Quote:
Originally Posted by Ineedapurpleone
well that exactly what happened he never verified it on his own or double checked the dealers word... like I said in above post would you buy something that was claimed to be inspected without reading the inspection first (ie house)?
Whose to say the dealership was just repeating something they were told is true (from previous owner or faulty inspection). I am not saying that they SHOULD have known but that is not a legal arguement. Legally the definition of fraud is KNOWINGLY misleading a customer on facts behind a sale. Who's to say the salesperson wasn't just reading of a faulty car fax??
but it IS a legal argument. i used the phrase "knew or should have known" b/c that is exactly the language that is used in the case law regarding misrepresentation by a seller. it's also not something the average layperson (read: not Nabisco car enthusiast) is going to be able to easily verify. feel free to pick up a copy of the Restatement of Contracts or the Uniform Conmmercial Code.
Restatement Section 159: Misrepresentation: an assertion that is not in accord with the facts.
Sec. 172: a recipient's reliance on a seller's statement is not unjustified unless the buyer acted in bad faith
it could also be looked as a "mistake" if the dealer really thought the car had ABS, but Sec. 154 lead sme to believe the dealer, rather than the buyer, bears the risk of the mistake.