|
Outrail posted:Only if it's a goatee coupled with a shaved head and oversized spectacles. Be sure to record your depositions on vinyl.
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
I have a question about disclosure in a used-car sale. Bought a car from a broker who claim on their website to do a 'rigorous' 100+ point inspection on all their vehicles. I hosed up and didn't have it independently inspected. This broker has a relationship with my credit union and I had a good experience buying from them previously. So I bought it "as-is." Two days after driving it the dash lit up with warning lights, so I took it to a repair shop. The mechanic said he popped the hood and in less than a minute figured out the head gasket was blown (oil in coolant, swollen radiator cap, etc.). Car would need a new engine. I have it it writing from him that this was obvious/ long standing, and any inspection should have seen it easily. So obviously either the broker's inspection is BS or they saw it and failed to disclose. Contacted the broker, they told me to take the car to a shop they work with to confirm. Upon confirmation, they then had it towed to a shop they work with and offered to cover half the cost of a replacement engine. We are now going on 5 weeks with no repair yet done, only a promise that it will be eventually be repaired and I should be patient. So I'm out $9k of my money, have no car, and now am being asked to pay a couple grand to fix it. I'm in Colorado which I guess has pretty poo poo consumer protection laws. I signed an as-is contract so I know I'm pretty much hosed, but beyond filing a consumer complaint about their failure to disclose obvious mechanical issues, do I have any sort of legal avenue? I'm guessing my signature on the as-is contract is gonna burn me, but figured I'd ask the thread anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
You'll probably want to ask a Colorado lawyer this question. They might even give you a 30m consult for free.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:You'll probably want to ask a Colorado lawyer this question. This ^. Search colorado auto dealer fraud and call a few places.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Hawklad posted:I have a question about disclosure in a used-car sale. Which actually brings up an ostensibly answerable legal question. If a used car dealer claims: "We give all our cars a rigorous 100+ point inspection" does this legally imply in the USA that: a. The points refer to different functional points on the vehicle (e.g. left front indicator works = 1 point, rather than "has wheels"=10 points, "not on fire" = 30 points) b. The cars being offered for sale have actually passed the inspection? If it matters, assume the dealer does perform interstate sales.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Inspecting doesn’t mean repairing maybe they just inspect it to confirm it’s a shitheap before they sell it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Yeah, it's like clinically tested vs clinically proven.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
thepopmonster posted:Which actually brings up an ostensibly answerable legal question. If a used car dealer claims: I mean, this is going to vary a lot from state to state, because of the wildly differing specificity of state “lemon laws” where they exist.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
thepopmonster posted:Which actually brings up an ostensibly answerable legal question. If a used car dealer claims: Well, there's really two components to this in basic contract law. First is the question of whether or not you're relying on the as is warranty, or the conflicting claim that there's 100 point inspection. generally you can't contract under two conflicting conditions. If you have a contract that says I'm selling you a lawn mower that runs and also says I'm selling you a lawn mower that doesn't run, then at the very least you have an ambiguity That opens the contract up to let the court decide how it should be interpreted. That said, you have an oral representation in the one place, that it's had a 100 point inspection, and then you have a subsequent written contract is signed by the parties which will completely wave any prior oral representations. In this case is a general rule. The contract that waves the prior oil representations will control. However, States generally have consumer protection laws like Texas's deceptive trade practices act, which prohibit this sort of chicanery and open up the vendor to potential damages. Then there's an additional component of the question of consideration. Generally, the concept of consideration is that a contract is only enforceable if you have generally equivalent value going back and forth in the transaction. If I agree to mow your lawn for $50, but then I show up and it's a 35 acre cow pasture, then the original contract is not enforceable because the amount I agreed to get paid to do it is way too little for the work that was agreed to be done. Similarly, if you buy a car for something akin to the price of a running car of that age and mileage, and instead you get a worthless hunk of junk That's barely worth the cost of towing it to the scrap heap for parts, then you may have a failure of consideration. Is Kelley Blue Book says the car is worth $5,000 in good condition and you paid $5,000 for it, and the condition of the car you received is only $500 because of the broken engine, then the original contract might be void for failure of consideration.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Then there's an additional component of the question of consideration. Generally, the concept of consideration is that a contract is only enforceable if you have generally equivalent value going back and forth in the transaction. If I agree to mow your lawn for $50, but then I show up and it's a 35 acre cow pasture, then the original contract is not enforceable because the amount I agreed to get paid to do it is way too little for the work that was agreed to be done. this is not at all an accurate description of the doctrine of consideration. perhaps texas has a unique standard for it (i doubt it) but generally adequacy of consideration is not relevant, just if there was any or not. you can absolutely sign a contract to mow the entire state of new york for $50 and it's a contract, and i bet the same is true of texas.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
