Recently purchased a used truck. Ad said it runs great. I thoroughly checked it over when meeting with the private party. Drove it, etc. It had been sitting for 6 months so the fact that is was running rough was understood by both parties to be related to fouled spark plugs.
Within one day problems started arising - first, I discovered it had no emergency break, having been removed. I never asked about that - doh!
In the transaction, I had agreed to take care of the Smog. Turns out that it cannot be smogged because of a serious lack of compression in one of the cylinders. To fix will cost me more than I paid for the vehicle. I was prepared to invest in vehicle maintenance, but not a full repair of this magnitude.
I was told that in California law, if a seller claims the vehicle runs great, he or she must take responsibility for that claim.
I've seen other posts in this forum about similar situations, but I am primarily concerned about California Law and what recourse I may have.
Any and all advice is welcome.
Thank you!

Hello mat:

Sorry. You have no recourse. When you buy from a private party, you buy the car "as is".

excon

Yes, California law normally requires seller to have the car pass inspection , unless it specificly says the buyer knows it will not and agrees to do it.

Which is what it sounds like you said.

Before you buy it is when you get it check out, not after.

So sorry it appears you are stuck

Thank you Fr_Chuck,
Actually, the owner said it would pass Smog fine, so I took responsibility since I "assumed" it would be a breeze.
But, from your answer and excon's answer it sounds like it does not matter. Ultimately, I am responsible and unless the seller is a very generous person, I am stuck.
Thanks for your help!

Keep in mind that you are free to request whatever you want from the seller. They probably won't do much, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Personally, I'd ask in writing, so you have a paper trail. If you can cite any laws or statutes that would be great. Just add it into your letter to them, so they know that you know.

Then if they don't help you out at all you can always take them to small claims court. ( I assume we're talking about a dollar amount that would be within small claims limits.) You may not win, but it's fairly inexpensive. If you can present a convincing case to the judge you may be able to recover at least partial repair expenses.

I agree with the previous posters that you're probably just stuck, but with all of the smog regulations and everything in CA it's at least worth looking into. It sounds like they probably had at least a clue what they were selling (no emergency brake... geez!)

I have to agree with ex & Chuck; you checked over the vehicle and bought it "as is." Additionally, the seller may have advertised it as "running great" but you drove it and have now posted that both of you acknowledged that it didn't.

No, it won't pass an emissions test because if a cylinder has low compression it's going to be running poorly. That's both his and your fault; his for telling you it would pass and yours for not knowing better.

As a side note, who diagnosed the vehicle as having low compression? The disabled e-brake is really not that big of a deal; plenty of people don't use theirs(myself included).

this8384,

I took it to my mechanic to fix a couple minor things and the sounds that began to generate and in the process he checked the compression on the cylinders.

Matson

The smoke test is the thing I am still stuck on, unless in writing it says it will not pass, or something, the seller may be held responsible to get it to pass,

Personally I may try small claims court, some people pay if they are served and to be honest it would be your only chance. Not that I would hold my breath but it is the only chance I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matsonian

this8384,

I took it to my mechanic to fix a couple minor things and the sounds that began to generate and in the process he checked the compression on the cylinders.

Matson

---

Just out of curiosity, did your mechanic give you an individual reading on each cylinder or just tell you one had low compression? Also, what year & model is the truck, what motor is in it and how many miles are on it?

Well the people above me are first off not lawyers in the great state of California or they would know the California Smog laws when selling a vehicle.

When you sell a vehicle that is four or fewer model years old, a smog certificate will not be required in order to transfer the title. The buyer will pay a smog transfer fee of $8. If the vehicle sold is more than four model years old, the seller must provide evidence of a current smog certification except in any of the following situations:

* The vehicle transfer occurs between a spouse, sibling, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild.

* The vehicle was registered and biennial smog certification was submitted to the DMV within 90 days before the date the title transfer took place. A vehicle inspection report may be required for proof of certification.

So if you verbally said you would take care of the smog it doesn't matter as long as you didn't sign any form stating you would take over liability for getting the smog done. If you fall into the above California law, then it is the responsibility of the seller, and it is his full responsibility to repair the car or a void of sale and you get your money back. If you search in small claims cases you will find this exact example. Good luck and only listen to facts not people who "think" they know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster99

Good luck and only listen to facts not people who "think" they know.

---

Seeing as you're such a brilliant mind from the "great state of California" I'd like you to realize that this post is over 6 months old. The OP has not returned in that timeframe.

Also, your attitude is absolutely uncalled for. If someone was really wrong, then you can point it out by quoting a specific law - not just insulting numerous members. Not to mention that Fr_Chuck already had suggested that the seller may still be liable.

Oh, and please allow me to correct myself. You were correct regarding the four-year-old model law. And look at that: unlike you, I can do it WITHOUT a chip on my shoulder.