Can't find it anywhere.
what happened with the used/new camry lemon thread
- Thread starter friendly_jacek
- Start date
- Status
Good question, I found this one though:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...492#Post2346492
edit: I posted in that thread and went to look at my past posts and nothing shows up. Must have been deleted which is odd.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...492#Post2346492
edit: I posted in that thread and went to look at my past posts and nothing shows up. Must have been deleted which is odd.
Last edited:
Admins must have deleted it. Unfortunately they delete whatever they don't like and whatever people they don't want. I have had several of my post / threads deleted in the past and it only has increased over time. Sadly, this site is not what it used to be.
Actually, I wonder if that thread is still here.
The "search" function on this site works in a half hearted manner. I had to use Google to find the "grand total combined oil stash" thread. Food for thought.
The "search" function on this site works in a half hearted manner. I had to use Google to find the "grand total combined oil stash" thread. Food for thought.
If the OP consulted an attorney and the attorney said not to talk about the case, he may have asked a mod to remove it.
It's usual practice, I've seen, for all but the nastiest threads to be locked but not removed, as a threat to those who later stumble upon them. I don't recall it getting nasty.
It's usual practice, I've seen, for all but the nastiest threads to be locked but not removed, as a threat to those who later stumble upon them. I don't recall it getting nasty.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
If the OP consulted an attorney and the attorney said not to talk about the case, he may have asked a mod to remove it.
It's usual practice, I've seen, for all but the nastiest threads to be locked but not removed, as a threat to those who later stumble upon them. I don't recall it getting nasty.
Most likely this ^^
If the OP consulted an attorney and the attorney said not to talk about the case, he may have asked a mod to remove it.
It's usual practice, I've seen, for all but the nastiest threads to be locked but not removed, as a threat to those who later stumble upon them. I don't recall it getting nasty.
Most likely this ^^
Some time back, it was suggested that when a thread was locked or removed, that a brief explanation be added, if only as a courtesy to those that correctly contributed to the thread, but wonder where it went, or don't yet fully understand BITOG's boundaries.
It might save other threads like this one, that seem to come up quite often!
It might save other threads like this one, that seem to come up quite often!
I asked to have the thread removed.
Since legally were screwed, we have to use the options the owner of the dealer gave us. Our attorney said that while we could win the case in court, typically the attorney fees would not be covered and it would take a few years. The dealer would drag this case out.........
What good are laws to protect the consumer, if they do nothing of that sort.
The dealer owner gave us our options over the phone since he was on lunch, and our agreed meeting time was inconvenient for him.
#1- Use whatever we spent and add that towards a new Hyundai on his lot.
Or
#2- Have them find equal car at auction for us.
Even the GM said he can't stand working for this guy....
Were going to pick 3 colors for 2011 vehicle, and the car must be within 5k miles for same price & be Toyota certified upon purchase. I was advised that I could go with to auction since I have the next 3 weeks off of work. My father cannot afford to miss anymore days due to this ordeal.
Since legally were screwed, we have to use the options the owner of the dealer gave us. Our attorney said that while we could win the case in court, typically the attorney fees would not be covered and it would take a few years. The dealer would drag this case out.........
What good are laws to protect the consumer, if they do nothing of that sort.
The dealer owner gave us our options over the phone since he was on lunch, and our agreed meeting time was inconvenient for him.
#1- Use whatever we spent and add that towards a new Hyundai on his lot.
Or
#2- Have them find equal car at auction for us.
Even the GM said he can't stand working for this guy....
Were going to pick 3 colors for 2011 vehicle, and the car must be within 5k miles for same price & be Toyota certified upon purchase. I was advised that I could go with to auction since I have the next 3 weeks off of work. My father cannot afford to miss anymore days due to this ordeal.
Last edited:
Those are both fair options IMO.
Legally, he could offer you nothing and sue you to honor the contract for purchase that you signed.
The car was never a lemon, so the lemon laws never applied in any way shape or form.
Your best argument against him and the dealership is that his techs should have caught the bad repair on inspection...but in reality, you missed the repair as well. You cant rely on their inspection entirely and not inspect the car yourself...your due dilligence is not mitigated by their faulty inspection.
