I'm being sued for selling a car with salvage title? What do you think?

[monopolizer]

What is the name of your state? California

I bought a car that had a salvage title, the owner told me it was hail damage and has been repainted along with the replacing of the hood and fenders. I sold the car a week later because I was moving across country: the spouse I decided not to keep it.

I typed up a paper saying the car was sold as is and no warranty also stating that the buyer inspected it and it had a salvage title. The buyer signed both copies; one for each of us. I told the buyer that the car had been repainted and had hail damage as was told to me when I bought it. I told them before I they drove it that from what I found, it was pulling and may need alignment. I sold it for almost half price of what the retail value was. Three days later they wanted their money back and said their mechanic said the fram was bent due to a collision and the air bags had been replaced. I was not aware of this when I sold it. They had the option of having their mechanic inspecting it before the purchase. They are taking me to court for repairs of over $3k.

I'm am looking to countersue for travel and lodging expenses If I attend.

Do I have to appear in court if I'm 2000 miles away? Could I write a letter to the judge along w/ the copy of the agreement they signed? What do you think the outcome of the case would be?

 

[dws1632]

Cars are always "as-is", no refunds allowed in California. You need to call the court and ask what your options are. Sometimes you can submit a written defense. You should research the laws about car sales to use as your defense.

 

[seniorjudge]

Send a copy of the salvage title and the agreement y'all signed to the court. Make sure the case number and all identifying info is on it.

If you sold him junk, he got junk.

He still has to prove his case even if you are not there.

 

[JETX]

Cars are always "as-is", no refunds allowed in California.

Guess what??? You are WRONG AGAIN!!
California has some of the most stringent 'lemon laws' in the country and cars are 'bought back' by dealers all the time. Further, there are LOTS of lawsuits where a seller was forced to 'refund' the price to the buyer!!

You need to call the court and ask what your options are.

The courts will NOT provide 'options'. That is considered legal practice... and can only be done by a licensed attorney.

 

[badapple40]

Guess what??? You are WRONG AGAIN!!
California has some of the most stringent 'lemon laws' in the country and cars are 'bought back' by dealers all the time. Further, there are LOTS of lawsuits where a seller was forced to 'refund' the price to the buyer!!


The courts will NOT provide 'options'. That is considered legal practice... and can only be done by a licensed attorney.

I'm not sure about California, but at least locally, lemon laws are only available for new car purchases, not used car purchases like this -- for exactly this reason -- that whole buyer beware mantra.

It appears that the seller disclosed all he knew. Whether there is a "should have known" issue I will not comment on at this point. I'd look to hire an attorney to handle this for a few hundred. And yes, you might want to look at finding a local attorney to handle this for you and yes you might need to appear.

Which lends me to my next point as to you defending 3000 miles away or whatever-- where did the car purchase occur, where did you tender possession of the car, where is the buyer from, did you know the buyer was from there at the time, e.g. did you purposefully avail yourself of the forum where you are being sued? I'd think we need a bit more information as to whether or not the court you are being sued in has jurisdiction.

 

[JETX]

I'm not sure about California, but at least locally, lemon laws are only available for new car purchases, not used car purchases like this -- for exactly this reason -- that whole buyer beware mantra.

I agree. My 'example' was presented ONLY in response to the all-inclusive statement made by the always-wrong 'dws' post of: "Cars are always "as-is", no refunds allowed in California."
I was only showing that this idiot is wrong.... AGAIN!!

 

[tijerin]

Actually, as far as "lemon laws" are concerned, the cars are bought back by the MANUFACTURER, not the dealer. The "lemon-laws" pertain to the MANUFACTURER (ie. Toyota, et al), the dealer only facilitates the buy-back typically with a representative from the manufacturer coming to the dealership and independently inspecting the vehicle. Under these buy-back laws, the dealer/manufacturer had to have had the opportunity to fix the problem at least 3 times under warranty (the same problem, mind you) before a consumer can begin a lemon-law claim. You can have ten different things go wrong and it wouldn't be considered a lemon unless the SAME thing goes wrong more than three times with the dealer unable to fix the same problem.

Lemon-laws in California, do not apply to used car purchases. In the circumstance presented here, all the seller would have to do is prove full disclosure of the salvage title (which he claims to have via a bill of sale) and he would be off the hook, especially if he included the phrasing "as-is". If the sale was intrastate, the seller would also have to show that IMMEDIATELY prior to the transfer of title, the car passed a smog check as it's illegal to sell a vehicle without a smog check DESPITE whether one was done a week or a day earlier upon a previous transfer (ie. one party buys the vehicle, then turns around and sells it. The seller in the initial transaction would be responsible for the first smog, then the buyer (who becomes the seller) would be responsible for the second smog).

There is no "cooling-off" period in California in regards to either new or used car purchases. It's posted in EVERY sales office of EVERY dealership as required by state law. Once you sign on the dotted line and leave with your car, it's yours. There is no recission period UNLESS the car was delivered (and contracts signed) in your home, then you have a 3-day recission period similar to that of mortgages, vaccuum cleaner sales and any other door-to-door, in-home sales (laws were designed to protect unscrupulous salespeople from fleecing elderly and/or naive people) but would apply to a vehicle sale if the purchase and/or contract was signed AT THE BUYER'S HOME (unsure whether this law applies to private party vehicle sales). If you want to "give a car back" after taking it away, unless you can prove less than full-disclosure of a salvage title (especially in the case of a private party), or that the car was not smogged, it would be completely the seller's decision whether to issue a refund. Of course, dealerships have a much higher level of responsibility in regards to the "condition" of the vehicle and could be held liable for selling a vehicle with a known problem that would put the buyer's safety at risk (ie. selling a car with no brake pads, etc) which is why most "reputable" dealerships won't sell cars like this and/or cars with salvage titles to anyone other than wholesalers.

My OPINION, in this circumstance is that you have a case of buyer's remorse happening. As long as you disclosed the salvage title, had the car smogged prior to the transfer, and can prove both, you'll be fine and won't have to return the money. You are not a mechanic and it's the BUYER'S right to have the vehicle inspected prior to buying the vehicle (which they chose not to exercise). Caveat Emptor.

I may not be a lawyer, but I have MUCH experience in the automotive industry.

 

[tijerin]

I agree, JetX. I was just clarifying the laws in California that pertain to his circumstance for HIS benefit, not arguing against you.