Sold Classic Cadillac - Buyer wants to return or sue.

[Arcanemed]

Hello,

I AM IN CALIFORNIA BUYER IS IN WASHINGTON.

I recently sold a 1980 Cadillac Fleetwood. I sold it as the titled owner to a private party out of State (Washington). The buyer responded to my ad on classicarlisting.com. The ad had been edited again and again numerous times because of price and wording changes. The buyer purchased the vehicle sight unseen. He wanted to to get it inspected prior and even I addressed it'd be a great idea. He swayed off when he calculated the costs (I don't know what those were) and moved forward with the purchase.

Here's what's wrong/flawed:

1. This car does NOT have the astro roof as I've listed. To be honest it was a accidental cut copy paste (all these mistakes). The photos however SHOW there is no moon/astro/sunroof of any type. There's many photos. None show this option. It's stated but not depicted. It was never questioned by the buyer until after he received the vehicle.

2. This car does NOT have a factory CB radio. It's another cut copy paste mistake.

3. This car does NOT have factory wire wheels... It has chrome wheel covers.

This is literally false within my ad: “All the super rare and expensive options: Factory CB, Astroroof, power driver and passenger recliner, automatic dimming, posi-traction, and genuine factory wire wheels,” are there, the seller said.

2-3 days after receiving the car he mentioned he was upset. This wasn't the car he thought he bought and so forth. In my mind I thought he is negligent as well. He bought the car sight unseen and now has added up a repair cost bill of $2500 on top of what's missing. He's threatening to sue and file with California Superior Courts through his attorney here locally.

What do I do? Does he have a case? I was honest via phone/text with him. Even when he wanted to fly here and drive it back I notified him he needs to tow it because it'll need some work done first. I've already transferred ownership online through the DMV webpage. I've canceled the car from my insurance. He wants to send it back and be fully reimbursed minus shipping costs, if this doesn't go to court. If it goes to court he's threatening that I'd pay for his attorney fees, his refund, etc. The guys 70 years old with cancer, pitted against a judge I don't know how well I'd fair. I didn't mislead this guy. I didn't lie and actually showed him a lot of support, even delving into my pocket to cover the excess freight costs, not to mention the weeks time I spent configuring the shipment out for him.

Does he have a case? He bought the car with no inspection off of an ad. The photos and details aside 3 factors were all true and now here we are.

 

[Zigner]

I'd say that you don't have much of a chance against an attorney, however, he's not going to recover attorney's fees.

 

[Arcanemed]

What if I were to get an attorney?

I'd say that you don't have much of a chance against an attorney, however, he's not going to recover attorney's fees.

What if I were to have my own representation/attorney? Would I stand a chance? In all reality I reached out to him and said I'd be willing to refund him $1250 which is half of the repair bill he's shown. And I offered that only as a gesture of kindness, I didn't claim responsibility in anyway.

The thing is I've already gone through the DMV with the filings AND dropped the car from insurance and replaced it's spot with another. I simply am not in a position to take this thing back and fork his money back over to him.

 

[Zigner]

It couldn't hurt to speak to an attorney.

 

[adjusterjack]

What if I were to have my own representation/attorney? Would I stand a chance? In all reality I reached out to him and said I'd be willing to refund him $1250 which is half of the repair bill he's shown. And I offered that only as a gesture of kindness, I didn't claim responsibility in anyway.

That was a big mistake. All a judge will hear is "He admitted to misrepresenting the car and offered me $1250."

And all the judge will read is "All the super rare and expensive options: Factory CB, Astroroof, power driver and passenger recliner, automatic dimming, posi-traction, and genuine factory wire wheels are there."

The ad you linked to doesn't show enough of the roof to discern whether or not it has an Astroroof, doesn't show enough of the interior to discern whether or not there is a CB, and the wheels in the photo cannot be distinguished from real wire wheels.

So you basically have three strikes against you.

So, yeah, I think he has a case. Especially since you have made many amateur mistakes about this deal from the getgo. You should never have gotten into any discussion with him after the sale other than, perhaps, you bought it as is, you own it, have a nice day, goodbye.

What was his response to the offer of $1250?

 

[Arcanemed]

It couldn't hurt to speak to an attorney.

That was a big mistake. All a judge will hear is "He admitted to misrepresenting the car and offered me $1250."

And all the judge will read is "All the super rare and expensive options: Factory CB, Astroroof, power driver and passenger recliner, automatic dimming, posi-traction, and genuine factory wire wheels are there."