And one final point, the car was not sold with a Toyota warranty, whether they represented it that way or not...the bottom line is Toyota had already voided their warranty on those components of the car. ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
Glad you got this worked out, and arent stuck with a poorly repaird car. But I fail to see how the dealer is being a jerk in any way, when he is ultimately applying all the cash you spent out of pocket on another car...seems more than fair to me.
Legally, he could offer you nothing and sue you to honor the contract for purchase that you signed.
The car was never a lemon, so the lemon laws never applied in any way shape or form.
Your best argument against him and the dealership is that his techs should have caught the bad repair on inspection...but in reality, you missed the repair as well. You cant rely on their inspection entirely and not inspect the car yourself...your due dilligence is not mitigated by their faulty inspection.
And one final point, the car was not sold with a Toyota warranty, whether they represented it that way or not...the bottom line is Toyota had already voided their warranty on those components of the car. ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
Glad you got this worked out, and arent stuck with a poorly repaird car. But I fail to see how the dealer is being a jerk in any way, when he is ultimately applying all the cash you spent out of pocket on another car...seems more than fair to me.
Originally Posted By: dja4260
I asked to have the thread removed.
Since legally were screwed, we have to use the options the owner of the dealer gave us. Our attorney said that while we could win the case in court, typically the attorney fees would not be covered and it would take a few years. The dealer would drag this case out.........
What good are laws to protect the consumer, if they do nothing of that sort.
The dealer owner gave us our options over the phone since he was on lunch, and our agreed meeting time was inconvenient for him.
#1- Use whatever we spent and add that towards a new Hyundai on his lot.
Or
#2- Have them find equal car at auction for us.
Even the GM said he can't stand working for this guy....
Were going to pick 3 colors for 2011 vehicle, and the car must be within 5k miles for same price & be Toyota certified upon purchase. I was advised that I could go with to auction since I have the next 3 weeks off of work. My father cannot afford to miss anymore days due to this ordeal.
since they bungled up buying a fairly new toyota camry the first time, I would not trust their guys on buying another camry for you. Your stuck buying a new Hyundai if it were me. I would get a Hyundai Genesis.
I asked to have the thread removed.
Since legally were screwed, we have to use the options the owner of the dealer gave us. Our attorney said that while we could win the case in court, typically the attorney fees would not be covered and it would take a few years. The dealer would drag this case out.........
What good are laws to protect the consumer, if they do nothing of that sort.
The dealer owner gave us our options over the phone since he was on lunch, and our agreed meeting time was inconvenient for him.
#1- Use whatever we spent and add that towards a new Hyundai on his lot.
Or
#2- Have them find equal car at auction for us.
Even the GM said he can't stand working for this guy....
Were going to pick 3 colors for 2011 vehicle, and the car must be within 5k miles for same price & be Toyota certified upon purchase. I was advised that I could go with to auction since I have the next 3 weeks off of work. My father cannot afford to miss anymore days due to this ordeal.
since they bungled up buying a fairly new toyota camry the first time, I would not trust their guys on buying another camry for you. Your stuck buying a new Hyundai if it were me. I would get a Hyundai Genesis.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Those are both fair options IMO.
Legally, he could offer you nothing and sue you to honor the contract for purchase that you signed.
The car was never a lemon, so the lemon laws never applied in any way shape or form.
Your best argument against him and the dealership is that his techs should have caught the bad repair on inspection...but in reality, you missed the repair as well. You cant rely on their inspection entirely and not inspect the car yourself...your due dilligence is not mitigated by their faulty inspection.
And one final point, the car was not sold with a Toyota warranty, whether they represented it that way or not...the bottom line is Toyota had already voided their warranty on those components of the car. ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
Glad you got this worked out, and arent stuck with a poorly repaird car. But I fail to see how the dealer is being a jerk in any way, when he is ultimately applying all the cash you spent out of pocket on another car...seems more than fair to me.
I disagree with everything that you have said. How is the dealer not liable for selling something, and representing it as different?
Not going to argue with you. This is NOT what we agreed & paid for. End of story.
Dealer basically said, were bigger then you, F you. Owner was just as rude.
Be thankful that your not in this situation.
Those are both fair options IMO.
