that was not disclosed, the owner would probably be asked to accept less for the car, and it would be wholesaled and end up on a used lot in Tijuana.

cjbrown;

You are certainly right that car owners can be liars and scoundrels, too. But I disagree that the dealerships don't have a duty to represent their cars accurately. That means (since they are the professionals) inspecting the cars, and knowing far more about how to spot potential or real problems than the "layperson", not hiding or ignoring defects when selling the vehicle. The term "...knew, or should have known..." is a burden that professional, licensed practioners in any business are commonly held to.

The problem for OP is that the discovery of damage may not really have anything to do with the car breaking down (haven't been shown a relationship there). Further, there is nothing wrong with selling a car that has been properly repaired. But, when a potential buyer asks specifically about defects such as collision damage the dealer's rep (salesman....ummmm...salersperson) has more responsibilty than a private seller to reveal the truth.