Sold laptop on Craigslist - 3+ years later, buyer wants refund

[heyitsr]

What is the name of your state?
California

Hi All,
I originally purchased a brand new/sealed MacBook laptop from craigslist for use on a project, I ended up not using the laptop so I resold to an individual on Craigslist. The individual recently reached out (3.5 years after point of sale) stating the system was locked out (not my doing, assuming the cause was the original owner/company). The buyer is now asking for a refund or he'll take me to court. Understanding the right thing to do would be to refund the money, the system worked 3+ years and is now depreciated. Should I expect this holding up in small claims court and having to refund the full amount? In an awkward situation, would appreciate any feedback/guidance.

Thanks!

 

[quincy]

Hi All,
I originally purchased a brand new/sealed MacBook laptop from craigslist for use on a project, I ended up not using the laptop so I resold to an individual on Craigslist. The individual recently reached out (3.5 years after point of sale) stating the system was locked out (not my doing, assuming the cause was the original owner/company). The buyer is now asking for a refund or he'll take me to court. Understanding the right thing to do would be to refund the money, the system worked 3+ years and is now depreciated. Should I expect this holding up in small claims court and having to refund the full amount? In an awkward situation, would appreciate any feedback/guidance.

Thanks!

What is the name of your state?

 

[quincy]

It is a little late for the purchaser of the laptop to demand a refund. I suggest you ignore all communications from the person.

 

[not2cleverRed]

What is the name of your state?
California

Hi All,
I originally purchased a brand new/sealed MacBook laptop from craigslist for use on a project, I ended up not using the laptop so I resold to an individual on Craigslist. The individual recently reached out (3.5 years after point of sale) stating the system was locked out (not my doing, assuming the cause was the original owner/company). The buyer is now asking for a refund or he'll take me to court. Understanding the right thing to do would be to refund the money, the system worked 3+ years and is now depreciated. Should I expect this holding up in small claims court and having to refund the full amount? In an awkward situation, would appreciate any feedback/guidance.

Thanks!

Are you familiar with the phrase "pound sand"?

Start using it.

No, you don't owe him a refund.

 

[heyitsr]

Would Statute of Limitations play any part in this scenario?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Assuming that you sold the computer as is, i.e. without warranty, he has no good case to bring now. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) the buyer has the obligation to inspect the goods upon receipt and reject them at that time if they are nonconforming (meaning the goods are not what were promised in the contract). He took the computer at the time and accepted it. He cannot now complain 3.5 years later that it's not good and demand a full refund.

In California the statute of limitations for a written contract is 4 years and 2 years for an oral contract. The time starts to run on the date of the breach, which here would be the date the computer was delivered to the buyer since it was at that time that he could inspect it and determine if it was not what was promised in the deal.

I'd not respond to him at this point. Demanding a full refund after he has presumably used it for 3.5 years is nothing more than an attempt to get free use of that computer for that time as far as I'm concerned, and he has a lot of nerve to ask for that. If he sues you, of course you'll need to respond. I suspect, though, he'll never get around to suing, at least if he has any clue at all as to how the law works with sales of goods.

 

[quincy]

Would Statute of Limitations play any part in this scenario?

For a breach of contract suit in California, there is a four year statute of limitations (the time within which a lawsuit must be filed) so it is possible that, even after 3 1/2 years, the purchaser of your laptop could sue you.

Although a lawsuit is unlikely, a cautionary tale for all online sellers comes out of Indiana, home to a prolific litigant named Gersh Zavodnik. Zavodnik has filed over 100 lawsuits, most against online sellers of “defective” goods.

Here is a link to one suit filed against the seller of a $75 printer that Zavodnik purchased on Craigslist - a suit which almost cost the seller $30,000:

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05231602nhv.pdf

Although people like Zavodnik are few and far between, they do exist. You probably are safe ignoring the fellow who purchased your laptop BUT, if you are served with a summons and complaint, you will need to respond in a timely fashion.