The ad you linked to doesn't show enough of the roof to discern whether or not it has an Astroroof, doesn't show enough of the interior to discern whether or not there is a CB, and the wheels in the photo cannot be distinguished from real wire wheels.

So you basically have three strikes against you.

So, yeah, I think he has a case. Especially since you have made many amateur mistakes about this deal from the getgo. You should never have gotten into any discussion with him after the sale other than, perhaps, you bought it as is, you own it, have a nice day, goodbye.

What was his response to the offer of $1250?

I only responded because he kept texting me non stop. About a week later I responded today to his new threats of suing me with this message:

Hello Bill,

I'm not an automotive dealer and the ads not a contract. In fact that ad was written up and edited a bunch of times.

When you inquired about the car I answered all your questions and the ad itself has over +20-30 photos of the top, interior, exterior and wheels in full detail.

You purchased a car I told you sat for 30 years and that I went through and listed what all I fixed.

I then agreed to take it to any shop you want for an inspection. I even suggested it was fine and a good idea after you brought it up. You declined on the inspection. That's your negligence.

I didn't sell the car with a warranty. I didn't sell the car with a guarantee. I sold the car as is and at that it's been a loss.

I spent a week alone to set up shipment and came $200 excess out of pocket to get it picked up in time. If you remember you said you want to drive it and I told you no it needs to be towed because its been sitting covered for so long.

You have no grounds to take me to court Bill. You should have had the car inspected when we had the chance or had your son in law fly out to see it.

I missed a slew of work and headache free sales because you wanted the car so badly. I'm not taking the car back 2 weeks after the sale and after you decided to take it to a mechanic.

The photos clearly show the top. The top clearly has no sunroof. The astroroof and CB were a typo most likely from a copy paste and the rims/wheels were all 4 pictured in the ad.

Sorry but again you should have the car checked out. You bought to sight unseen with no contract or guarantee. I didn't lie to you about anything. I never smoked in it either by the way I can't smoke. The owner itself didn't smoke his nephews said their dad may have used the ash tray when we was trying to fix the car working on it +25 years ago.

Again the negligence falls on you. A Cadillac dealer would have inspected the car for $120.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I then followed up with this message because I don't want to escalate this and to me it was a fair and reasonable offer:

I'd be willing to split the $2500 with you and send you $1250. And that's because I truly didn't intend for you to get the wrong idea. The photos were true. My words were true. I acquired the car and put less than 75 miles on it personally Bill.

That's the best I can do and seemingly fairest thing to do.

I lost a lot of sales and sweet trade offers Bill... I treated you as a friend as you did me. So if you like I'm willing to do that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which he replies:

Mark, it's a shame you feel this way. What you advertised in writing is not what I received as a working auto. If you changed your add some times you should have listed what was needed, not saying everything was 100% ok. You even state that the spoke rims you had tires put on didn't even need tube's. You had to know it only had hubcaps. I appreciate your offer but can't accept it. There is more wrong than the list shows, I only wanted to pay for an hour of inspection. The reason it took two weeks for inspection was because of my surgery and getting an appointment at the shop. Let me know what you would like to do, I have already spoke to my attorney, he is just waiting to hear back from me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said nothing in response. And later he messages:

Mark, Carol and I have been talking and I would like to make one last offer before continuing to file papers in the Superior Court of Los Angles. If you return $7.600.00 to us I will eat the cost of shipping back to you but withdraw this offer if this goes to court. You might do well to check with your attorney but be sure you show him the complete add you posted. This is what we did and therefore would not go to court if we weren't sure to win. It will save you quite a lot of money to accept this offer. I would not be doing this for you only I thought we had struck up a friendship as well. Be well

 

[adjusterjack]

There is a certain amount of "puffing" that is acceptable in used car ads but you emphatically wrote:

“Everything works on this car. Period.”

Then the buyer apparently found $2500 worth of things that "didn't" work.

I think you have some really big problems with credibility here but I can't tell you what to do. You'll have to decide for yourself.

One thing that might be in your favor is that a 70 year old guy with cancer might not be likely to travel to LA to go to court and he would have to because you have the inalienable right to get him on the witness stand to cross examine him after he testifies. If he doesn't show up at trial you move for dismissal.

You have to decide whether Harry Callahan miscounted his bullets before you go for your gun.

In other words, is he bluffing with his threat to sue, or not.

Do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

Personally, I would never succumb to threats of a lawsuit but I don't make amateur mistakes when I sell a car.