Legally, he could offer you nothing and sue you to honor the contract for purchase that you signed.
The car was never a lemon, so the lemon laws never applied in any way shape or form.
Your best argument against him and the dealership is that his techs should have caught the bad repair on inspection...but in reality, you missed the repair as well. You cant rely on their inspection entirely and not inspect the car yourself...your due dilligence is not mitigated by their faulty inspection.
And one final point, the car was not sold with a Toyota warranty, whether they represented it that way or not...the bottom line is Toyota had already voided their warranty on those components of the car. ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
Glad you got this worked out, and arent stuck with a poorly repaird car. But I fail to see how the dealer is being a jerk in any way, when he is ultimately applying all the cash you spent out of pocket on another car...seems more than fair to me.
I disagree with everything that you have said. How is the dealer not liable for selling something, and representing it as different?
Not going to argue with you. This is NOT what we agreed & paid for. End of story.
Dealer basically said, were bigger then you, F you. Owner was just as rude.
Be thankful that your not in this situation.
Originally Posted By: dja4260
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Those are both fair options IMO.
Legally, he could offer you nothing and sue you to honor the contract for purchase that you signed.
The car was never a lemon, so the lemon laws never applied in any way shape or form.
Your best argument against him and the dealership is that his techs should have caught the bad repair on inspection...but in reality, you missed the repair as well. You cant rely on their inspection entirely and not inspect the car yourself...your due dilligence is not mitigated by their faulty inspection.
And one final point, the car was not sold with a Toyota warranty, whether they represented it that way or not...the bottom line is Toyota had already voided their warranty on those components of the car. ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
Glad you got this worked out, and arent stuck with a poorly repaird car. But I fail to see how the dealer is being a jerk in any way, when he is ultimately applying all the cash you spent out of pocket on another car...seems more than fair to me.
I disagree with everything that you have said. How is the dealer not liable for selling something, and representing it as different?
Not going to argue with you. This is NOT what we agreed & paid for. End of story.
Dealer basically said, were bigger then you, F you. Owner was just as rude.
Be thankful that your not in this situation.
Everything??? Well then I can only assume you still think this car is a lemon. Sorry, there isn't a definition of the lemon laws in any state that would classify this car as a lemon. The lemon laws simply dont apply.
Dealer is refunding you in the form of another deal, every penny your father spent out of pocket...How is that an F you?
I would never be in your situation, because if I buy a used car, regardless of age I would have it inspected by my mechanic. I would conduct my own due dilligence on any used car despite it's age, and this situation is a perfect example of why that is the proper thing to do.
YOU and the DEALER both made the faulty assumption that the remaining warranty from Toyota was in effect. BAD mistake on BOTH your parts.
The dealer is being fair with you, and you still bad mouth them...whatever.
Good luck in the future...I am happy you got this sorted out. And hopefully learned a lesson along the way.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Those are both fair options IMO.
Legally, he could offer you nothing and sue you to honor the contract for purchase that you signed.
The car was never a lemon, so the lemon laws never applied in any way shape or form.
Your best argument against him and the dealership is that his techs should have caught the bad repair on inspection...but in reality, you missed the repair as well. You cant rely on their inspection entirely and not inspect the car yourself...your due dilligence is not mitigated by their faulty inspection.
And one final point, the car was not sold with a Toyota warranty, whether they represented it that way or not...the bottom line is Toyota had already voided their warranty on those components of the car. ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
Glad you got this worked out, and arent stuck with a poorly repaird car. But I fail to see how the dealer is being a jerk in any way, when he is ultimately applying all the cash you spent out of pocket on another car...seems more than fair to me.
I disagree with everything that you have said. How is the dealer not liable for selling something, and representing it as different?
Not going to argue with you. This is NOT what we agreed & paid for. End of story.
Dealer basically said, were bigger then you, F you. Owner was just as rude.
Be thankful that your not in this situation.
Everything??? Well then I can only assume you still think this car is a lemon. Sorry, there isn't a definition of the lemon laws in any state that would classify this car as a lemon. The lemon laws simply dont apply.
Dealer is refunding you in the form of another deal, every penny your father spent out of pocket...How is that an F you?
