Private Car Sale Problem

[starabvmybed]

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

Earlier in the week (3 days ago), I sold an older car (1986). Today (3 days later) I received a call from the buyer saying there are problems with the car.

He is saying that there is engine problems (but agreed I didn't know about it), and false advertisement because I had listed in my craigslist ad that the car had a posi rear end in it (which I was told it did when I purchased the car 2 years ago).

He is basically saying that he wants $500 back from me because of false advertisement and that's how much it would cost to find a cheap posi. He originally said he wanted $800 back.

Now he paid me $2900 and never asked to have the car checked out by a mechanic before he purchased the car. If he did and offered me $2400 I would not have sold him the car. I said I felt bad and would be willing to give him $200 back, but he said that he is getting $500 or will take me to small claims court.

Does he have a case?
Private Car Sales are "as is" correct?

[BL]

Did you write " AS-IS " on the sales receipt ?

Actually the buyer would have a shot - as per Ad .

Does the buyer plan to buy used pos. and does he plan to install it himself ,or have a auto shop install it ?

You can take your chances in court . The buyer would have to present proof of cost to purchase and install Pos., also proof the auto does not now have pos.

You could also ask the buyer to present proof via copy of Known Auto shop that there is no Pos. on the Auto ,and proof of the cost he is requesting to install pos.

You could also call around to a few Auto recyclers for cost of used Pos. and call a few local repair shops to get a round about estimate of cost to install it .

[auto??s]

All privately sold Used cars are sold "as is" whether stated or not its preassumed.

[sandyclaus]

One specific thing in this sales contract could potentially allow the buyer to prevail if they sue. Was the car as it was advertised? In this case, it was NOT. The ad said that the car had a posi rear when it didnt. Its like advertising a bicycle with new tires, only to find that there are no tubes inside them. It could be considered to be misrepresentation, or false advertising to represent an item for sale that is not as it was represented to be. And, as OP points out, to make the buyer whole & give him what he thought he already bought will cost an additional $300-500.

The buyer has a valid point here. He feels he was lied to, that the car was materially misrepresented, and he wants what he has already paid for. This is entirely different from an "AS-IS" issue that affects many private party used car sales. This buyer's problem is not a mechanical issue. Its not a matter of whether something works or not, its about whether or not he got what he was told he was paying for. It doesn't really matter that OP was told it had the posi rear when HE purchased it (for all we know it did come with it & it has been removed - with or w/o OP's knowledge). It was OPs responsibility to properly represent the car, and he did not.

It is OPs responsibility to make the buyer whole by giving him what he told them they were paying for in the first place. If he doesn't, OP will lose a court battle on this one.

[BL]

I have been in SC's court over a used vehicle advertised in certain condition .

As it turned out the auto was not in the condition advertised .

The court found in the seller's favor however .

I appealed and except for a slip of of my tong , the court then was leaning in my favor , but because of that slip . I lost again .

It's not cut and dry either way , but the buyer has a shot .

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by starabvmybed

Does he have a case?

Yes, he has a case, but not necessarily for $500, or even the cost of installing a posi rear end.

Another way to look at his damages is to compare the value of the vehicle with a posi rear end to the value of a vehicle without posi. I doubt installing a $500 posi rear end would increase the value by $500.

You can offer to buy it back for $2900, after he fixes whatever he did to the engine.

[sandyclaus]

Originally Posted by BL

I have been in SC's court over a used vehicle advertised in certain condition .

As it turned out the auto was not in the condition advertised .

The court found in the seller's favor however .

I appealed and except for a slip of of my tong , the court then was leaning in my favor , but because of that slip . I lost again .

It's not cut and dry either way , but the buyer has a shot .

I can see that a condition issue could easily be subjective, whereas as specific "it has it or it doesn't" is more of a black & white issue.

Not like a bicycle having a tire but not the innertube, or saying a car has all of its safety features intact, but the airbag had been deployed in a previous accident and never re-armed. Sure, those HAVE it, but not ALL of it to make the person using it able to use it as intended - without getting what is missing replaced.
It HAS a posi rear vs. there isn't a posi installed at all? Pretty "black & white". For all we know, that could have been a specific feature that buyer was seeking when looking.

I also agree with the last poster. If judge finds in favor of buyer, a refund of the value of the installed feature to the vehicle overall value vs. the cost of buying & installing the missing item is certainly a reasonable way to consider the amount of a judgment.

(Um, sorry for your slippery "tong", BL, whatever that might be??)

[BL]

A misspell that spell checker let through . Tongue.