Purchased a used car with undisclosed damage

[swalsh411]

Zigner: doing his best to save face since 2005

His reponse was entirely correct. The ruling was that the dealership did not use language consistant with the statute to make the sale as-is.

 

[Adam G]

His reponse was entirely correct. The ruling was that the dealership did not use language consistant with the statute to make the sale as-is.

I'm glad you guys are learning the nuances in the law. Before I posted that link, everybody thought that just putting "AS IS" in the contract was a seller's get out of jail free card. That's obviously silly.

 

[Zigner]

I'm glad you guys are learning the nuances in the law. Before I posted that link, everybody thought that just putting "AS IS" in the contract was a seller's get out of jail free card. That's obviously silly.

No, listening to your "advice" is the silly thing. Do try to keep up.

 

[tranquility]

I'm glad you guys are learning the nuances in the law. Before I posted that link, everybody thought that just putting "AS IS" in the contract was a seller's get out of jail free card. That's obviously silly.

Is THAT your point? Really? OK, fine.

Now, um, what result?

[Engage super-law-powers]
What is the difference between a vehicle properly annotated in the contract as "AS IS" and one which is not?
[Disengage super-law-powers]

My understanding has to do with the warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Now, for the bonus round super-law-powers question:

How does that fact affect the OP's rights in this situation?

 

[Adam G]

No, listening to your "advice" is the silly thing. Do try to keep up.

I never gave advice, I cited the law and got mocked by a bunch of laymen for my trouble. You people were the ones saying he had no case, like you do in almost every thread. Your rolling eyes smileys aren't exactly tough to keep up with.

If he asked me my advice, I would tell him the case would cost more in time and hassle than it is worth. But could he state a prima facie case of consumer fraud and/or breach of the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness? Quite possibly, depending on whether the contract spells out binding arbitration as his sole recourse.

 

[Adam G]

Is THAT your point? Really? OK, fine.

Now, um, what result?

[Engage super-law-powers]
What is the difference between a vehicle properly annotated in the contract as "AS IS" and one which is not?
[Disengage super-law-powers]

My understanding has to do with the warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Now, for the bonus round super-law-powers question:

How does that fact affect the OP's rights in this situation?

We'd have to see the contract, as I said in my original post. If there's a binding arbitration provision then this bantering is all moot.

 

[tranquility]

Unless the contract has an express warranty to go with the implied warranties I mentioned, how does that affect the OP's rights regarding your claim of the importance of if THIS sale was "as is" or not? (Other than who he has to ask to determine if there is a breach.)

 

[You Are Guilty]

We'd have to see the contract, as I said in my original post. If there's a binding arbitration provision then this bantering is all moot.

Wait, so the enforceability of the disclaimer is contingent on the presence (or lack) of an arbitration clause? I do not follow.

1. As-is sale.
2. Mandatory arbitration.
3. ???
4. Profit!

 

[Adam G]

Unless the contract has an express warranty to go with the implied warranties I mentioned, how does that affect the OP's rights regarding your claim of the importance of if THIS sale was "as is" or not? (Other than who he has to ask to determine if there is a breach.)

We might be talking apples and oranges here. The whole purpose behind the binding arbitration clause is to get rid of the consumer fraud claim and the treble damages and attorney's fees that go along with it.

 

[Adam G]

Wait, so the enforceability of the disclaimer is contingent on the presence (or lack) of an arbitration clause? I do not follow.

1. As-is sale.
2. Mandatory arbitration.
3. ???
4. Profit!

As I said to tranquility, those are separate issues. The arb clause prevents treble damages.

There's other potential claims that I didn't mention, as I'm digging through PA Westlaw. UCC, Magnuson-Moss, and a few others.

 

[tranquility]

Why don't we stick to the "potential claims" you DID mention?

Arguendo, the sale was NOT "as is". What result?

 

[Adam G]

Why don't we stick to the "potential claims" you DID mention?

Arguendo, the sale was NOT "as is". What result?

I thought we covered this. Consumer fraud, UCC, and breach of warranties of merchantability/fitness (plead alternatively).

What ultimate result will depend on the evidence we aren't privy to.

For reference:

Uniform Commercial Code – When a dealer disclaims a warrant of merchantability, that disclaimer can be challenged using the federal Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC can also be used to cancel the sale of a used car.

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices – Every state has an Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) law. These laws can often be used even if the used car is sold "as is," as long as the dealer is guilty of a verbal deception or a failure to disclose information about the vehicle.

http://www.lemonjustice.com/lemon-law/PA_lemon_law_coverage_new_used.php

 

[tranquility]

I'm really trying to focus you here on one point. The difference between "as is" or not. OK? Try to not throw out other things to see if something will stick. The difference, as far as I'm aware, has to do with warranties. Since we don't know of any express warranties, we will go with the implied ones. Warranty of merchantability. Warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. You made a big deal about all the fools here who did not know there was a possibility of the sale not being "as is" because of statutory provisions. Now it is time to make your case.

Pretend the sale was not "as is" and the OP is going to sue for breach of one of the implied warranties.

How does that help the OP on our facts?

[Hint: it doesn't.]

Now, was the frolic and detour of "as is" or not just something put out there as a hoot or red herring, or did you have a legal point regarding them?

Re-read edit:

Uniform Commercial Code – When a dealer disclaims a warrant of merchantability, that disclaimer can be challenged using the federal Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC can also be used to cancel the sale of a used car.

While the point of the UCC is to regularize commerce when codified by the state, the "federal Uniform Commercial Code" is not something I thought could give rise to a cause of action. Do you have a cite?

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices – Every state has an Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) law. These laws can often be used even if the used car is sold "as is," as long as the dealer is guilty of a verbal deception or a failure to disclose information about the vehicle.

It's a good thing we have the ACTUAL state and we can see the specific code section you're relying upon. But, what was the verbal deception? Where are the facts indicating a failure to disclose?

 

[Adam G]

How does that help the OP on our facts?

[Hint: it doesn't.]

Thanks for the tip. Apparently I'm not following you. Are you saying that the damage to the car is of the type not covered by those implied warranties?

 

[Adam G]

But, what was the verbal deception? Where are the facts indicating a failure to disclose?

You read it on Page 1:

i TOOK THE VEHICLE,TRUE.I WAS TOLD VERBALLY NO ACCIDENTS.ADDITIONALLY,I VIEW THE HEADLIGHT PROBLEM AS A DEFINITE SAFETY ISSUE.