Defective vehicle sold by dealer

[Antigone*]

I never claimed that they are required by law. My very first post notes that there are "instances" where as-is is not the final word, which in turn, means there is also the opposite. (instances where as-is means as-is)

If the car broke down on day 4, and there was no 3-day policy from the dealer, then yes, the point is moot.

It was moot from the very beginning, Amy becasue there is no such thing as a "3-day rule" for this scenario ~ your words not mine.

~ Tigi out

 

[AmyS7779311]

A ten-second Google search provided this document.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/agency/weeklyag/2005/0305contracts.pdf

Pay special attention to paragraph 1. Like I said. Google is your friend.

Again, I am speaking of a dealer who OFFERS a 3-day return policy - not a law requiring them.

Go back to the part where I wrote, " 3 day rule".

As with Zigner, where do you find that the word "rule" means "law"? It doesn't.

 

[AmyS7779311]

becasue there is no such thing as a "3-day rule" for this scenario ~ your words not mine.

~ Tigi out

How do you know?

The OP doesn't even distinguish if it was day 3 or day 4.

Were you there when OP signed contract?

 

[Antigone*]

How do you know?

The OP doesn't even distinguish if it was day 3 or day 4.

Were you there when OP signed contract?

Well folks, It is official. This one is just thick