[jagjitkahuja]

Hi,
I stay in California state .
I bought a car in October and sold it to a private party in December because I was moving out of state ( which eventually I did not due to professional reasons but moved to a nearby place as I had already given the notice to my apartment community ) . I advertised that the car is in great condition as it was not giving me any problems after I bought it and got some repairs done on it . The buyer got the car inspected through a certified AAA approved mechanic who told the car was in good condition.Before transferring the title I gave all the maintenance receipts to the buyer and sold him the car for more than the price that I bought since I accounted for the repairs . He signed a bill of sale on a piece of paper that he was buying the car AS-IS and would assume full liabilities of the car from thereon . He dropped me back and on the way noticed that the "Check Engine" light was on . He went back to the mechanic who switched off the light . He drove fine to his place which was quite far off . The next day the light turned on again and his mechanic checked the problem and told him that the car needed repairs . He called me and sent an estimate regarding this and I told him that I am not obligated to pay any money to him as he was buying the car AS-IS. But later on as a gracious gesture I gave him half the money for repairs as he was highly qualified but without a decent job.He cashed the cheque I gave him and few days later demanded more money because it cost more to fix the problem which I refused . He wanted to sue me in small claims court and asked for my address which I did not give to him since my friend had told me that I am not obligated to do it . He hired someone to find my address and sent me a notice . In the notice he mentions that I knew about the problem but did not disclose it and that I advertised that the car is in great condition which was a lie . Please advise if I have a strong case and how should I prepare my case . I have the bill of sale but do not have the copy of the inspection report that was done before the buyer bought the car .
He talked with the autoshop owner about the case and the shop owner was sorry that this happened and refunded his money . Does this make my case weak ?

[JudyKayTee]

Well, I think you did have an oral agreement/contract that the car was as is - then you were notified of a problem and reimbursed part of his money. I'm sure you can see that this makes you look like you knew there were problems; otherwise, why didn't you just stand by the "as is" contract - ?

So let him sue you, go to Court, take your documents - he'll tell his story and show his proof, you'll tell your story and show your proof and the Court will decide.

I think it's going to hinge on whether you voided the "as is" contract by paying a portion of the repairs.

I know in NYS that would have voided the contract.

BUT here's my problem - you posted EXACTLY this same thing in April, got all sorts of good, comprehensive answers. People spent a lot of time answering you. And here you are again, almost 3 months later, same question, same situation. If you aren't going to listen, why do you keep posting? Do you think the law has changed since April?

[jagjitkahuja]

Well, I think you did have an oral agreement/contract that the car was as is - then you were notified of a problem and reimbursed part of his money. I'm sure you can see that this makes you look like you knew there were problems; otherwise, why didn't you just stand by the "as is" contract - ?

So let him sue you, go to Court, take your documents - he'll tell his story and show his proof, you'll tell your story and show your proof and the Court will decide.

I think it's going to hinge on whether you voided the "as is" contract by paying a portion of the repairs.

I know in NYS that would have voided the contract.

BUT here's my problem - you posted EXACTLY this same thing in April, got all sorts of good, comprehensive answers. People spent a lot of time answering you. And here you are again, almost 3 months later, same question, same situation. If you aren't going to listen, why do you keep posting? Do you think the law has changed since April?

Please do not think that I am not listening or paying attention . I am just preparing for my case . The reason I posted this again was because of your answer on my previous post . You were the only one who said that because I had paid him some money the contract would not hold true but you were not sure . I need to verify this for California state