0

A truck is sought with the express intent of plowing (in RI).

A truck, with a plow attached, is offered (in RI). The owner states that to the best of his knowledge, the truck plows and is in good condition.

A standard bill of sale is produced for the truck at a cost. (The truck was purchased for $5k, above the cost of small claims.)

A verbal agreement is offered that if there are any issues with the truck, it may be returned and the deal may be nulled.

A third party was present during the sale, witnessed this, and is able to attest to it.

The truck was taken immediately to 2 mechanics, and later a third, for inspection. All three mechanics independently determined:

• Front chassis is rusted through. • Nothing can be performed to fix it, aside from purchasing a brand new frame, which is not cost practical.

It has only been used for transit to these local mechanics for inspections.

The seller has refused all phone conversations. The seller has stated textually that he has no intent to negate the deal, that the truck was inspected by a mechanic of his choice prior to the sale.

.

Are options available to negate the deal, as the truck remains in the original condition and is not what was originally verbally agreed upon:
a truck in working condition without issues capable of plowing and trailering for heavy work use.

David Siegel
  • 115,406
  • 10
  • 215
  • 408
kando
  • 103
  • 4

1 Answers1

5

"Lemon laws" are about new cars and manufacturing defects. Used vehicles are sold "as is", except that dealers are obligated to offer a 30 or 60 day warranty that the vehicle will continue to function. Using the term "owner" suggests that this is not a dealership sale. Generally speaking, you are out of luck, except for the verbal add-on to the sales agreement. If there is no written agreement, just a verbal contract and exchange of money for truck, you may be able to enforce the contract in regular court. The prospects decrease if there is a written agreement that does not include the money-back guarantee, and become effectively zero if there is a clause that says "This is the whole agreement, the car is sold as-is". Assuming there is no written agreement, then you and perhaps the third party would testify as to the money-back guarantee, the seller would testify that there was no such guarantee (or that you misunderstood what he said), and the court would decide which version of the story is more believable.

user6726
  • 217,973
  • 11
  • 354
  • 589