• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

what sort of rights does my family have in this situation?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
lol....lemon laws. I guess you dont understand lemon laws. They are only good for *NEW* cars, within the first few years of ownership. Secondly, the same problem has to occur 3 times because the lemom law takes effect (in most states at least)

Originally posted by: guapo337
Originally posted by: kranky
Regardless of how it turns out, the best thing for you is NOT to say "I told you". Now, or ever.
Click to expand...

i know. i know. believe me. i know.

so there's the lemon law? see, we live in maine. we bought it from a guy in new hampshire. the transaction occurred in new hampshire.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
There is no duty of a private seller to inform you of all problems a vehicle may have at the time of sale. There is only a duty of the seller to not misrepresent the vehicle's condition. Some states place certain burdens on the seller, such as passing emissions tests. But no state that I'm aware of requires a private seller to warranty a vehicle's mechanical condition.

You would have to show that the seller misrepresented the condition of the vehicle. Such as, he claimed the vehicle had the original engine, but it didn't. Or he claimed the vehicle had never been in an accident, but you later find it had.

Misrepresentation need not be intentional or witting. If a seller makes claims about a vehicle's mechanical fitness or condition which are misleading or false, you need not show the seller was aware that his claims were misleading or false.

I did see a civil case on one of those Court TV shows, Judge Mathis. Probably not the best example, because it was very obvious there was a little more going on there than the law, which I will explain in a moment, but its a good example of what can happen if you aren't careful in the language you use to represent the condition of a vehicle.

Basic facts of the case:

- Plaintiff (black female) buys a used Pontiac Grand Prix from Defendant (white male) - private sale
- Defendant offers no warranty as to the mechanical condition of the vehicle except to describe the vehicle as "well maintained" and in "excellent condition" - no known problems
- Photos and vehicle history support the car was indeed "well maintained" and in "excellent condition"
- Plaintiff buys car, but is a few hundred dollars short of purchase price, Defendant allows her to pay the balance within a few weeks
- Plaintiff calls Defendant after two weeks, complains that the starter went bad and it cost her very close to the amount she still owes the Defendant (what a coincidence) to have the starter replaced
- Defendant is sympathetic with the trouble she had, forgives the balance owed
- A few weeks later, the Plaintiff's car catches fire while driving down the interstate, Plaintiff pulls over to the road, gets out of vehicle, watches it go up in flames while FD responds - car is a total loss - she has no insurance on the vehicle

Plaintiff sues for misrepresentation of the vehicle, failure to warn of vehicle's problems, asks for all her money back $5000 (this is what insurance is for)

Judge Mathis seemed calm and neutral until the defendant is describing the conversation between him and the plaintiff when she called about the starter. The defendant mentioned he thought the plaintiff was trying to get out of paying the remaining balance.

At that time, Judge Mathis nearly stood up, and asked the defendant in an almost hostile manner why he felt the plaintiff was trying to avoid paying the balance due on the vehicle. The man stated that is the impression he received from the conversation, that it seemed more than a coincidence that the starter stopped working without any forewarning when the vehicle hadn't so much as a flat tire the entire time he owned it.

Judge Mathis' response was "Uh huh", one of those ebonics "Uh huhs" which imply distrust or suspicion, then asked "You sure that's the only reason?" The defendant look perplexed and stated yes.

From that time onward, Mathis seemed "irked" or "irritated" in some way. The plaintiff brought with her an "expert witness", whose qualifications Mathis accepted upon his word alone. He claimed he was a Fire Chief (from some city like Cleveland) and he was a trained a fire investigator, and that his 'investigation' had determined the fire was caused by the vehicle's catalytic converter, which was either defective or in need of replacement (five year old vehicle).

Mathis decided in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her the full purchase price of the vehicle ($5000), despite her not having the vehicle insured as required by law, determining that the defendant misrepresented the condition of the vehicle, without intent, under the logic that the vehicle couldn't have been in "excellent condition" if the catalytic converter was defective or in need of replacement.
Click to expand...
I would certainly appeal that, then sue the judge for racism.
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
Have him drop a Chevy 350 small block in it and trick it out if the engine is that bad. If you already didn't get what you were hoping, then at least make it into something worth having. 😉
Click to expand...


LoL, that's what i was gonna say, get a used or crate 350, and drop it in. cost about $2K for the motor. Since it's carb motor and pretty straight forward, if you have the tools you can doit your self, and prob have more power than it did stock.
 
Sucks for him but do you honestly feel like he should have any "rights?" He bought a 40 year old car without having it checked out first. He's stuck with it as he should be. To my knowledge there's nothing that will allow him to go back and correct his irresponsible spending. You don't buy a 40 year old car and not expect to put any work into it, let alone any car without having it inspected unless you trust your own inspection.
 
Lemon laws don't apply to used vehicles.

Your dad is a retard for not checking out the vehicle by a mechanic before buying it.
 
UPDATE: I talked to my mother about it. she said that what happened was not exactly how'd i've represented it. here's the whole story: the vehicle was said to have a fully rebuilt engine using all landrover authentic parts.. the seller rebuilt it and cheaped out. the engine's quality isnt nearly as good.

it was misrepresented. my dad has the ebay auction to prove it. what are the rights now?
 
Originally posted by: Kevin
As Is laws are pretty weird. I believe though everything must be disclosed. If the owner knew about the problems and left it out, then he is responcible...
Click to expand...

