Legislation process w/ "lemon" used car

[beethovenjunior]

I purchased a used car at a dealership in Virginia less than a year ago. I signed the contract to buy "As Is." Recently, I've had trouble with the car so I brought it in to a certified dealership for them to inspect. They confirmed that the engine was sludged. If you're unfamiliar with that term, sludge is gelled oil that causes major problems inside the engine. Consequently, the car will need major repairs, possibly an engine overhaul or a complete engine replacement. The mechanics at the dealership explained to me that this sludging is a result of continual neglect of the car, and that I have not owned the car long enough to do that kind of damage. They suggested investigating the No Lemon law and getting the used car dealership to pay for the repairs, or buy back the car.

I've read some on the Virginia "No Lemon" law and it seems to only cover cars bought new, but supposedly similar laws* protect us consumers for used cars too. Would this apply to me? Or did I just screw myself by buying it as is? What steps do you recommend I take?

Thanks.

* case cited is "Subaru of America, Inc. v. Debora C. Peters, 256 Va. 43, 500 S.E.2d 803 (1998)"

 

[racer72]

You have no case especially a year after purchase of the vehicle. That is why anyone purchasing a used vehicle should have it inspected by an independant mechanic prior to purchase. Lemon laws apply only to new vehicles or certain used vehicles still covered under the manufacturer's warranty. You are on the hook for this one.

 

[beethovenjunior]

Actually, I purchased it less than a year ago -- it has just been a few months. In addition, I did have the car checked out by a mechanic before I purchased it. They gave it a clear bill of health -- but naturally, they can't check inside the engine (the time involved would be way too costly for any customer).

Are you familiar with Subaru Vs Peters? I've also been pointed towards the Uniform Commercial Code although I'm unfamiliar with it.

Do they lose all responsibility once I sign the agreement "as is"? While it seems to me that I may have lost out, the guy at the dealership seemed convinced that the used car dealer is held responsible whether I had I warranty or not... that's why I am investigating this.

 

[JETX]

In reviewing the caselaw that you offered, one thing is blatantly missing in your post. What are the following EXACT dates:
1) The date the vehicle was sold by the dealer to its FIRST owner? This should also be the date the original warranty commenced.
2) What is the ORIGINAL warranty period (miles AND months)?
3) What was the DATE and MILEAGE when you first reported "the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agents, or its authorized dealer"?
4) Was the original manufacturers warranty transferable to subsequent owners?

BTW, the caselaw can be found at:
http://www.carlaws.com/peters.htm
And the VA "Lemon Law" can be found at:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC59010000017000030000000

The 'guy at the dealership' is giving you his OPINION based on what he thinks the facts are. You are believing his opinion, since it is obviously what you want to hear. Fact is.... his opinion is incorrect.
The 'as is' means you are very likely sol.

 

[beethovenjunior]

Thank you for your reply.

That's what I was afraid of. Unfortunately, the manufacturer's warranty expired before I bought the car, so unless Toyota announces a recall for sludged engines (which it hasn't, and most likely won't) they're not held responsible for a 'lemon'.

No, I didn't instantly accept what the salesman at the dealership suggested. I am looking into it (hence, why I asked here). But as I was thinking, signing it "as is" may have just screwed me over. Thank you for the links too.

Looks like what I originally thought and I'll have to bite the bullet on the repairs. Thanks again for your input.