In article . com,
wrote:


If you want to talk cars, then make the correct comparison and you will
come up with the exact same result. Let's say a buyer has a car he's
interested in buying inspected by a mechanic. The mechanic gives it a
clean bill of health. In the two days before you actually bring over
the money and take possession of it, the seller takes it out for a
drive and abuses it. He blows the engine. The car is sitting in the
driveway and you don't notice or check that the engine is now shot.
You hand over the money. Upon trying to start the car, you learn the
engine is blown. Not a very far fetched scenario, I'm sure it happens.
According to your legal theories, the buyer is just a whiner with no
legitimate complaint. In reality, he has a valid claim against the
seller, just like in this roof case.


Imagine instead that the engine blew on its own - the seller did nothing
at all. You have to prove that the seller knew about the damage. If the
seller didn't know that the car broke down between the inspection and
the day the money is exchanged, then the buyer has no valid complaints
unless the seller offered a warranty. I'm guessing that the seller didn't
know about the hail damage. Therefore, they likely aren't liable to repair
it. For all the seller knows, the buyer screwed up the roof in some
manner after closing. Now, if you can prove that the seller's knew about
the damage (or should have known) then that's different.


Dimitri