buyer issued stop payment and is now evasive

[boater]

Washington State: This may sound complicated but is really very simple so stay with it until the end... I sold two boats to a person. He paid with a combination of cash and personal check. One of the boats is worth significantly more than the other. I have a hand written contract signed by both of us for this transaction. He had 6 months to look at the boats- yes 6 months of saying he was going to buy them; they were not advertised for sale during this time. One of the boats, the one worth less, he took to a mechanic after the sale and the mechanic told him one of the cylinders had low compression. I agreed to take it back and refund the difference: I can fix it and sell it for more that I sold it to him so all was good at that point.

In the meantime, before we had this conversation and unknown to me, "his wife put a stop payment on the check for $7000". I have not had either boat physically returned to me, and even if I did take the lesser one back he would still owe me $3059. He is now evasive, says he "will pay me on Tuesday" etc. I told him he has committed check fraud and needs to pay by last night at 10pm; he did not of course. I called the police to report it stolen (read that on another forum) and they told me it was a civil matter. I do still have the titles, but no boats and am out the $3059.

What are me resources here? Has he committed a crime? Any advice on what to do? Waiting "until Tuesday" is just more of the same with him. He says he is "out of town"; probably at the lake with my boat!

Thanks in advance

 

[adjusterjack]

Never take a check from anybody when you sell anything. Whatever this debacle cost you is your tuition for a life lesson from the school of hard knocks.

Has he committed a crime?

The criminal offense requires intent to defraud. There is no crime under the statute since it happened after he discovered a defect and stopped payment.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.060

Any advice on what to do?

You're going to have to sue him. But you'll better follow the procedures addressed by the civil bad check statutes 62A.3-501 through 525 at:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=62A.3

 

[Litigator22]

Washington State: This may sound complicated but is really very simple so stay with it until the end... I sold two boats to a person. He paid with a combination of cash and personal check. One of the boats is worth significantly more than the other. I have a hand written contract signed by both of us for this transaction. He had 6 months to look at the boats- yes 6 months of saying he was going to buy them; they were not advertised for sale during this time. One of the boats, the one worth less, he took to a mechanic after the sale and the mechanic told him one of the cylinders had low compression. I agreed to take it back and refund the difference: I can fix it and sell it for more that I sold it to him so all was good at that point.

In the meantime, before we had this conversation and unknown to me, "his wife put a stop payment on the check for $7000". I have not had either boat physically returned to me, and even if I did take the lesser one back he would still owe me $3059. He is now evasive, says he "will pay me on Tuesday" etc. I told him he has committed check fraud and needs to pay by last night at 10pm; he did not of course. I called the police to report it stolen (read that on another forum) and they told me it was a civil matter. I do still have the titles, but no boats and am out the $3059.

What are me resources here? Has he committed a crime? Any advice on what to do? Waiting "until Tuesday" is just more of the same with him. He says he is "out of town"; probably at the lake with my boat!

Thanks in advance

Your first mistake, obviously was in delivering possession of the boats before having the $7K in hand in hard cash.

Your second mistake - perhaps not obvious at the time - was in agreeing to mark down the price upon a return of the lesser valued boat (boat 2). That is, unless the alleged defective engine would be covered by any express warranty you may have foolishly made concerning the condition of the engine. In other words, if the boat was sold as is (meaning without express warranty as to fitness) and/or the buyer had a reasonable opportunity to have the engine thus inspected prior to purchase, you are under not legal obligation to reverse the transaction. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) applies.

(Noting here that as a matter of universal law there is no implied warranty as to fitness of used goods. New goods, yes, but not as to second hand goods.)

However, under the circumstances I think that you could effectively argue that what you claim was an agreement to accept a return of boat 2 was in fact an offer to do so conditioned on the buyer's prompt return of boat 2 and payment of the proportionally reduced price. And that the buyer's failure to do either wipes the offer from the board.

Now let's talk about a third mistake. That would be in believing adjusterjack's unschooled advice that in order to successfully pursue a cause of action against the buyer you must adhere to the "the procedures addressed by the civil bad check statutes 62A.3-501 through 525" as found in the Washington's Revised Code.