Good luck.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Although people like Zavodnik are few and far between, they do exist.

Sadly there are a few of them out there, and IMO the courts should be more aggressive in sanctioning people who abuse the court system and repeatedly burden other people with frivolous claims.

 

[quincy]

Sadly there are a few of them out there, and IMO the courts should be more aggressive in sanctioning people who abuse the court system and repeatedly burden other people with frivolous claims.

I agree.

The Indiana Supreme Court did offer guidance to Indiana courts on handling frivolous lawsuits and abusive litigants, when the Court was denying a Zavodnik petition to transfer his action from the Indiana Court of Appeals. Although the Court had harsh words for Zavodnik, he was not at that time sanctioned ... and Zavodnik continued filing lawsuits, even against judges.

Here is a link to the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision that includes its guide for courts: https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09301401per.pdf

I know heyitsr is in California so Indiana and Zavodnik might not seem relevant. But, when selling items online, sellers and purchasers often reside in different states. When disputes arise, trying to resolve them long-distance can get costly.

With luck, heyitsr’s purchaser will just give up and go away.

 

[adjusterjack]

In California the statute of limitations for a written contract is 4 years and 2 years for a written contract.

I'm pretty sure you meant 2 years for an oral contract.

For a breach of contract suit in California, there is a four year statute of limitations (the time within which a lawsuit must be filed) so it is possible that, even after 3 1/2 years, the purchaser of your laptop could sue you.

It's worth noting that a statute of limitations does not actually prevent a lawsuit. It provides an affirmative defense to the lawsuit which may result in dismissal.

 

[quincy]

I'm pretty sure you meant 2 years for an oral contract.



It's worth noting that a statute of limitations does not actually prevent a lawsuit. It provides an affirmative defense to the lawsuit which may result in dismissal.

True. The statute of limitations would be a defense to a lawsuit.

 

[Zigner]

If one is on notice that the statute of limitations has passed, yet one proceeds with a suit and loses (based on the SOL), couldn't one be at risk of being found to have committed abuse of process in a later proceeding?

 

[not2cleverRed]

Would Statute of Limitations play any part in this scenario?

Have you been reading the responses?!

You do not morally owe a full refund. He's used it for over 3 years. And for all we know, the problems he's having could be due to his misuse/abuse.
You do not legally owe a refund, unless there are details that you have not previously shared. You have not indicated that you had a written contract, therefore even if he claimed to have an oral contract, the statute of limitations have passed.

Tell the clod to "pound sand".

If the dork tries suing in small claims, respond with the legal equivalent on "pound sand". Do not use the phrase "pound sand" in your response, though. Look up "motion to dismiss" and "frivolous". You sound a little timid, so if it comes to pass that this goes to small claims, look into getting someone (a lawyer) to talk for you if you are afraid to speak up for yourself. Only lawyers are allowed to represent a party in court.

 

[quincy]

If one is on notice that the statute of limitations has passed, yet one proceeds with a suit and loses (based on the SOL), couldn't one be at risk of being found to have committed abuse of process in a later proceeding?

It is illegal for a debt collector to sue a debtor for a time-barred debt - but that does not prevent the debt collector from suing anyway and hoping no one notices. The FTC has sanctioned debt collection agencies in the past for filing lawsuits that these agencies knew (or should have known) were time-barred.

 

[Zigner]

It is illegal for a debt collector to sue a debtor for a time-barred debt - but that does not prevent the debt collector from suing anyway and hoping no one notices. The FTC has sanctioned debt collection agencies in the past for filing lawsuits that these agencies knew (or should have known) were time-barred.

I'm not talking about FTC violations. In California, this type of situation could give rise to a claim of Abuse of Process. If the other party knows that the claim is time-barred, yet sues anyway, that is abuse of process. In fact, even if the other party doesn't know, it can be an abuse of process because they should have known. Once the suit is found in the defendant's favor (based on the SOL), that would give rise to a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff for abuse of process.