im not happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ronzi]

Selling a car, even as a private party, should not be an exercise in utilizing every loophole in the law to scam as much money as possible out of the purchaser, then walk away with the money claiming caveat emptor.
You did the right thing, and retaining $300 for your trouble was more than fair.
Whether you fix the supposed problems before you resell, or disclose them to the next buyer is up to you, but in any event you will have a clear conscience.

[Bob O]

I have NO objections to doing the honorable thing. I've reimbursed several buyers half of unknown (to me) repairs needed on cars I've sold. That seems to me to be the fair thing to do. But in this case, the proposed repair bill is wayyyyy out of line for the reported problems. Half of the reasonable cost to fix the items would be a fair deal. Cancelling the sale would not, in any way, be an option to make this an honorable transaction. No, you don't want to take advantage of an ignorant buyer, but on the other hand, you don't want to be taken advantage of either.

Bob

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Ronzi

Selling a car, even as a private party, should not be an exercise in utilizing every loophole in the law to scam as much money as possible out of the purchaser, then walk away with the money claiming caveat emptor.
You did the right thing, and retaining $300 for your trouble was more than fair.
Whether you fix the supposed problems before you resell, or disclose them to the next buyer is up to you, but in any event you will have a clear conscience.

Hi,

Whether he did the right thing or not, only he can decide. My decision would have been a partial refund, no more. That isn't any less right.

Caveat Emptor is a real and viable principle, and applies whether the buyer was astute or ignorant. It cautions the Buyer to BEWARE. The principle doesn't become moot just because a Buyer chose to ignore it.

$25k is a lot of money and the Buyer is an Adult, making adult decisions, including some that effect all of us, such as casting a vote. The responsibility is purely on the Buyer to inspect the merchandise, ask appropriate questions and then act as they see fit. If the Buyer does not act responsibly, then, lacking any deliberate misrepresentation on the Seller's part, they forfeit the right to subsequent grievence.

Now, the Seller has a responsibility to represent the merchandise to the best of their ability. If the Buyer merely takes the Seller's word for it, without some form of corroboration from a PPI or at least a documented service history, and proceeds to buy the merchandise, the Seller is free and clear - he acted in good faith. If some items were deliberately misrepresented or omitted, then a different story.

But, all this is assumption and speculation. The fact is, none of us were a party to the sale or it's particulars. We are hearing only one side of the issue. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, we must take the Seller at his word that no misrepresentations were made.

But, it is a little strange that the Seller capitulated so readily in what otherwise should appear to be a straightforward transaction, leaving at least some shadow of doubt...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[merplastic]

Without question you did the right thing. You lost nothing but a bit of time....

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

Whether he did the right thing or not, only he can decide. My decision would have been a partial refund, no more. That isn't any less right.

Caveat Emptor is a real and viable principle, and applies whether the buyer was astute or ignorant. It cautions the Buyer to BEWARE. The principle doesn't become moot just because a Buyer chose to ignore it.

$25k is a lot of money and the Buyer is an Adult, making adult decisions, including some that effect all of us, such as casting a vote. The responsibility is purely on the Buyer to inspect the merchandise, ask appropriate questions and then act as they see fit. If the Buyer does not act responsibly, then, lacking any deliberate misrepresentation on the Seller's part, they forfeit the right to subsequent grievence.

Now, the Seller has a responsibility to represent the merchandise to the best of their ability. If the Buyer merely takes the Seller's word for it, without some form of corroboration from a PPI or at least a documented service history, and proceeds to buy the merchandise, the Seller is free and clear - he acted in good faith. If some items were deliberately misrepresented or omitted, then a different story.

But, all this is assumption and speculation. The fact is, none of us were a party to the sale or it's particulars. We are hearing only one side of the issue. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, we must take the Seller at his word that no misrepresentations were made.

But, it is a little strange that the Seller capitulated so readily in what otherwise should appear to be a straightforward transaction, leaving at least some shadow of doubt...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99