Used Car Purchase

[justus]

What is the name of your state?OR

My husband and I bought a used vehicle from a dealer who claimed that they did an inspection. The low tire pressure light was on so I went and had the air check and adjusted. It came back on so I went somewhere else and it came back on and I went to yet a different place who looked under the vehicle.

They said that my rear tires are cord bare (I've only had the car for 2 1/2 weeks and put maybe 500 miles on it) and that it's a safety issue and they have to be replaced. I had this verified by another shop and then I called the dealer. Who "isn't sure if they can help out because of the great deal they gave us." Also, I have to take it somewhere else to make sure there's no bent parts making the tires wear the way they are.

So, I guess what I'm wondering is there any type of law or anything that says that car dealers have to make sure a vehicle is safe before it leaves their lot? What about bent parts? I'm not happy since I haul my 3 very small children around in this vehicle. Obviously I'm getting it fixed today no matter what but I'm wondering if the dealer is responsible since it obviously left their lot in that condition.

Thanks

 

[jpritchett81]

What did your mechanic have to say about the condition of the car before you purchased it???

 

[justus]

Well supposedly they did an inspection (or whatever it is they do)and said that it wasn't needed because their shop went over it VERY thoroughly, and they told us some things that they did do (like brakes...which was verified).

So, I drove 1 1/2 hours today to take it to a mechanic that I trust and the tires were infact bald on the inside and I took it and had a tire store take a look (and I replaced the tires). The person at the tire shop said that dealers are responsible for making sure all of the safety equipment is in working order and safe before it leaves the lot, including the tires...which obviously this was not. He said that in his opinion this should have never left the lot as is. I've had 2 professionals tell me that now.

What I want to know, is are they responsible for making sure that all of the equipment is safe before they try to sell it? This was a safety issue, they were that bad.

 

[crusheroz]

I have to ask,, why didnt you and your hubby look over the car yourself? You took the word of a dealership. I would say they have no liable to you, that is why when you buy a car you test drive it and look over,, if you had taken the time to do so you would have caught the bald tires.

 

[DRTDEVL]

PS: If it's an Olds Alero, don't believe the low tire pressure light... In fact, ignore it on all GM products. They don't work, and will come on about 250 miles after resetting it.

 

[justus]

Well, my husband and I DID look it over and did not see the bald tires since the bald spot was on the inside edge (which is can happen when a vehicle is out of alignment). However, the outside and the top of the tires looked and felt brand new. I guess I didn't figure that with a large reputable dealership I would have to crawl under the car and look when they brag about how great their inspection is and how they never miss anything. I guess it's a bunch of crap.

 

[dallas702]

Tires don't get bald on the inside for no reason. If they were on the front until the dealer swapped them (which is almost assured) you need to get the entire alignment and geometry checked asap.

You certainly shouldn't be driving this car around with a known problem like this. In fact, you driving the car knowing about the bald tires and potential for mechanical probelms/defects has raised your level of responsibility to more than that of the seller if you should have a tire-related accident.

 

[cjbrown929]

bald faced tires

I am somewhat surprised that the dealer did not change the tires considering their condition.

There are two reasons why:

1) the dealer usually MAKES money by doing these repairs through his service department. The cost of the tires and labor is added to total "cost" of the vehicle. This would lead to a smaller profit on the SALE of the car, but the dealer makes money on the service and parts.

2) selling a demonstrably unsafe vehicle opens up his deep pockets in the event of a "problem", like an injury accident.

Thus, it would be a lose-lose situation, potentially, to not replace the tires.

Speaking of accidents, did your mechanic discover any "bent" parts, or signs that the car had been wrecked?

 

[justus]

My mechanic did not find any evidence of bent parts, just that it was badly in need of an alignment. He did say that it appeared that the front tires had been moved to the rear of the vehicle and that they had more than likely been on the front of the vehicle but that the front tires looked pretty new.

On his advice I took it and had the 2 rear tires replaced and had him align it because I knew it was not safe to have my family in. However, I am still wondering if the dealer is really liable for paying for at least the tires.

 

[justus]

Oh yeah, and I did keep the bad tires so that the dealer can inspect them if they'd like to.

 

[cjbrown929]

bad tires

I searched oregon law under section 815 (vehicle equipment generally) and could not find any SPECIFIC laws, rules, etc regarding your situation.

Oregon's laws, like every state, must follow all federal guidelines. (Dept of Trans ORS 815.030)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have researched similar situations in terms of whether there are minimum requirements for pad thickness on disc brakes in california. There are NONE. The only minimums stated (for pad thickness) in california law involve CERTIFICATION of a vehicle, typically for government owned vehicles. Dealerships and private sellers are not in any way required to have a vehicle certified except for emissions, indeed, the only real requirements (in terms of braking) per federal law involve a car's ABILITY to stop (passenger car must stop within 25 feet from 20mph) NOT the pad thickness. Tires MAY be similar. I would emphasize that I am not including equipment that is obviously unsafe.

There is a specific section for "tires" under oregon 815, if you want to see for yourself.

BTW, I'm not saying it was OK for the dealership to sell a vehicle with bad tires, as they would likely be held at least partially liable if it could be proven that the dangerous state of the tread contributed to an accident.