bought tv, didnt work, no refund

[anthony davis]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
I bought a tv on an online site much like Craigslist. The seller told me that everything was working and nothing was wrong with it. We agreed on the price of 300 for the 60inch tv. He said he had bought a new tv and just needed to get rid of it. When I got home and set the tv up I turned it on for about 30 sec and turned it off it worked. I didn't use it for the rest of the day. The next day I turned on the tv and watches about 20 min of it when it got all fuzzy and wavy. The tv no longer worked. I spoke with the seller telling him about the situation and asked for my money back. He of obviously said no or I wouldn't be here. I have all the emails before payment of him saying there was nothing wrong with it and it worked. I have witnesses that helped me move the tv to my house. One of witch lives with me and they all saw that the tv was not broken under my care. And I have all the text messages of him saying it wasn't his problem and he would not pay. I would like to know if I would stand a chance of winning in small claims court. I would be asking for the 300 I payer and the cost of any court fees. I would like any advice on the matter of what I should do or anything that can herded help me if I should take it to court. Thank you

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
I bought a tv on an online site much like Craigslist. The seller told me that everything was working and nothing was wrong with it. We agreed on the price of 300 for the 60inch tv. He said he had bought a new tv and just needed to get rid of it. When I got home and set the tv up I turned it on for about 30 sec and turned it off it worked. I didn't use it for the rest of the day. The next day I turned on the tv and watches about 20 min of it when it got all fuzzy and wavy. The tv no longer worked. I spoke with the seller telling him about the situation and asked for my money back. He of obviously said no or I wouldn't be here. I have all the emails before payment of him saying there was nothing wrong with it and it worked. I have witnesses that helped me move the tv to my house. One of witch lives with me and they all saw that the tv was not broken under my care. And I have all the text messages of him saying it wasn't his problem and he would not pay. I would like to know if I would stand a chance of winning in small claims court. I would be asking for the 300 I payer and the cost of any court fees. I would like any advice on the matter of what I should do or anything that can herded help me if I should take it to court. Thank you

I'm sorry - but you bought the item "as is".

Enjoy your TV.

 

[sandyclaus]

I'm sorry - but you bought the item "as is".

Enjoy your TV.

x2...

Most people do not realize that pretty much every used item sold by a private party seller is considered an "AS IS" sale unless they also provide the buyer with a WRITTEN warranty or guarantee of fitness for a specific purpose. No written warranty or guarantee means no recourse if something should happen to go wrong with the item after purchase.

Next time, take the time to test the item more thoroughly before buying, or have an expert check it out first. Or ask the seller if they are willing to write up some sort of warranty that covers you in the event that the item breaks down or stops working within a short amount of time after purchase. If the seller refuses, then walk away. Chances are that they are choosing NOT to disclose a defect or the fact that the item is being sold because it no longer works.

 

[Proserpina]

x2...

Most people do not realize that pretty much every used item sold by a private party seller is considered an "AS IS" sale unless they also provide the buyer with a WRITTEN warranty or guarantee of fitness for a specific purpose. No written warranty or guarantee means no recourse if something should happen to go wrong with the item after purchase.

Next time, take the time to test the item more thoroughly before buying, or have an expert check it out first. Or ask the seller if they are willing to write up some sort of warranty that covers you in the event that the item breaks down or stops working within a short amount of time after purchase. If the seller refuses, then walk away. Chances are that they are choosing NOT to disclose a defect or the fact that the item is being sold because it no longer works.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[sandyclaus]

I almost need to type that up as a sticky page, for both this section and the "Lemon Law" section.

Everyone seems to think that when people TELL you that used items work perfectly, they are going to offer some kind of warranty or guarantee in writing if they are more likely to remain that way after the sale. They think that by not checking things out themselves instead of taking the seller's word for it (the seller usually being a total and complete stranger to them), they can just return these items back and demand a refund.

"If it ain't in writing, it never happened."

 

[justalayman]

and on top of everything else, it did work when you first used it, right?


Why didn't you turn it on and watch it for a bit before purchasing it?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

• When I got home and set the tv up I turned it on for about 30 sec and turned it off it worked.
• I turned on the tv and watches about 20 min of it when it got all fuzzy and wavy.
• The tv no longer worked.

If you can turn on the TV and watch for another 20 minutes before it gets all fuzzy and wavy, you may have a chance to sue for misrepresentation, going under the assumption that the seller know of this condition and you would not have had the opportunity to test it for 20 minutes to find the defect.

If the TV simply doesn't work at all, then it died while in your possession, which is not something that the seller knew, or should have known, would happen.

 

[Zigner]

If you can turn on the TV and watch for another 20 minutes before it gets all fuzzy and wavy, you may have a chance to sue for misrepresentation, going under the assumption that the seller know of this condition and you would not have had the opportunity to test it for 20 minutes to find the defect.

Wrong. The OP had the opportunity to test/inspect it PRIOR to purchase. The OP did so and accepted the TV as-is. The TV subsequently failed to work FOR THE OP. OP won't win this one (yeah, I've see the Crystal Ball)

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Wrong. The OP had the opportunity to test/inspect it PRIOR to purchase. The OP did so and accepted the TV as-is. The TV subsequently failed to work FOR THE OP. OP won't win this one (yeah, I've see the Crystal Ball)

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize 2-208 of the UCC had been repealed in California.

 

[Zigner]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize 2-208 of the UCC had been repealed in California.

The TV WORKED Steve. It broke AFTER the OP took possession - how do you expect the OP to be able to prove anything different?

ETA: And, how exactly do you expect 2-208 to even apply to this situation?

§ 2-208. Course of Performance or Practical Construction.

(1) Where the contract for sale involves repeated occasions for performance by either party with knowledge of the nature of the performance and opportunity for objection to it by the other, any course of performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection shall be relevant to determine the meaning of the agreement.

(2) The express terms of the agreement and any such course of performance, as well as any course of dealing and usage of trade, shall be construed whenever reasonable as consistent with each other; but when such construction is unreasonable, express terms shall control course of performance and course of performance shall control both course of dealing and usage of trade (Section 1-205).

(3) Subject to the provisions of the next section on modification and waiver, such course of performance shall be relevant to show a waiver or modification of any term inconsistent with such course of performance.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

ETA: And, how exactly do you expect 2-208 to even apply to this situation?

Simple - add 400 to get to the code section I meant to type:

2-608

§ 2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.

(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it

(a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
(b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.

(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.

 

[Zigner]

Simple - add 400 to get to the code section I meant to type:

2-608

The OP had plenty of time to test this Steve. He chose not to.

 

[justalayman]

I just have to ask ya steve; does the uniform COMMERCIAL code apply to a sale of used tv between two private individuals? (i.e. non-commercial transaction)

 

[las365]

I just have to ask ya steve; does the uniform COMMERCIAL code apply to a sale of used tv between two private individuals? (i.e. non-commercial transaction)

I was curious about that, too.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I just have to ask ya steve; does the uniform COMMERCIAL code apply to a sale of used tv between two private individuals? (i.e. non-commercial transaction)

Yes, it does. It applies to transactions in goods. Some parts only apply to merchants, but those sections clearly state the merchant requirement. For example, see 2-207 (2) "Between merchants..."

§ 2-102. Scope; Certain Security and Other Transactions Excluded From This Article.

Unless the context otherwise requires, this Article applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this Article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers.