Legal Question about Used Car Purchase..

saw on Judge Judy today.

Admitted…I am going into my 2nd year of law school so I might be wrong. But I don’t think I am.

I’m on vacation and was lounging in the room and watched an episode of Judge Judy. The case was about a Plaintiff who bought a 1993 van on Ebay for $3k. The seller insisted that he could only show the van after he got off work at 9:30. The ad said that the van was in great shape, nothing wrong, etc. The buyer PM’d him and asked if it was truly in good condition. The seller said yes, everything was great and that he just had the brakes replaced.

So, buyer shows up after dark and drives the van back to his home about five hours away. As he is driving the van is filled with an evergreen scent. He gets home and the next morning, he goes out to inspect. There are rust spots all over the van, especially on the undercarriage. The van smells like cat urine and he sees that there are four different air fresheners applied throughout the van.

It failed inspection in Maryland, but the seller produced paperwork that it had passed inspection in New Jersey the prior week.

Well, Judge Judy would hear none of it. (The Plaintiff was an attorney) She chewed him out saying that he was trying to pull one over on her. She asked him if he knew that used car purchases were “as is”. He responded that the seller didn’t advertise the van as “as is”. She said that it didn’t matter. Used car purchases are “buyer beware” and “we are done. Verdict for Defendant.”

I was yelling at the TV. Can you legal eagles verify my outrage? First, if you conceal a material fact and tell lies in any transaction, then you have violated your obligation to deal in good faith, no?

And, if he put air fresheners in the van, he fraudulently concealed a material fact, right?

I understand that these are fact issues, but Judge Judy is incorrect about caveat emptor, no? If not, then I am selling any piece of crap car I can find, spit shine it, and sell it to the next rube that shows up…

ianal but Judge Judy is often wrong. In any case, if nothing is said about a warranty either way, there is a “implied warranty” see:

United States
In the United States, the obligation is in Article 2, Section 315 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The warranty of fitness differs from a warranty of merchantability in that it applies to all sellers, not only professional merchants. In the United States, this warranty is sometimes referred to simply as a warranty of fitness
.

I’m with the OP. I don’t know where I’d come out on the facts, but Sheindlen is certainly wrong that all used car purchases are irrebuttably as-is.

–Cliffy, Esq.

The guy bought an 18 year old car from a private seller, who apparently was not in the business of selling cars. The car apparently passed inspection in the state in which it was sold, so arguably it was road worthy. In my state, I think Judge Judy would have been correct on the facts of this particular case. In my state, not all used car sales are “as is”, but one this old would likely be considered “as is” on these facts.

/nitpick
That was Judge Milian, on People’s Court. I watched the same episode. :slight_smile:
/nitpick

The main problem was, the plaintiff couldn’t prove there was an intent to deceive on the defendent’s part. The car had passed inspection, he had a reasonable excuse for the air fresheners, and he’d offered the opportunity for the plaintiff to get the van looked at by a third party prior to purchase. And really, what private seller is going to get on their hands and knees and look at the undercarriage for rust, especially for a car they’d advertised for $300? You live in NJ, I think it would be a given that a 17 year old car would have rust, with the whole salted roads things.

I think Judge Milian was somewhat offended by the plaintiff; he made mistake on top of mistake throughout the whole deal, and she wasn’t going to reward stupidity. In the end, though, I think it was the time delay that got him- he didn’t have the car inspected for a couple weeks after he bought it, at which time the ‘buyer beware’ clause kicks in. You don’t have an unlimited amount of time to go back on a deal… IIRC, it’s 3-5 days. So she’s right, though guilty of not explaining it well.

That’s what you can do. However, most people will take the time to inspect a vehicle before finalizing the purchase.

Judge Judy is correct.

I realize that it would have been a tough call on this set of facts, but the Judge (and the prior poster is correct, it wasn’t Judge Judy : ) ) dismissed all of it out of hand and said that all used car purchases are “as is.” End of Story.

My understanding, though, is that you have a duty of fair dealing when engaging in ANY sale. Is that not correct? You cannot knowingly conceal a material fact that is not readily seen, right? You can’t patch cracks in your walls because the house settles and the cracks come back in a month in an attempt to hide the fact that the house settles.

I also cannot lie. If the buyer asks me, “Does it run good?” and I know that it misses and sputters every time I drive it, then I can’t say “Sure, runs great!”

I understand that a little bit of puffery is considered okay, and in this case, the buyer made at least a decent claim that the seller deliberately arranged the pick up time after dark when the defects could not be seen, and that he put in air fresheners to hide the cat urine smell.

A responsible person would get it checked out by a mechanic, but only to avoid this whole process to begin with. Surely our justice system doesn’t reward unfair dealing.

IANAL.

My impression is that used car sales between individuals are understood (legally) to be “as is.” There are specific laws regarding revealing known defects in selling a house, but not in selling a car.

The seller says the car “runs great.” Start it up and you hear the engine is misfiring and runs rough. The seller says the body is in good shape. Look at it and you see a bunch of rust spots and holes. If you decide to buy it before starting the engine or looking at it in daylight, you have done a very unwise thing. Lies or no lies, I seriously doubt there are laws that protect you from exercising that degree of stupidity.