Defective used equipment

[Dieselwelder]

Tx
Ok I bought some used equipment from a rental company that upon initial inspection looked good. After purchasing and going into deeper inspection I found that it was neglected and about to give out.
The contract states that they are relieved of any reliability and is sold "as is".
Last part of contract to me seems like that would make the "as is" statement invalid and reads:
Except where prohibited by state law, customer waives and releases "said company" of and all obligations, liabilities, rights, claims and remedies, IN TORT or otherwise relating to the equipment or this sale, whether arising out of the use, possession, operation, sale, lease, assembly or disassembly of the equipment, or out of "said company"s negligence or strict or product liability, or otherwise.

What I'm getting out of the whole statement after in tort is that if it was sold and has been found neglected by the rental company then the part of them not being responsible would become invalid.
Could someone please tell me if I'm right because I need them to start bearing around the bush with me.

 

[doucar]

It is a standard release that releases them from liability for any claims as to the property sold. In tort, means you cannot sue them for negligence. Or otherwise, means or any other legal theory.

 

[Just Blue]

Tx
Ok I bought some used equipment from a rental company that upon initial inspection looked good. After purchasing and going into deeper inspection I found that it was neglected and about to give out.
The contract states that they are relieved of any reliability and is sold "as is".
Last part of contract to me seems like that would make the "as is" statement invalid and reads:
Except where prohibited by state law, customer waives and releases "said company" of and all obligations, liabilities, rights, claims and remedies, IN TORT or otherwise relating to the equipment or this sale, whether arising out of the use, possession, operation, sale, lease, assembly or disassembly of the equipment, or out of "said company"s negligence or strict or product liability, or otherwise.

What I'm getting out of the whole statement after in tort is that if it was sold and has been found neglected by the rental company then the part of them not being responsible would become invalid.
Could someone please tell me if I'm right because I need them to start bearing around the bush with me.

What kind of equipment is this?

 

[Dieselwelder]

A welding machine, the actual generator in it we not maintained and the whole innards of it about to give out.

 

[justalayman]

you missed the part where it says:

Except where prohibited by law


Everything else is simply defining what they are not liable for unless the first part of the clause is applicable.

The part about the company’s negligence is included in what they are not liable for, again, unless the “except where prohibited by law” phrase applies.

 

[adjusterjack]

What I'm getting out of the whole statement after in tort is that if it was sold and has been found neglected by the rental company then the part of them not being responsible would become invalid.

No, you're reading it the way you wish it could be read, not the way it is written.

The key part of the sentence is that you, the customer, waive any and all of the rights listed and release the company from any and all of the obligations listed.

Bottom line, you bought it as is, it was up to you to determine its condition before you bought it.

 

[justalayman]

A welding machine, the actual generator in it we not maintained and the whole innards of it about to give out.

You were obligated to perform due diligence to ensure you were satisfied with the condition of the machine. Your failure to perform your due diligence is not a reason the as is statement would be set aside.

 

[Dieselwelder]

Thanks that's all I needed to know