That's pure poppycock! In the first place there are no such procedures. And secondly you don't sue the guy on the bad check. You sue him on the "hand written contract signed by both of us". The check is corroborating evidence of that contract.

 

[boater]

Your first mistake, obviously was in delivering possession of the boats before having the $7K in hand in hard cash.

Your second mistake - perhaps not obvious at the time - was in agreeing to mark down the price upon a return of the lesser valued boat (boat 2). That is, unless the alleged defective engine would be covered by any express warranty you may have foolishly made concerning the condition of the engine. In other words, if the boat was sold as is (meaning without express warranty as to fitness) and/or the buyer had a reasonable opportunity to have the engine thus inspected prior to purchase, you are under not legal obligation to reverse the transaction. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) applies.

(Noting here that as a matter of universal law there is no implied warranty as to fitness of used goods. New goods, yes, but not as to second hand goods.)

However, under the circumstances I think that you could effectively argue that what you claim was an agreement to accept a return of boat 2 was in fact an offer to do so conditioned on the buyer's prompt return of boat 2 and payment of the proportionally reduced price. And that the buyer's failure to do either wipes the offer from the board.

Now let's talk about a third mistake. That would be in believing adjusterjack's unschooled advice that in order to successfully pursue a cause of action against the buyer you must adhere to the "the procedures addressed by the civil bad check statutes 62A.3-501 through 525" as found in the Washington's Revised Code.

That's pure poppycock! In the first place there are no such procedures. And secondly you don't sue the guy on the bad check. You sue him on the "hand written contract signed by both of us". The check is corroborating evidence of that contract.

Yes, obvious mistake taking a check. I come from a place where a handshake was worth more than a contract; that world does not seem to exist anymore. Different discussion that no-one wants to get me started on.

Thank you all for the input. Very helpful all of it and will help me moving forward.

 

[Just Blue]

Yes, obvious mistake taking a check. I come from a place where a handshake was worth more than a contract; that world does not seem to exist anymore. Different discussion that no-one wants to get me started on.

Thank you all for the input. Very helpful all of it and will help me moving forward.

That "world" hasn't existed for many decades.

 

[justalayman]

Xxxx

Your first mistake, obviously was in delivering possession of the boats before having the $7K in hand in hard cash.

Your second mistake - perhaps not obvious at the time - was in agreeing to mark down the price upon a return of the lesser valued boat (boat 2). That is, unless the alleged defective engine would be covered by any express warranty you may have foolishly made concerning the condition of the engine. In other words, if the boat was sold as is (meaning without express warranty as to fitness) and/or the buyer had a reasonable opportunity to have the engine thus inspected prior to purchase, you are under not legal obligation to reverse the transaction. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) applies.

(Noting here that as a matter of universal law there is no implied warranty as to fitness of used goods. New goods, yes, but not as to second hand goods.)

However, under the circumstances I think that you could effectively argue that what you claim was an agreement to accept a return of boat 2 was in fact an offer to do so conditioned on the buyer's prompt return of boat 2 and payment of the proportionally reduced price. And that the buyer's failure to do either wipes the offer from the board.

Now let's talk about a third mistake. That would be in believing adjusterjack's unschooled advice that in order to successfully pursue a cause of action against the buyer you must adhere to the "the procedures addressed by the civil bad check statutes 62A.3-501 through 525" as found in the Washington's Revised Code.

That's pure poppycock! In the first place there are no such procedures. And secondly you don't sue the guy on the bad check. You sue him on the "hand written contract signed by both of us". The check is corroborating evidence of that contract.

I want to emphasize a couple points litigator made.

In the paragraph starting with; however


His statement is since the buyer didn’t perform as agreed, that amendment to the original contract, becomes void if you rescind the offer to amend (unless you included some date by which it must be performed where the offer would have automatically become void) So, if you want to simply follow through on the original contract, you need to rescind the amended offer (because if you didn’t give a time within which to perform it is still an outstanding offer) and make a demand the buyer complete the original contract. Presumably he won’t follow through so you file suit based on the original contract.

Given the timeframe I wouldn’t stay with the amended contract regardless of anything else. Too much time has passed and you have no idea what could have happened to the boats.



Second, just reemphaaizing litigators last point;

This is not a bad check issue. This is a breach of contract issue and you sue for specific performance of the contract.