 

[Arcanemed]

Good advice

There is a certain amount of "puffing" that is acceptable in used car ads but you emphatically wrote:



Then the buyer apparently found $2500 worth of things that "didn't" work.

I think you have some really big problems with credibility here but I can't tell you what to do. You'll have to decide for yourself.

One thing that might be in your favor is that a 70 year old guy with cancer might not be likely to travel to LA to go to court and he would have to because you have the inalienable right to get him on the witness stand to cross examine him after he testifies. If he doesn't show up at trial you move for dismissal.

You have to decide whether Harry Callahan miscounted his bullets before you go for your gun.

In other words, is he bluffing with his threat to sue, or not.

Do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

Personally, I would never succumb to threats of a lawsuit but I don't make amateur mistakes when I sell a car.

That's good and fair advice. Am I better off negotiating with him directly? I personally don't want to drag a 70 year old man much less cancer patient back and forth, nor do I want to break a man during the fight of his life. Yes I did state "Everything works. Period." But at the time of the ad it did. It was up for months. I was honest with him on the phone and over text that it will need some repairs. Ultimately he didn't want to lose the sale/car so he moved forward with the deal. It's a big dilemma for me on many levels.

 

[adjusterjack]

Well, I can't tell you what to do nor give you "legal advice."

But if I found myself between this rock and hard place, at this point I would write back and say something like "Taking the car back and giving you a full refund is never going to happen no matter what you do so tell me how much it will take for you to keep the car and settle this matter without you having to travel to Los Angeles to testify at the trial."

Then see what he comes back with.

I think, one way or the other, this debacle is going to cost you. It's just going to be a matter of how much it will take to buy your way out of it.

 

[justalayman]

What works and doesn't work is really irrelevant. If it was only such items he wouldn't have a case unless you were blatant in claiming something worked when it didn't.

Where you are screwed is you made material representations about the vehicle that were false. It doesn't have a sunroof. It doesn't have a cb. It doesn't have wife wheels. That means you did not ship to him the car you said you would. That is where it's likely he can rescind the contract. Whether he had it inspected or not won't matter on the items involved. They simply aren't there and he is allowed to take your word for it.

I would suggest either negotiating some deal he is happy with or plan on buying the car back. If it was me I would expect you to pay shipping both ways as well.

 

[adjusterjack]

It doesn't have wife wheels.

Wife wheels.

Interesting concept in car accessories.

 

[xylene]

The buyer is a crank and the negligent misrepresentations in the ad would very likely not be sufficient to rescind the sale.

With the (possible) exception of the CB, all of these items would be (or the absence thereof) clearly visible in the photographs.
That's a conflict, a very apparent error in the ad. If you had put photos of another car... that would be a different story.

The claim of liability for condition issues / arising repairs is ridiculous. Car is an '80. Cars that age can need quarterly repairs.

'Runs great' is not and never has been a warranty in a private party as-is sale of a vehicle this age.

Personally I would do some research on what the CB option cost brand new and offer them that amount, maybe double that.

 

[xylene]

Further, making a good faith settlement offer when things are in a dispute is not evidence or admission of wrongdoing. It's what the civil courts would much rather you do.

 

[xylene]

This:

Mark, Carol and I have been talking

is extremely telling about what is really going on. Carol is mad that ill hubby bought a money pit.

That has nothing to do with a not as promised factory CB option.

 

[justalayman]

The buyer is a crank and the negligent misrepresentations in the ad would very likely not be sufficient to rescind the sale.

With the (possible) exception of the CB, all of these items would be (or the absence thereof) clearly visible in the photographs.
That's a conflict, a very apparent error in the ad. If you had put photos of another car... that would be a different story.

The claim of liability for condition issues / arising repairs is ridiculous. Car is an '80. Cars that age can need quarterly repairs.

'Runs great' is not and never has been a warranty in a private party as-is sale of a vehicle this age.

Personally I would do some research on what the CB option cost brand new and offer them that amount, maybe double that.

I haven't seen the photos but apparently adusterjack has and he had said it isn't clearly discensble the sunroof and wire wheels are not present. A buyer can depend on a clearly stated factual representation of the merchandise.

Now think about this;
Op argues the errors are basically copy and paste errors. What was he copying and pasting from where he would have accidentally included such material representations? It sounds like he intentionally included the equipment and is now using the weak argument to defend it.

Regardless of error or intent, he can be held responsible for the incorrect representation of the car.

The repair issues are irrelevent other than the buyer is using the misrepresentation as leverage to get a discount. Oo can either negotiate or rescind, including shipping costs payable to the buyer.