I would never be in your situation, because if I buy a used car, regardless of age I would have it inspected by my mechanic. I would conduct my own due dilligence on any used car despite it's age, and this situation is a perfect example of why that is the proper thing to do.
YOU and the DEALER both made the faulty assumption that the remaining warranty from Toyota was in effect. BAD mistake on BOTH your parts.
The dealer is being fair with you, and you still bad mouth them...whatever.
Good luck in the future...I am happy you got this sorted out. And hopefully learned a lesson along the way.
If they are willing to find an equal car in auction for you, that's probably the best outcome you can get. I don't think you are going to get any more than that even in court, and since there's no injury the lawyers aren't really interested.
I think the dealer is more at fault than the buyer in this case, because they should have inspect and declare any known issues. Blaming it all on the buyer because it is an "AS IS" sales is nothing more than selling a car with known head gasket leak, and it is not common for a buyer to bring another mechanic to the dealer.
That's one of the reason many people only buy new cars, because you'll not run into these kind of problems.
I think the dealer is more at fault than the buyer in this case, because they should have inspect and declare any known issues. Blaming it all on the buyer because it is an "AS IS" sales is nothing more than selling a car with known head gasket leak, and it is not common for a buyer to bring another mechanic to the dealer.
That's one of the reason many people only buy new cars, because you'll not run into these kind of problems.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Those are both fair options IMO.
I agree with this
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
I absolutely disagree with both these comments, respectfully of course.
1 - Used cars are not always sold as is without any warranty coverage or buyer protection. Many states have laws that provide some buyer protection on used cars. Where I live there is a used car lemon law in addition to basic "right to be informed" laws. The damage on the OP's vehicle not being disclosed would have been held against the dealer. When you sell a vehicle here, privately or as a dealer, you have an obligation to fully disclose issues like that. Even when sold as is as seen you can still be held liable as a seller if the problem predated the sale and the seller knew about it.
2 - Most dealers here sell their vehicle with a limited warranty ranging from 30-90 days. All used vehicles at a dealer must have a window warranty sticker that shows what coverage or as is. Again, as is does not apply to serious issues like the OP ran into however that are not disclosed. Even if the dealer truly did not know, they should have known, so the buyer would have recourse here anyway.
3 - I am sorry but to those saying it is the OP's fault for not finding this problem before he bought it just amazes me. He was supposed to crawl under a 2011 vehicle and try and find where someone had JB Welded the lip of the block where the oil pan attaches? I find it hard to believe ANYONE on here, despite their high falutin claims, would actually have gone that far in inspecting the car or that they would have even found it had they looked. Just bull. If it was a 1991 maybe you look that close but not on a 2011. The dealer should have found this either via an inspection or from records shwoing the warranty was voided. The buyer though? Come on folks lets be reasonable here.
Those are both fair options IMO.
I agree with this
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
I absolutely disagree with both these comments, respectfully of course.
1 - Used cars are not always sold as is without any warranty coverage or buyer protection. Many states have laws that provide some buyer protection on used cars. Where I live there is a used car lemon law in addition to basic "right to be informed" laws. The damage on the OP's vehicle not being disclosed would have been held against the dealer. When you sell a vehicle here, privately or as a dealer, you have an obligation to fully disclose issues like that. Even when sold as is as seen you can still be held liable as a seller if the problem predated the sale and the seller knew about it.
2 - Most dealers here sell their vehicle with a limited warranty ranging from 30-90 days. All used vehicles at a dealer must have a window warranty sticker that shows what coverage or as is. Again, as is does not apply to serious issues like the OP ran into however that are not disclosed. Even if the dealer truly did not know, they should have known, so the buyer would have recourse here anyway.
3 - I am sorry but to those saying it is the OP's fault for not finding this problem before he bought it just amazes me. He was supposed to crawl under a 2011 vehicle and try and find where someone had JB Welded the lip of the block where the oil pan attaches? I find it hard to believe ANYONE on here, despite their high falutin claims, would actually have gone that far in inspecting the car or that they would have even found it had they looked. Just bull. If it was a 1991 maybe you look that close but not on a 2011. The dealer should have found this either via an inspection or from records shwoing the warranty was voided. The buyer though? Come on folks lets be reasonable here.
