Fraudulent misrepresentation? (Private sale)

[titodj]

I'm in NV, we got a car from a private seller, and turned out to be a nightmare.
I understand that on private sells, the buyer is pretty much stuck with whatever he bought with pretty little legal recourse.

But I'm wondering if that changes when there's written (txt messages) documentation of misrepresented facts.
The seller claiming before the sale, that the car was a personal car, with no problems, and that the title was under his name (even writing that his name was the one on the title).
Then acknowledging that there was a problem with it (literally like 5 minutes after the sale) but agreeing to fix it, and failing to do so.

So basically my question is, now I know that the car was never on his name, but a car he flipped (and lying about his name), now I know he never registered the car, and it was never his personal car.
I also know and have documented that he made repairs himself on it, so he was aware of the problems.
Is that fraudulent misrepresentation?

Also, I understand, that even in private sales, when there is an agreement that something has to be corrected, the seller has to live up to that right?

Thanks !!

 

[Zigner]

You didn't notice the name difference when you signed the paperwork?

 

[titodj]

No, I was under the impression that, that was the correct name, it was after the sale that I got doubts, and find out that it was a lie.

 

[NIV]

Classic. Does claiming "A little old lady from Pasadena who only drove it to church on Sundays." amount to puffery or a material representation?

I'd say puffery but would accept the argument of a false statement of material fact. If so, what are the damages?

How has the OP been hurt from relying on the fact he was told the vehicle was in the name of the person he was talking to and not the actual owner?

 

[titodj]

How has the OP been hurt from relying on the fact he was told the vehicle was in the name of the person he was talking to and not the actual owner?

Hurt? I guess if you're lead to believe that you're dealing with someone that you're not dealing with, it would seem to me that anything coming after that would be deceiving.
But that is precisely why I ask.

 

[Zigner]

Hurt? I guess if you're lead to believe that you're dealing with someone that you're not dealing with, it would seem to me that anything coming after that would be deceiving.
But that is precisely why I ask.

How have you been affected, monetarily speaking, by the seller "skipping" the title?

 

[titodj]

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but when he acknowledged that the car had a problem, he agree to fix it.
The problem has not been fixed, so the car can't be used, I guess that has lead to the need to other arrangement for transportation, plus a couple of tow truck bills taking the car back to him so he can work on it.
(so part of the question is, if you agree to fix something, do you need to do it?)

I can "understand" how a private seller is unaware of certain problem when he sells his car, so let say that he heard a noise, that he "forgets" to mention.
Well, too bad so sad... He probably has a bad memory, but did not mean any harm.
But on the other hand, I guess is difficult to say you did not mean any harm by giving a fake name, and selling a car that you know have problems.

Again, I don't know, and that is why I'm asking, probably the right question to ask would be, in a private sell, what constitutes a fraud?

 

[adjusterjack]

A dissertation on what "fraud" is won't help you.

You should have closely examined the title and compared the name on the title to the name on the seller. That would have told you right then that there was a big problem.

You should have had a mechanic inspect the car before buying it if you weren't capable of inspecting it yourself.

You are welcome to sue the guy for your money back but in court I think you will find out quick enough what AS IS means.

 

[titodj]

Mhhh, then I just better cut my losses.
On the flip side, if I manage to sell the car without disclosing anything won't be committing fraud right?

 

[Zigner]

Mhhh, then I just better cut my losses.
On the flip side, if I manage to sell the car without disclosing anything won't be committing fraud right?

It depends. If you know take the car to the shop and are told that the transmission is shot, but then tell a buyer that you know of no problems with the car, you might have a problem.

But, if you simply refuse to answer any questions about the condition of the car, then you're probably ok (but still the owner of the car.)

 

[NIV]

Mhhh, then I just better cut my losses.
On the flip side, if I manage to sell the car without disclosing anything won't be committing fraud right?

Omission of material facts is not usually fraud unless there is a duty to disclose them like in real property sale statutes or securities sales. Concealment of material facts can be fraud.

If they don't ask, you don't have to tell them you thought the car was owned by a little old lady who only drove to church rather than a 20 year old's first vehicle when you bought it.

Fraud might be considered an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact that can be reasonably relied upon by another, is relied upon by another and that reliance causes damages.

1. As to if the name of the person who owned the vehicle is a material fact in a vehicle sale would depend on why it matters at all.

2. As to if a representation that can be checked from public records or documents can be "reasonably" relied upon is a problem. A huge problem.

3. If the buyer does not get what he reasonably relied upon getting because of an intentional misrepresentation of the previous owner, he gets the difference between what he expected and what he got.

a. "Elvis owned this Cadillac." (If Elvis did not.)
b. "Steve owned this Cadillac." (If John actually did.)
c. "Steve owned this Cadillac." (If Hertz actually did.)

All might have a different measure. In all cases, if the problem is patent, there is an issue as to if it was reasonable to rely on the representation.

 

[westside]

What's wrong with the car and how much would it take to fix it?