"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 12:06:45 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:50:10 AM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"M.L." wrote in message
...

1.) Brother purchased Whirlpool Estate washer (TAWS700RQ3) and dryer
(TGDX640PQ1) set for $200 on Craigslist. Seller assured him that both
were in excellent condition.

2.) At home, washer worked as expected but no heat from dryer.

3.) Called gas company to check hookup. Gas tech said dryer had wrong
adapter for hookup (from flex gas line to dryer gas pipe).

4.) Purchased new adapter, still no heat.

5.) Replaced solenoid coils. Still no heat.

6.) Paid appliance repairman $60 to diagnose dryer issue.

7.) Repairman said no gas was getting to dryer and would need to
replace gas burner assembly. Cost would be prohibitive.

8.) Sold dryer to repairman for $20.

As repairman was moving dryer to his van I asked for the adapter that
my brother had purchased. Repairman looked at it and said the adapter
was suitable for a gas grill, not a dryer. Said that probably was why
there was no heat. Repairman would not return the dryer since it was
sold.

Shouldn't his troubleshooting have determined that the adapter was
the
wrong type?

Note: Brother purchased another used dryer for $125 (with 90 day
warrantee) that works.

Yes. He should have returned the $60 and the contract of sale was void
due
to mutual mistake. Do you YELP?

I think the repair guy should have caught it. But it's questionable
that the sale is then invalidated. You'd have to convince a court
that the repair guy actually committed fraud, ie that he knew the real
problem, purposely mislead the seller, etc. A "mistake" isn't enough.
I could sell someone a Picasso at a garage sale, not realizing what it
was. I can't later figure it out, claim "mistake" and undo the sale.

Mutuality of mistake is one reason a contract is voidable. Do some
research.

I think you should do some research. You're the one claiming the
contract is null and void. I said that it's questionable that
the sale is invalidated. You could try your "mutual mistake" argument
in court. But here are the hurdles you'd have to overcome:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...l-mistake.html

"The mistake must have a material effect on performance - The mistake must
significantly change what you have to do under the contract, almost to the
point where it's an entirely different agreement. An example of this would
be contracting to clean someone's pool, then discovering that the pool water
has produced toxic levels of chlorine over time. As a result, you cannot
clean the pool without first decontaminating it. "

In this case, the contract is easily performed, the guy paid for the
dryer and he keeps it.

"You cannot use a Mutual Mistake defense if you assume the risk of the
mistake - If you knew there was a strong chance or probability of mistake at
the time the contract was signed, you may have assumed the risk of that
mistake. You therefore cannot use a Mutual Mistake defense. "


In this case, neither party knew 100% for sure what was wrong with
the dryer.

So, you could try to make that case, but you'd have to overcome the
above, prove what you're saying is indeed what happened, while the
repair guy who bought the thing has his own version of what actually
happened, what he actually said, etc. Good luck with that in court.
And unless a court rules on it, there is no automatic reversal of
the sale.

If the "mutual mistake" argument worked much, then every guy that
sold a valuable item at a garage sale would be getting it back.
Funny, I don't see that happening much, do you?

-------

do more research. you are only beginning your journey.