- Messages
- 867
- Reactions
- 222
I guess you're right about the multiple feedback, I could have sworn that I saw that rule here a few years ago when Joey first added iTrader. You're right that outright mis-representing a product is a big deal, however the text of the add and what he SAID at the trade are BOTH important (not just what is typed!, this is why car dealers get in trouble all the time for making promises contrary to their contracts!). The OP claims he disclosed this issue, and Benny also acknowledges that: "he told me that the plastic magazine hard to take it out the rifle ". The OP's diagnosis was perhaps wrong, but it is still a proper disclosure unless Benny has evidence that OP KNEW the issue and was intentionally misleading him.
Unless you intentionally mislead for your own gain, the purchaser is responsible in an implied as-is situation to determine the condition of the firearm (the exception is when the seller is considered someone who has particular expertise, such as a jeweler selling a ring, and this is only for things that are obscure to the normal observer). In a face-to-face deal, the courts definitely tend to side with caveat emptor (buyer beware!) unless there is distinct proof of deception.
That said, I read through Benny's statement and it isn't terribly consistent or convincing, so I have a hard time blaming OP for something that was disclosed.
As for your AG/Judge, I don't know the details. The fact that the AG threatened to sue you personally shows that perhaps he should have spent more time paying attention in law class and less taking aggressiveness classes.
Unless you intentionally mislead for your own gain, the purchaser is responsible in an implied as-is situation to determine the condition of the firearm (the exception is when the seller is considered someone who has particular expertise, such as a jeweler selling a ring, and this is only for things that are obscure to the normal observer). In a face-to-face deal, the courts definitely tend to side with caveat emptor (buyer beware!) unless there is distinct proof of deception.
That said, I read through Benny's statement and it isn't terribly consistent or convincing, so I have a hard time blaming OP for something that was disclosed.
As for your AG/Judge, I don't know the details. The fact that the AG threatened to sue you personally shows that perhaps he should have spent more time paying attention in law class and less taking aggressiveness classes.