Last edited:
It's not common to have a mechanic inspect a used car purchase?
Maybe thats the problem...it should be...and anyone with any experience does just that. You dont have to bring the mechanic to the dealer...last I heard these cars thingamajigs are mobil devices...seems like it would be pretty easy to take the car to a third party mechanic...lol.
And again, the point isn't about the age of the car...ANY used car should be inspected thoroughly by YOUR trusted mechanic. ANYONE relying solely on the dealers inspection is relinquishing the right they have to have the car inspected. And frankly deserves what they get for being so lazy.
Why do you think this car was traded in and auctioned off to begin with? Any reasonable buyer should have thought about these things before signing the dotted line and just swallowing hook line and sinker what the dealer was feeding them. In a used car transaction , the law maters, and the law is "as-is". Doesnt matter if the dealer said there was Toyota warranty remaining, there wasnt...and his legal obligation goes no further than that. The buyer and the dealer BOTH made a faulty assumption on this point. The dealer is paying for his mistake, the buyer, ???.
I clearly stated that BOTH the buyer and the dealer here made mistakes. And frankly the dealer is owning up to his...but as usual the buyer remains incalcetrant refusing to believe they have any responsibility at all....SORRY, but the law says different.
Maybe thats the problem...it should be...and anyone with any experience does just that. You dont have to bring the mechanic to the dealer...last I heard these cars thingamajigs are mobil devices...seems like it would be pretty easy to take the car to a third party mechanic...lol.
And again, the point isn't about the age of the car...ANY used car should be inspected thoroughly by YOUR trusted mechanic. ANYONE relying solely on the dealers inspection is relinquishing the right they have to have the car inspected. And frankly deserves what they get for being so lazy.
Why do you think this car was traded in and auctioned off to begin with? Any reasonable buyer should have thought about these things before signing the dotted line and just swallowing hook line and sinker what the dealer was feeding them. In a used car transaction , the law maters, and the law is "as-is". Doesnt matter if the dealer said there was Toyota warranty remaining, there wasnt...and his legal obligation goes no further than that. The buyer and the dealer BOTH made a faulty assumption on this point. The dealer is paying for his mistake, the buyer, ???.
I clearly stated that BOTH the buyer and the dealer here made mistakes. And frankly the dealer is owning up to his...but as usual the buyer remains incalcetrant refusing to believe they have any responsibility at all....SORRY, but the law says different.
Panda...
If you bought a one year old used Lincoln at a Cadillac dealership. And they told you the remaining warranty was still in effect on the Lincoln...would you verify that info with a simple phone call to a Lincoln dealer, or would you just take the Cadillac dealers word for it?
The "as-is" matters in this case so heavily, because regardless of age this was a used car sale. The only way you could prove the dealer liable is if they had knowledge of the faulty repair. By all accounts is appears as if they just missed it. Their inspection was faulty no doubt, but at least they did an inspection, the buyer apparently couldnt be bothered with such trivialities.
If you bought a one year old used Lincoln at a Cadillac dealership. And they told you the remaining warranty was still in effect on the Lincoln...would you verify that info with a simple phone call to a Lincoln dealer, or would you just take the Cadillac dealers word for it?
The "as-is" matters in this case so heavily, because regardless of age this was a used car sale. The only way you could prove the dealer liable is if they had knowledge of the faulty repair. By all accounts is appears as if they just missed it. Their inspection was faulty no doubt, but at least they did an inspection, the buyer apparently couldnt be bothered with such trivialities.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Those are both fair options IMO.
I agree with this
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
I absolutely disagree with both these comments, respectfully of course.
1 - Used cars are not always sold as is without any warranty coverage or buyer protection. Many states have laws that provide some buyer protection on used cars. Where I live there is a used car lemon law in addition to basic "right to be informed" laws. The damage on the OP's vehicle not being disclosed would have been held against the dealer. When you sell a vehicle here, privately or as a dealer, you have an obligation to fully disclose issues like that. Even when sold as is as seen you can still be held liable as a seller if the problem predated the sale and the seller knew about it.
