If it was me, and I sold a used vehicle for a reasonable price, suggested they have it checked out and it broke down a month later, I wouldn’t feel any obligation to give them any money back unless perhaps they were close friends who really needed it AND I actually had that kind of money sitting about.
As pointed out, you have no idea how they drove it, what they did to it. You also don’t necessarily know it will cost 3 grand to repair it.
I might feel a little bad about the circumstances, but I don’t think I’d help them out.
I went in to this thinking a kilometer was longer than a mile. This is about 105,000 miles.
Still, we should all be aware that all things mechanical will eventually break, even if well cared for. And sometimes things just go bad. I recently had to replace my alternator for my '08 RAV4. It has less than 100,000 miles on it. Shit happens. No could have told me weeks before that is was going to fail. Something inside it went ‘ping’ and it stopped working.
If the van was well serviced (and there were no leaking fluids), there were probably no signs that the transmission was going to fail.
This is the risk a buyer takes when getting a used vehicle. You did nothing wrong. You owe them nothing. If your conscience bothers you, you could split the cost of repair.
Also, once the vehicle was out of your hands, you had no control over how it was used. Not to say that the 20-something definitely abused the car, but how do you know they didn’t? They bought an old car with high mileage and then something went wrong. That’s not your fault.
Years ago I sold a car that had a cracked engine block. I told the guy who bought it that it had a cracked engine block, he drove it and said “nah, it doesn’t.” I told him I couldn’t afford to have the engine blocked fixed, but that I understood that someone who knew how to do it could get an engine for a reasonable cost from a junkyard and put it in, and then the car would be worth more than my sales price + the engine - and that was who I was hoping to sell it to - someone who could replace the engine and end up with a decent car, probably to resell. He confirmed this, said his son was a mechanic and if it had a cracked engine block that was what he’d do.
He called a few days later and said it had a cracked engine block and would I give him his money back.
As other people have said, used cars are buyer beware. When I buy used I buy from a dealer who will give me a warranty - I don’t know used cars well enough to take the risk of getting a bad deal.
Thats low miles for a 14 year old car, but its a 14 year old car - and they got a bargain price on it unless the exchange rate is a lot different than what I think it is.
I was thinking that too. There are plenty of such older vehicles in junkyards, but with usable transmissions.
You probably have a lot more experience with older vehicles (having kept this vehicle running for a while) than a couple of 20-y-o’s, so talk to your mechanic about getting a better price for the job. If you want, you could offer to loan them the down payment he wants, or even pay it for them – but that’s entirely your generosity – you have no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to do so.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been young and dumb and on the opposite of the transaction, it would never have occurred to me to go back to the seller and ask for a refund. Give 'em nothing, the potential value of nothing is much greater than 1800.00.
In any case, it’s not a moral dilemma. A dilemma is when you have two choices and both are wrong.
In this case there are two choices and both are right. So, it’s actually more of a “moral opportunity”.
The most I’d consider doing is to find a reasonable price for replacing the tran with one from a junkyard and offer half of that, and I’d consider it charity.
A transmission shouldn’t go bad after only 100K miles or so. I haven’t had an American car with a transmission failure under 150K miles, ever, and I always keep a car until it fails. (With one exception, transmission has always been the failure that makes it not worth fixing. The one exception was a cracked head on a 1982 Escort, back in 89. This counts my cars and my wife’s, since 1980, about 8 cars not counting her new one.) My understanding is that most foreign makes last longer than American cars.
Exactly right- not to be a jerk, but you sold it because you needed the money from it I’m sure- you may have even spent it already (it’s been a month). It’s a shame that they didn’t have it checked out but you sold it in good faith as is and that’s just one of those life breaks that sucks. 14 years old is an OLD old van. You take your chances on a vehicle like that. I don’t believe your under any legal or moral obligation to do anything- the van is gone and is not your issue anymore.
Can you afford to right now, you specifically? Because if you can, why don’t you?
I don’t mean that in a snarky way, it’s a way to frame how I think about it. Neither you or the OP have any legal obligation, and now both of you are aware of the buyers’ unfortunate circumstance. Why don’t you feel any obligation to send some money along (assuming you could)? Or if obligation is the wrong word, choose a better one–whichever one applies to your feelings of helping out those you can.
Does the OP have a moral duty because of some other detail than the fact that the poor buyers are in a bad spot? Because there are lots of people in bad spots. IMO, the OP acted in good faith, did nothing wrong, and did not create the unfortunate circumstance for the buyers. Just like you, just like me.
Again, I don’t mean this to sound snide. I’m interested in your response, or anyone else who answered similarly. Assuming you had the details and means, would you send some money to these people right now? If the answer is yes, then I get your perspective, even if I don’t agree. If the answer is no, then why should the OP feel differently?
It’s the reverse of “the exception proves the rule” etc. By admitting liability in this one case, the OP could be setting herself up for a situation where she is responsible for further repairs if the van owners get a lawyer. A lawyer could argue that by paying for the transmission the OP is accepting responsibility for future repairs of the van, with no implied limit.
If the OP decides to help the kids, or give a partial refund, the OP needs to get something in writing that this transaction ends their financial relationship, and the OP will not be responsible for any future repairs to the van.
I have not been responding to individual questions and responses because of time commitments and wanting to read everyone’s thoughts . All the thoughts have very good points and I found myself agreeing that it would be more of a charitable thing to do to give them money.
As parents of similar aged boys we find ourselves thinking in terms of how we respond to our own kids mistakes. one of the biggest problems we have been seeing in our friends kids is that their parents keep bailing them out instead of letting them learn from those mistakes. And their kids rely on being bailed out. I guess some call it tough love but within limits that’s sometimes what it takes. We have 3 grown boys of a similar age to these boys. If we give to the buyers , should we not also do the same for our boys? They could use a few hundred bucks, in some cases more than these two. My conscience is clear as to the selling price, our maintenance and disclosure. Part of my problem was that they were such “nice boys”. So in giving them money I wouldn’t’ be helping them to learn from their mistakes and would be undermining our own parenting principles but in not giving to them I feel that I have probably jaded them to nice strangers that they trusted. Rather than a win win situation, I am starting to see it as a lose lose.
What they trusted you to do was act ethically. By your account, you did. What else could you possibly have done? They also believed that a 14-year-old van couldn’t possibly have anything wrong with it and didn’t need to be checked out. That was foolish. Lesson learned. Even with a checkup, this could still have happened. Life has risks. One should try to minimize them, but you can’t eliminate them. Another lesson learned.
You’ve probably noticed that most of the responses to your question, including mine, agree that you did nothing wrong and have no moral responsibility here. I get a little frustrated sometimes with the tendency we as a society have to always find fault, to always assign guilt and apportion blame. No wonder we have so many damn lawyers! If there is malice or negligence then that’s appropriate, but sometimes there is great wisdom in the simple words: shit happens. Because sometimes it just does, and it’s no one’s fault. In your position I’d express my kind sympathies and regrets to those folks, and then I’d get on with my life. There’s no lose-lose here unless you want to make it so.
I once bought a car for $900.00 and drove it 230 miles before the engine blew up because the automatic transmission was slipping. I didn’t entertain the idea of trying to take it back to the old guy who sold it to me. Just sold it for scrap as it sat and moved on with my life. THere has to be something wrong with someone who after driving for a month would think it is your bad.
I see absolutely no reason to give them back a cent, and I do think it would be a detrimental bailout for them.
The car still has scrap value, so it needn’t be a complete loss for them. Perhaps they can find a used transmission at a junkyard and do the swap themselves.