D. Gerasimatos wrote:
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



No, all you have to prove is the car was NOT IN THE CONDITION IT WAS IN
AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS STRUCK. Whether the seller knew about it
is immaterial. If you like, change the circumstances so the seller's
kid took the car out for a drive the day before pick up and abused it,
blowing the engine, without the seller knowing it. Or change it to
it was parked on the street by the seller and vandalized, without
either the seller or buyer knowing. It does not matter, as the
seller is obligated to deliver whatever was contracted for in the same
condition it was in when the contract was made. If the engine blows up
before payment is made and title passes, it's the seller's problem.
If the engine blows up after that, then it's the buyer's problem.

And this isn't an issue of warranty, as we are talking about damage
that changes the condition of a contracted item while it is still owned
by the seller, not after. This is a very simple contract law issue.
The essence is that whatever is contracted for, the buyer has the right
to receive exactly that when title passes. If the property is
damaged, regardless of how, before title passes, it is the SELLER'S
obligation to remedy it.