Tangentially, do "car dealer X fleeced me / sold me a lemon under an "as-is" contract / hosed my wife in the back of Big Bill Hell's car dealership" lawsuits ever end up well for the consumer? I know that most states have "Lemon Laws" for new cars, and some even extend that to used cars, but in cases outside of those, I can't see a shady dealership losing in court, without significant time and money. Even then, would you be able to recover your legal costs and/or collect damages? Just curious for any legal goons who have worked in this area of practice.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Hawklad posted:
Almost guaranteed they wiped the lights with an OBD reader and knew exactly what they were doing and this isn't the first time they've dealt with a pissed off customer.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is not at all an accurate description of the doctrine of consideration. perhaps texas has a unique standard for it (i doubt it) but generally adequacy of consideration is not relevant, just if there was any or not. you can absolutely sign a contract to mow the entire state of new york for $50 and it's a contract, and i bet the same is true of texas. There's at least three ways to plead consideration, two of which I touch on, the 3rd of which You reference, but conflate with the two I'm talking about, and you even get the analysis of the third wrong in your own state?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:There's at least three ways to plead consideration, two of which I touch on, the 3rd of which You reference, but conflate with the two I'm talking about, and you even get the analysis of the third wrong in your own state? LAW FIGHT! 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
FA-MUH-LEE. FA-MUH-LEE.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:There's at least three ways to plead consideration, two of which I touch on, the 3rd of which You reference, but conflate with the two I'm talking about, and you even get the analysis of the third wrong in your own state? adequacy of consideration is not a defense even in texas: https://law.unlv.edu/faculty/rowley/Batsakis.pdf courts don't go "this consideration is not enough", they go "there is no consideration, this is a gift" or "there is consideration, this is a contract". if you go into court and say "the consideration is inadequate so this isn't a contract" the answer is "you're just really bad at contracts"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:adequacy of consideration is not a defense even in texas: https://law.unlv.edu/faculty/rowley/Batsakis.pdf So bad you couldn't be bothered to look up "unconscionability"? Or were you in too big a hurry to flame someone, you weren't interested in being right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
And before you start googling to look up the distinction between procedural and substantive, the original topic was about a guy who was buying a car from a dealership that explained that it had possession of the vehicle, had access to mechanical expertise, had inspected the vehicle, and it told him that they had inspected the vehicle, and that he received as part of the underlying contract vehicle that was potentiall grossly insufficient in terms of consideration, meeting both prongs of the procedural and substantive elements of an unconscionability claim as a bar to enforcement.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And before you start googling to look up the distinction between procedural and substantive, the original topic was about a guy who was buying a car from a dealership that explained that it had possession of the vehicle, had access to mechanical expertise, had inspected the vehicle, and it told him that they had inspected the vehicle, and that he received as part of the underlying contract vehicle that was potentiall grossly insufficient in terms of consideration, meeting both prongs of the procedural and substantive elements of an unconscionability claim as a bar to enforcement. Maybe the dealer agreed to pay for half the engine replacement out of the goodness of their heart, rather than as a calculated move to forestall greater recovery by the buyer
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And before you start googling to look up the distinction between procedural and substantive, the original topic was about a guy who was buying a car from a dealership that explained that it had possession of the vehicle, had access to mechanical expertise, had inspected the vehicle, and it told him that they had inspected the vehicle, and that he received as part of the underlying contract vehicle that was potentiall grossly insufficient in terms of consideration, meeting both prongs of the procedural and substantive elements of an unconscionability claim as a bar to enforcement. Before they went near adequacy of consideration and the minefield of unconscionability, I have to imagine a court would start with fraudulent misrepresentation or similar.