• 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.

Seller Concealed Frame Rust Damage

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

RWise

Junior Member
West Virginia

About a year ago I bought a 2000 Toyota Echo from a "private seller" although he owns an auto repair shop. He said that he had just put new front wheel bearings on the car and that it was in good shape. The day after I got the car home I jacked up the rear to inspect a muffler hanger that seemed to be loose. As I was inspecting the hanger I noticed a fair sized hole rusted through the frame above the passenger side wheel.

I immediately called the seller and complained that he had sold be an unsafe car. He said that if I bring it back he would repair the frame. I agreed and after a few days of the car being in his shop he called me to say it was fixed. When I arrived the car was on the rack and he showed me that the frame had been repaired. He had even undercoated the entire underneath of the car making it look like new.

This brings me to a few day ago when I hit a small pothole in a parking lot and heard and felt a loud crunch coming from the rear of the car. I got out to find that the frame in front of the rear wheel of the driver's side had broken loose from the body and was on the ground. The spring had popped out and the rear axle had pivoted and jammed the tire into the body of the car.

Not being able to jack the car up there, and needing to get it out of the parking lot, I had the car towed to my home. The next day I jacked up the rear of the car and found that most of the rear driver's side frame had rusted away. It was way more more rusted than could occur in a single year. I also found body putty covered with undercoating sticking to some of the remaining rust. There is even a thin layer of undercoated body putty on a solid looking part of the frame under the trunk. It is obvious to me that the seller tried to conceal the rust damage to the frame.

My questions are, is it possible for me to collect damages since I bought the car a year ago, and if yes, what would be the best way to go about it? At present the seller is not replying to my calls.

Thanks
 


TheGeekess

Keeper of the Kraken
West Virginia

About a year ago I bought a 2000 Toyota Echo from a "private seller" although he owns an auto repair shop. He said that he had just put new front wheel bearings on the car and that it was in good shape. The day after I got the car home I jacked up the rear to inspect a muffler hanger that seemed to be loose. As I was inspecting the hanger I noticed a fair sized hole rusted through the frame above the passenger side wheel.

I immediately called the seller and complained that he had sold be an unsafe car. He said that if I bring it back he would repair the frame. I agreed and after a few days of the car being in his shop he called me to say it was fixed. When I arrived the car was on the rack and he showed me that the frame had been repaired. He had even undercoated the entire underneath of the car making it look like new.

This brings me to a few day ago when I hit a small pothole in a parking lot and heard and felt a loud crunch coming from the rear of the car. I got out to find that the frame in front of the rear wheel of the driver's side had broken loose from the body and was on the ground. The spring had popped out and the rear axle had pivoted and jammed the tire into the body of the car.

Not being able to jack the car up there, and needing to get it out of the parking lot, I had the car towed to my home. The next day I jacked up the rear of the car and found that most of the rear driver's side frame had rusted away. It was way more more rusted than could occur in a single year. I also found body putty covered with undercoating sticking to some of the remaining rust. There is even a thin layer of undercoated body putty on a solid looking part of the frame under the trunk. It is obvious to me that the seller tried to conceal the rust damage to the frame.

My questions are, is it possible for me to collect damages since I bought the car a year ago, and if yes, what would be the best way to go about it? At present the seller is not replying to my calls.

Thanks
What an expensive lesson you've learned; one should ALWAYS get a used car inspected by a trusted mechanic before purchase. :cool:
 

RWise

Junior Member
What an expensive lesson you've learned; one should ALWAYS get a used car inspected by a trusted mechanic before purchase. :cool:
So your response is that there is nothing illegal about purposely concealing a damaged frame? BTW, the car passed the state safety inspection.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
My questions are, is it possible for me to collect damages since I bought the car a year ago, and if yes, what would be the best way to go about it? At present the seller is not replying to my calls.

Thanks
In general when you buy a used car from a private person the presumption is going to be that the sale is "as is" which means the buyer takes the car in whatever condition it is and assumes the risk that the car may be in worse in condition than the buyer thought. So in the usual case when you buy a used car and discover problems after you have no recourse against the seller for those problem. For that reason it is recommended that you ALWAYS have the car inspected by an independent mechanic you trust prior to agreeing to buy it (unless you are yourself a car expert) and you should never trust a seller telling you they think the car is in good or great condition. Especially with a car that is 18 years old one has to suspect that there may be problems with it and simply relying on a visual inspection of the outside of the car and the passenger compartment isn’t going to do you much good.