2 - Most dealers here sell their vehicle with a limited warranty ranging from 30-90 days. All used vehicles at a dealer must have a window warranty sticker that shows what coverage or as is. Again, as is does not apply to serious issues like the OP ran into however that are not disclosed. Even if the dealer truly did not know, they should have known, so the buyer would have recourse here anyway.
3 - I am sorry but to those saying it is the OP's fault for not finding this problem before he bought it just amazes me. He was supposed to crawl under a 2011 vehicle and try and find where someone had JB Welded the lip of the block where the oil pan attaches? I find it hard to believe ANYONE on here, despite their high falutin claims, would actually have gone that far in inspecting the car or that they would have even found it had they looked. Just bull. If it was a 1991 maybe you look that close but not on a 2011. The dealer should have found this either via an inspection or from records shwoing the warranty was voided. The buyer though? Come on folks lets be reasonable here.
I'm glad that someone understands
This car had to on a hoist and with a flash light and mirror, to be found. This issue was listed on the national database, not on carfax.
Besides this issue, the car was in mint shape, outside, under the hood, etc. Since it had the existing toyota factory warranty, I figured we were safe.
Guess not.
My father and I build and maintain race motors and both are VERY mechanically inclined. This issue eluded alot of people before it was purchased by us.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Those are both fair options IMO.
I agree with this
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
ANY used car is sold "as-is" regardless of age of the vehicle...this is again a due dilligence issue and you didnt do proper due dilligence.
I absolutely disagree with both these comments, respectfully of course.
1 - Used cars are not always sold as is without any warranty coverage or buyer protection. Many states have laws that provide some buyer protection on used cars. Where I live there is a used car lemon law in addition to basic "right to be informed" laws. The damage on the OP's vehicle not being disclosed would have been held against the dealer. When you sell a vehicle here, privately or as a dealer, you have an obligation to fully disclose issues like that. Even when sold as is as seen you can still be held liable as a seller if the problem predated the sale and the seller knew about it.
2 - Most dealers here sell their vehicle with a limited warranty ranging from 30-90 days. All used vehicles at a dealer must have a window warranty sticker that shows what coverage or as is. Again, as is does not apply to serious issues like the OP ran into however that are not disclosed. Even if the dealer truly did not know, they should have known, so the buyer would have recourse here anyway.
3 - I am sorry but to those saying it is the OP's fault for not finding this problem before he bought it just amazes me. He was supposed to crawl under a 2011 vehicle and try and find where someone had JB Welded the lip of the block where the oil pan attaches? I find it hard to believe ANYONE on here, despite their high falutin claims, would actually have gone that far in inspecting the car or that they would have even found it had they looked. Just bull. If it was a 1991 maybe you look that close but not on a 2011. The dealer should have found this either via an inspection or from records shwoing the warranty was voided. The buyer though? Come on folks lets be reasonable here.
I'm glad that someone understands
This car had to on a hoist and with a flash light and mirror, to be found. This issue was listed on the national database, not on carfax.
Besides this issue, the car was in mint shape, outside, under the hood, etc. Since it had the existing toyota factory warranty, I figured we were safe.
Guess not.
My father and I build and maintain race motors and both are VERY mechanically inclined. This issue eluded alot of people before it was purchased by us.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Not all state's have the same laws so that comment made as a blanket statement is not accurate.
I guess we will agree to disagree on the OP being even partly at fault for not finding the JB Weld repair prior to purchase.
Please point me to the state that has a lemon law that covers damage to the car caused by the owner?
Or to a state that has lemon laws that cover used car sales to a third or fourth party?
The statement is accurate, this car was never a lemon in any state of the union. It doesnt fit the definition of a lemon law car in any state.
I'd be glad to see evidence outside of conjecture/personal opinion to the contrary.
Not all state's have the same laws so that comment made as a blanket statement is not accurate.
I guess we will agree to disagree on the OP being even partly at fault for not finding the JB Weld repair prior to purchase.
Please point me to the state that has a lemon law that covers damage to the car caused by the owner?
Or to a state that has lemon laws that cover used car sales to a third or fourth party?
The statement is accurate, this car was never a lemon in any state of the union. It doesnt fit the definition of a lemon law car in any state.
I'd be glad to see evidence outside of conjecture/personal opinion to the contrary.
- Status