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:So bad you couldn't be bothered to look up "unconscionability"? Or were you in too big a hurry to flame someone, you weren't interested in being right? you’re giving really bad advice and mangling basic parts of contract law. it is black-letter law that courts don’t weigh the adequacy of consideration. unconscionability is an incredibly high standard nowhere close to “the consideration isn’t equal” it is that the contract is “grossly one sided” and in practice that means the judge who signed two death warrants that week would feel bad upholding this contract. which means there’s very little caselaw on what actually qualifies because nothing does. it is nowhere near ‘seems like it’s not a fair deal’ or anything about “ generally equivalent value going back and forth in the transaction the chances of prevailing on an unconscionability claim under those facts is close to zero and is only not zero because we don’t know if he’s related to the judge. the potential claims are customer protection laws (potentially good, depends on local law) and fraud (probably a bad claim, you might be able to win on it, but your real leverage is calling up the newspaper about your fraud claims)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you’re giving really bad advice and mangling basic parts of contract law. it is black-letter law that courts don’t weigh the adequacy of consideration. I'm not giving anyone advice, first off. Secondly you're the one who popped in to play king weiner because a post talking about the concept of consideration, generally, to a bunch of non-lawyers, didn't include one of the half a dozen applications of the concept, specific to your state law. You're the one who brought up the narrow concept of adequacy, then pretended like it was the original concept, and the sole, exclusive application of the notion of consideration in all courts everywhere, then still got that wrong. Now you're giving a stranger specific legal appraisal of the viability of claims, apprising them of other potential claims, and telling them how to actualize those claims.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
To the Original poster:Daddy and Daddy are fighting because we love each other so much. ignore everything we've been arguing about, and go seek out a consumer protection attorney in your area.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Tangentially, do "car dealer X fleeced me / sold me a lemon under an "as-is" contract / hosed my wife in the back of Big Bill Hell's car dealership" lawsuits ever end up well for the consumer? Yes. I've personally worked such suits. They are very jurisdiction dependent.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
can't believe y'all are posting about this poo poo instead of the end of the rule of law
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:king weiner blarzgh posted:Daddy and Daddy Hell yeah thread going my direction
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And before you start googling to look up the distinction between procedural and substantive, the original topic was about a guy who was buying a car from a dealership that explained that it had possession of the vehicle, had access to mechanical expertise, had inspected the vehicle, and it told him that they had inspected the vehicle, and that he received as part of the underlying contract vehicle that was potentiall grossly insufficient in terms of consideration, meeting both prongs of the procedural and substantive elements of an unconscionability claim as a bar to enforcement. I mean, technically, this is kinda traffic law, so I'll allow it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 03:29
|
|
|
Is there anything illegal about sending a draft court ruling to the press? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:To the Original poster:Daddy and Daddy are fighting because we love each other so much. I appreciate all the advice, even the weird bits! Thanks everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
Well technically you are both wrong, because that's not how consumer law contracts work AT ALL and consumer protection would be hilariously inadequate if it didn't have statutory protections in "as is" sales. E: just to confirm, this car is in Norway right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
Can I walk around my neighborhood with a battery powered hedge trimmer and just lop all the poo poo off that’s blocking half the sidewalk
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
At the very least, I imagine if you did it while wearing a fluorescent green vest with “CITY” stenciled on the back, you could get away with it for a good long while.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
lmao that's a good idea
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
To complete the effect have 3 of your friends stand around and watch you accomplish the task
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Can I walk around my neighborhood with a battery powered hedge trimmer and just lop all the poo poo off that’s blocking half the sidewalk Can you also get the landscaping that blocks sightlines around corners? That poo poo drives me insane.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
My hobby is stealing rocks off of tree lawns. Especially the ones there to gently caress up cars that don't hit your driveway perfectly
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Can I walk around my neighborhood with a battery powered hedge trimmer and just lop all the poo poo off that’s blocking half the sidewalk Actually you can, anyone can. The US Supreme Court is going to overturn the landscaped decision Rowan v. Shade and ban the right to have an arborization.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Actually you can, anyone can. The US Supreme Court is going to overturn the landscaped decision Rowan v. Shade and ban the right to have an arborization. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Actually you can, anyone can. The US Supreme Court is going to overturn the landscaped decision Rowan v. Shade and ban the right to have an arborization. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Actually you can, anyone can. The US Supreme Court is going to overturn the landscaped decision Rowan v. Shade and ban the right to have an arborization.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:05
|
|
