I want to sue but unsure if I can

[round 1]

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

Hello I bought a car from someone the other day and when I went to go look at it the check engine light was on ad the guy said that it had a rebuilt engine put into it and said that some mechanics scanned it and said nothing popped up and said who ever put in the engine must have forgotten to plug the wire back in.. Well te car ran good so I took his word and was told by him that I could have the proof of the "rebuilt engine" in a few days. Anyhow after I bought it I hooked up a scanner to it and many many codes popped up in which I've had to throw in almost 1100,00 into it since. Now I've been emailing this guy asking for the proof and he hasn't responded and I bought this car on the fact that he said the it had a rebuilt engine and u even have emails stating from him that it does and clearly he was lying considering all the problems he said it didn't have.. Do i have a case?

 

[sandyclaus]

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

Hello I bought a car from someone the other day and when I went to go look at it the check engine light was on ad the guy said that it had a rebuilt engine put into it and said that some mechanics scanned it and said nothing popped up and said who ever put in the engine must have forgotten to plug the wire back in.. Well te car ran good so I took his word and was told by him that I could have the proof of the "rebuilt engine" in a few days. Anyhow after I bought it I hooked up a scanner to it and many many codes popped up in which I've had to throw in almost 1100,00 into it since. Now I've been emailing this guy asking for the proof and he hasn't responded and I bought this car on the fact that he said the it had a rebuilt engine and u even have emails stating from him that it does and clearly he was lying considering all the problems he said it didn't have.. Do i have a case?

Probably not.

All used vehicle sales are considered "AS-IS" unless the seller provides you with a WRITTEN warranty or guarantee of fitness. You bought it, you got it as you found it.

I'm fairly sure that the seller probably lied to you when they said that they forgot to plug in a wire for the check engine light. You would have known that if you had hired your own private mechanic to inspect it properly so that you could get an honest take on the REAL condition of the engine. There are just too many people out there who are just looking for a sucker to come along and believe whatever what they tell you, and hope that you won't figure it out before you actually buy the car.

Bottom line, you should NEVER have bought the car without verifying its condition. And you should NEVER have walked away without documentation that the engine was rebuilt and by whom. As such, you end up with a vehicle that needs a lot of repairs, and no recourse against the person who sold it to you.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

In CA, the car must pass smog within a certain period of time from the sale. Unless the vehicle was sold as salvage, the seller is liable for the cost of repairs.

 

[latigo]

Probably not.

All used vehicle sales are considered "AS-IS" unless the seller provides you with a WRITTEN warranty or guarantee of fitness. . . . . .

Mmm?

Where might one find such a law?

That is, a law to the effect that a seller of used goods is free to deceive the buyer by falsely representing and warranting the condition and quality of the goods, and may do so with impunity, so long as the deceptions are not made in writing.

I agree that in the sale of used merchandise there is no implied or imposed warranty that the goods are suitable for a particular purpose. And as long as nothing is said or advertised with respect thereto, the goods are sold without warranty.

But I cannot abide with the theory that a seller of even used goods can be held accountable to the buyer ONLY when his representations as to the condition, quality, history, etc of the goods – no matter how false and misleading – are made in writing.

As soon as the seller opens his mouth about quality, condition, history, etc., - whether voluntarily or in response to inquiry - “SOLD AS IS” business is out the window!

Then it becomes a question of whether or not the elements of actionable fraud are present. One of which is a material false representation knowingly made. And though difficult to prove, I've never seen a treatment, discussion or definition of that particular element of fraud mentioning that it must be in writing.

Nor do I recall reading a criminal statute on fraud and deceit in which the state is bound to produce written proof.

Actionable fraud requires clear and convincing evidence, but it does not require clear and convincing written evidence.

 

[dcatz]

The issue of a smog certificate was recently raised in another post in this forum so . . . .
In a private sale, the seller is required to provide the buyer with a smog certificate prior to or at the time of the transaction (VC § 24007(b)(2). The buyer must present a smog certificate when applying for transfer of title and it must be current within the prior 90 days when presented.
In the event of failure, the buyer may seek rescission or reasonable damages to remedy the defect. There is an understandable dearth of law on whether rescission is available solely for lack of a certificate, but CC §1689(b) provides that: “A party to a contract may rescind the contract . . .
(5) If the contract is unlawful for causes which do not appear in its terms or conditions, and the parties are not equally at fault. [and]
(6) If the public interest will be prejudiced by permitting the contract to stand.”
Restatement 2d of Contracts § 178 states criteria that might be applied to decide the public policy issue, but it supports arguments pro and con and is unlikely in Small Claims, making recovery of reasonable damages the more likely choice.

If the assumption that the seller is a liar and/or is acting with the intention to commit fraud is a necessary pre-condition to identifying “such a law”, it won’t happen. The deck is stacked, if the task is to identify a statute intended to facilitate misconduct or illegality. If the issue is warranties, express and implied, that’s a more generally useful subject but too big for FA, much less this thread. However, at least there’s an answer: both the CA Commercial Code and the Song-Beverly Act create an implied warranty of merchantability (Comm. Code § 2314; CC § 1792). Both arise by operation of law and both exist unless specifically disclaimed. So, in fact, under commercial circumstances appropriate to each, there are implied warranties of applicable to the sale of used merchandise.

There are caveats implicit in those commercial circumstances and the context in which those warranties arise, are disclaimed or waived warrant examination too. I think aberrational pre-conditions prevent that and, without them, the proper focus is on rights and remedies, not fraud.