However, where the seller has committed fraud in the sale, that’s a different matter. You may recover from the seller for fraud. It would be fraud if the seller actually lied about something specific on the car (e.g. seller said it was rust free and the car was actually extensively rusted) or if the seller took active steps to conceal from you material facts about the car, such as covering up damage.

How much did you pay for this very old car? You likely can sue the seller in small claims court and see what the judge decides. Note that since the sale and subsequent repairs apparently were all done based on oral agreements proving what was said is going to be a challenge. Also, the fact that you had the car for year before discovering the problem will make the case more difficult too.
 

RWise

Junior Member
In general when you buy a used car from a private person the presumption is going to be that the sale is "as is" which means the buyer takes the car in whatever condition it is and assumes the risk that the car may be in worse in condition than the buyer thought. So in the usual case when you buy a used car and discover problems after you have no recourse against the seller for those problem. For that reason it is recommended that you ALWAYS have the car inspected by an independent mechanic you trust prior to agreeing to buy it (unless you are yourself a car expert) and you should never trust a seller telling you they think the car is in good or great condition. Especially with a car that is 18 years old one has to suspect that there may be problems with it and simply relying on a visual inspection of the outside of the car and the passenger compartment isn’t going to do you much good.

However, where the seller has committed fraud in the sale, that’s a different matter. You may recover from the seller for fraud. It would be fraud if the seller actually lied about something specific on the car (e.g. seller said it was rust free and the car was actually extensively rusted) or if the seller took active steps to conceal from you material facts about the car, such as covering up damage.

How much did you pay for this very old car? You likely can sue the seller in small claims court and see what the judge decides. Note that since the sale and subsequent repairs apparently were all done based on oral agreements proving what was said is going to be a challenge. Also, the fact that you had the car for year before discovering the problem will make the case more difficult too.
Thank you for your conscientious response. The rusted frame is one of those things that you never know when it will fail. I had just returned from a trip to a destination about 100 miles away and literally 5 minutes after I got back to my town a small pothole caused the frame to give way. I can only imagine the consequences if that would have happened going 70 mph on the interstate. I paid $1,200 for the car.
 

latigo

Senior Member
West Virginia

About a year ago I bought a 2000 Toyota Echo from a "private seller" although he owns an auto repair shop. He said that he had just put new front wheel bearings on the car and that it was in good shape. The day after I got the car home I jacked up the rear to inspect a muffler hanger that seemed to be loose. As I was inspecting the hanger I noticed a fair sized hole rusted through the frame above the passenger side wheel.

I immediately called the seller and complained that he had sold be an unsafe car. He said that if I bring it back he would repair the frame. I agreed and after a few days of the car being in his shop he called me to say it was fixed. When I arrived the car was on the rack and he showed me that the frame had been repaired. He had even undercoated the entire underneath of the car making it look like new.

This brings me to a few day ago when I hit a small pothole in a parking lot and heard and felt a loud crunch coming from the rear of the car. I got out to find that the frame in front of the rear wheel of the driver's side had broken loose from the body and was on the ground. The spring had popped out and the rear axle had pivoted and jammed the tire into the body of the car.

Not being able to jack the car up there, and needing to get it out of the parking lot, I had the car towed to my home. The next day I jacked up the rear of the car and found that most of the rear driver's side frame had rusted away. It was way more more rusted than could occur in a single year. I also found body putty covered with undercoating sticking to some of the remaining rust. There is even a thin layer of undercoated body putty on a solid looking part of the frame under the trunk. It is obvious to me that the seller tried to conceal the rust damage to the frame.

My questions are, is it possible for me to collect damages since I bought the car a year ago, and if yes, what would be the best way to go about it? At present the seller is not replying to my calls.

Thanks
For the reasons stated below I don't see that you have any cause of action against the seller grounded in tort (i. e., actionable fraud) or contract.

(1) There is not implied warranty of fitness in the sale of used merchandise.

(2) Proclaiming or heralding that the vehicle was in "good condition" will be viewed as customary ballyhooing and puffing by the seller and will not be taken as an express warranty as to the vehicle's condition.

(3) You admit that you did not have the vehicle inspected prior to the purchase and there is not evidence that you were denied that opportunity.

