jyeung528

these are true points you make.

i see that the seller allowed a 3rd party PPI. this is the gold standard in discovering issues in used car sales, and the seller allowed his/her car to undergo this inspection. this is sufficient, in my perspective, for the buyer to discover everything that he wants to discover, and the seller allowed it to be performed.

as additional points, the carfax showed no accidents. a regular layman doesn't have to understand the technical definition of an accident, so i don't see any dishonesty by saying there were no accidents.

also, how many of us know that the s2000 or any car for that matter has 10 vin stickers? i didn't.

this deal breakdown is very typical, and inconsequential as far as ethics is concerned.

runnyeggsham

When the owner isn't there and another person is selling it, they should give a limited power of attorney to sell the vehicle and have that document notarized. Some DMVs have a special paper for this process. FYI for future reference.

runnyeggsham

I am going to guess they INTENTIONALLY hit a gate.

runnyeggsham

Take a business law class and then argue. I'd ask my bro, the official contract lawyer in our family, but that's just a stupid question and not worth his time. Yes, sellers aren't required to tell you anything or everything. If I verbally ask them a specific question and they lie about it then they can be held liable IF I can prove that we had the conversation. Verbal agreements can be enforced in court IF they can be proven that they took place or else it's a he said/she said situation and it goes no where. The most recent and spectacular example being Trump and Comey, and Cosby and some of his accusers. Without proof, you are not going to win in a court of law no matter what high powered attorney you hire. Sure, I can't take them to criminal court but I am pretty sure I will win in small claims or civil court. All I need is to prove 1% over 50 to win my case. The buyer may have gone out of his way but that's up to him and if he wants to pay for a PPI. The 3rd party can be held liable in this case if they violated the terms of their contract on what the checklist of items that they supposedly looked at for you (Google the court cases against Carfax when ppl bought cars with clean Carfaxes and then it turns out they were salvaged vehicles; even an online 3rd party company can be sued). If the car has frame damage and you are killed while driving due to it b/c the seller or 3rd party said the car had no structural defects, guess who is going to pay up the wazoo?

jyeung528

lol, i have taken a business law class. what difference does that make for a private party sale? it's two people that are not in the business of selling cars trying to make a deal. it does not require any business law knowledge.

the only professional in this transaction is the 3rd party inspection company.

jyeung528

there was no verbal contract made here, just simple questions and answers.

the 3rd party inspection was performed, and that would be the crux of any issues that arise from a private party sale.

you're taking this way overboard by bringing in business law into a private party sale.

private party sales are sold as-is. especially if you relied on a 3rd party inspection, that's what you're going to go on.

jyeung528

i do advise you to discuss with your brother how much power a sales contract holds over a private seller in a used car private party sale, that involved a 3rd party inspection.

go ahead and inform yourself.

you're treating this like two corporations signing a 50 page sales document.

jyeung528

A layman seller cannot be held liable for knowing the structural integrity of his car, he's not an expert in that field. The car is sold as is, that's why buyers purchase professional inspections.

Time to enroll in business law 202.

jyeung528

It seems like you're in college and are taking or have just taken a business law class and you're super excited to apply your newfound knowledge in the real world. Unfortunately this is private party used car sales. It's not really a good scenario to apply your business law knowledge.

Think of it this way, what if the seller was an immigrant that spoke very little English and his job was a janitor. He's selling his old car. I mean, how much of this business law is applicable to him selling his car? He signs over the title, cashes the check. check. That's it.

The buyer is responsible for the inspection. Business law would apply to the shop that performed the inspection, but for the seller, not much.

jyeung528

There is no blatant fraud going on here on the sellers part. And in my opinion nothing unethical.