The only way to prove the previous owner knew of the problem is to check for any diagnostic records of the vehicle during the period of time it was under his ownership. If you can find a repair history sheet or something that indicates that he had the vehicle checked out and found some problems that he didn't fix then you've got him because he knew of the problem before selling the vehicle, yet he didn't disclose of it. You can check Carfax, but I don't think they will have much info on the vehicle. Carfax sucks except for the really major things.
 
Originally posted by: amnesiac
Lemon laws don't apply to used vehicles.

Your dad is a retard for not checking out the vehicle by a mechanic before buying it.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the first part, but the second statement definitely applies in this case.

My friend's girlfriend bought a '96 Benz C320 off eGay. They're in Cali, car was in Houston. They found a mechanic in Houston that checked the vehicle out all PRIOR to they agreed to buy / entered in a bid. Came back mechanically clean, but the car had been in an accident. As far as the mechanic could tell, it had been repaired fully to Mercedes specification and was in tip-top shape. They couldn't have been any happier with their purchase.
 
well i have a few used cars your dad can buy. since he does not take them to get them checked it will work out great for me!


who buys a expensive USED car (not to mention one that old!) and does NOT get it checked out? he deserved to lose the money. hopefully it will teach both of you a leason.

There is NOTHING he can do. if the auction/slip whatever says "as-is" then he is fvcked!

oh and the lemon law wont help. it does NOT cover used vehicles. sigh i get tired of people screaming LEMON LAW when its a used vehicle. heh not to mention one this old hahahahha
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
You takes your chances on vintage stuff. There's nobody here, who is playing with old muscle cars, and NOT spending a LOT of time and money keeping it in good condition. It goes with the territory. They say, "Boats are a hole in the water, into which you throw money." Vintage cars aren't far behind. When the engine pukes, have it totally rebuilt. When the tranny dies, do the same. That's how you have to approach it. I hope he really likes that thing. You'll have to drive it a LONG time after making those repairs to even remotely get your money's worth out of it.
Click to expand...

🙂 for the sake of disagreeing, I'll disagree with you on that one.... Figure out the monthly cost to purchase a new vehicle... Then, at that monthly rate, figure out how long it would take to pay for a new engine and a new transmission.... varies widely by make and model, but is usually quite a bit less than the new car.
 
Except for the fact that you can cash that new car in after a few years for some kind of return. I think the only way to get your money's worth out of an old classic, is to keep it a LONG time and drive it regularly. Most end up being garage or trailer queens that get sold for a fraction of what's been put into them. Your time does have some value!
 
it was misrepresented. my dad has the ebay auction to prove it. what are the rights now?
Click to expand...
Get a second opinion from a recognized Land Rover appraiser/restorer. If he (or she) agrees with the dealer, document it all and how it conflicts with the way he represented the vehicle, have your dad include it with a certified letter to the guy demanding his money back or face legal action.
 
did any of you read the update (or the whole fvcking thread for christ sake..)? it's not engine problems. i was mistaken. it is misrepresentation of the engine itself. it boils down to fraud. any rights now?!
 
How do you know what parts are in the engine? Has it already been removeed and torn down? Can you even order engine pieces from landrover themselves anymore? A third party manufacturer can be better than OEM, or oem might just not be available for something that ancient.

So first it was engine problems, now its that the engine isn't "as good." What made him investigate this if there weren't any problems?

I still don't think you have the full story.
 
Originally posted by: Soybomb
How do you know what parts are in the engine? Has it already been removeed and torn down? Can you even order engine pieces from landrover themselves anymore? A third party manufacturer can be better than OEM, or oem might just not be available for something that ancient.

So first it was engine problems, now its that the engine isn't "as good." What made him investigate this if there weren't any problems?

I still don't think you have the full story.
Click to expand...

whats with all the doubting of me? i think that YOU dont have the full story. if you knew about landrovers, you'd know that they still make all the parts, even for cars that old. it's what they do. dont ask why. i have no idea. but they do. so he was told that the engine was fully rebuilt with new landrover parts (and supposedly he was getting a GREAT deal). the engine wasnt fully rebuilt with new landrover parts. it goes 45mph top speed. it should be able to go 60 or so no question. there is proof that there are problems. he brought it to a mechanic after because thats the way he works. he's not the most organized person, however that doesnt matter. he's my father. i respect him and love him.

anyways.. he also brought it to a mechanic because he having some bad thoughts about it.. and decided to get it checked out, appraised, etc..

 
whats with all the doubting of me?
Click to expand...
Lol don't get so defensive, it just doens't make sense to me. I play with cars and my dad is a parts counterperson, so while I've never bought a landrover (jeep man myself...), I know most manufacturers don't keep parts available for really old models. I don't have the full story and thats why I asked you questions. What parts aren't land rover parts in the engine for example? Unless its been torn down to see if the cam has like a landrover part number on it, or the pistons look like genuine land rover parts I just don't see how you could tell from the outside.

Fwiw: Low top speed could be as simple as someone regearing the axles in its past, transmission or transfer case problems, etc, it doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong with the engine.
 
It depends on how badly it was misrepresented. Was it truly misrepresented? or did you just misinterpret it? Did the person actually use authentic landrover parts? We would need more info to give accurate advice including the ebay page, and a description of exactly what was misrepresented. Maybe some pics of the engine or parts or something. You haven't given enough info to give accurate advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top