(4) Clearly the defective condition complained of was readily discoverable upon a reasonable inspection.

(5) There is no evidence that the seller attempted prior to the transaction to conceal the condition complained of. Nor that the seller was even cognizant of the condition complained of prior to the sale. What he may have done after the fact is of no legal consequence.
 

RWise

Junior Member
For the reasons stated below I don't see that you have any cause of action against the seller grounded in tort (i. e., actionable fraud) or contract.

(1) There is not implied warranty of fitness in the sale of used merchandise.

(2) Proclaiming or heralding that the vehicle was in "good condition" will be viewed as customary ballyhooing and puffing by the seller and will not be taken as an express warranty as to the vehicle's condition.

(3) You admit that you did not have the vehicle inspected prior to the purchase and there is not evidence that you were denied that opportunity.

(4) Clearly the defective condition complained of was readily discoverable upon a reasonable inspection.

(5) There is no evidence that the seller attempted prior to the transaction to conceal the condition complained of. Nor that the seller was even cognizant of the condition complained of prior to the sale. What he may have done after the fact is of no legal consequence.
Thanks for responding. All valid points except for #4. The car passed a WV vehicle safety inspection just last month. They had the car up on the rack and they didn't notice the frame damage either as it was effectively concealed under layers of body putty and undercoating.
 

xylene

Senior Member
complain to the relevant authorities who regulate licensed auto repair business.

The state police for the inspection
 

latigo

Senior Member
Thanks for responding. All valid points except for #4. The car passed a WV vehicle safety inspection just last month. They had the car up on the rack and they didn't notice the frame damage either as it was effectively concealed under layers of body putty and undercoating.
You memory appears to be conveniently self-serving!

Is it necessary to remind you that you've previously admitted that the seller had "undercoated the entire underneath of the car" sometime AFTER the sale?!

And how can you now proclaim that "the defective condition complained of was NOT readily discoverable upon a reasonable inspection" when a day after the purchase you personally "noticed a fair sized hole rusted through the frame above the passenger side wheel"? Which prompted you to return it to the seller following which the "entire underneath was undercoated!
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
You memory appears to be conveniently self-serving!

Is it necessary to remind you that you've previously admitted that the seller had "undercoated the entire underneath of the car" sometime AFTER the sale?!

And how can you now proclaim that "the defective condition complained of was NOT readily discoverable upon a reasonable inspection" when a day after the purchase you personally "noticed a fair sized hole rusted through the frame above the passenger side wheel"? Which prompted you to return it to the seller following which the "entire underneath was undercoated!
His memory is not self serving.

Right after the sale the OP took the vehicle back to the dealer because of the rust on the frame. The dealer agreed to repair the vehicle (apparently for free). The dealer claimed to not only have repaired the frame, but undercoated the entire car as well.

The dealer did NOT repair the frame as alleged. The dealer merely used body putty and the undercoating to make it look like he repaired the frame. He did so, so cleverly that even the state police inspectors did not catch the frame damage when the car was inspected by them just a month ago.

So, the issue is NOT that the car had damage before the sale. Is issue is that after the sale, the dealer agreed to repair the damage and did not do so...just made it look like he had done so.
 

TheGeekess

Keeper of the Kraken
His memory is not self serving.

Right after the sale the OP took the vehicle back to the dealer because of the rust on the frame. The dealer agreed to repair the vehicle (apparently for free). The dealer claimed to not only have repaired the frame, but undercoated the entire car as well.

The dealer did NOT repair the frame as alleged. The dealer merely used body putty and the undercoating to make it look like he repaired the frame. He did so, so cleverly that even the state police inspectors did not catch the frame damage when the car was inspected by them just a month ago.

So, the issue is NOT that the car had damage before the sale. Is issue is that after the sale, the dealer agreed to repair the damage and did not do so...just made it look like he had done so.
It wasn't sold at a dealership. It was a private sale. The private seller owned an auto repair shop, not a dealership The OP is the one who noticed the initial rust damage on the undercarriage, while doing some muffler work on a 16 year old car that presumably has spent its entire time of use in an area of the country where salt/chemicals are used in the winter to keep roads semi-usable. A reasonable person would dig further, because if part of a car is rusted out, then there is likely to be other rusted out spots as well.

This is all on the OP, no matter how you or the OP try to spin it. :cool:
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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