Non-disclosure of Accurate Vehicle Condition

Non-disclosure of Accurate Vehicle ConditionUsed cars often have pre-existing conditions known to the seller. These conditions must be properly disclosed to the buyer at the time of purchase. Some of these conditions may cause serious safety concerns and may result in financial losses on the part of the consumer due to a significantly lower resale value.

According to the California Code of Regulations, Statements of vehicle condition must accurately reflect the known condition, and pictures of vehicles must accurately depict their overall appearance.

In the event that the dealership fails to act in conformity with these laws, the consumer is entitled to remedies to include rescission of the purchase agreement and payment for actual damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, and costs of litigation. In most instances we are able to recover attorneys’ fees as either consequential damages or punitive damages.


SAMPLE CASE 1:

Client vs. Van Pelts Auto Sales

Client purchased a 2001 Volkswagen Jetta from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs. As such, the value of the vehicle was greatly lower than what she had paid for it. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase
read more


SAMPLE CASE 2:

Client vs. Ford Lincoln Mercury Dealership

Client purchased a 2008 Lincoln Town Car Executive L from Defendants. Subsequently, she discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs. As such, the value of the vehicle was substantially lower than what she had paid for it. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase. Subsequently Defendants contended that the conditions were due to a manufacturing defect or use my the Client.
read more


SAMPLE CASE 3:

Client vs. BMW Dealership

Client purchased a 2003 Mercedes-Benz E500 from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions that required extensive repairs. As such, the value of the vehicle was greatly lower than what she had paid for it. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase.
read more


SAMPLE CASE 4:

Client vs. Puente Hills Subaru

Client purchased a 2005 Hummer H2 from Defendants. Subsequently, he discovered that the subject vehicle had pre-existing conditions which rendered the vehicle unsafe for use. Defendants had failed to disclose this material information to Client at the time of purchase.
read more