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…