Got my Tractor, hydrolic line busted after 4 hours use

[Soundguy]

so far everyting i've read leads me to believe he was in fact defrauded, based upon info provided by the seller.

it's the seller's responsibility as well to ID what he is selling, or state that he cannot ID it. once he states he can ID it.. it's either a mistake.. or a material falsification.

if a mistake.. thats when the seller takes a step back and tries to make it right. when it's fraud.. that when someone goes to jail or pays a fine.

i don't feel I have to lookup the vin number of a truck I buy .. I go what's based on the title.. if after I sign on the line I find out the seller materially misidentified it.. ie.. listed details on a reciept other than what was delivered... that's when you get other parties involved.

soundguy

 

[AndyG]

I did not read anywhere that Ervin ever went to Boonville to look at the tractor. Surely it is worth making a 4 hour drive to look at a tractor which you will be spending $12,000 on. It is possible that the dealership misrepresented the equipment. I can not see where Ervin did proper due diligence before buying the tractor. There is no way that I would spend that kind of money on used equipment sight unseen and I would not recommend that anyone else should either.

 

[Soundguy]

all depends.. if the seller gives you valid info.. like a dealer should.. it shouldn't be an issue.

I've bought a 5000 from another state, requested pictures and numbers, talked with the selling dealer about 3x on the phone before sending money up and waiting for the rollback to arrive.

but then.. i buy old iron alot.. so.. it's not a fair comparison perhaps... i kow what to look for usually, and could spot discrepencies possibly, and know what to ask for.

there were responsibilities on both sides. but not equal.

the seller has more of a responsibility to represent the merchandise honestly.. if he doesn't.. it kinda throws the whole ball of wax into a spin. since on the delivery paper it does seem to indicate he knew it wasn't a 76 model... ie.. it was a transaction with dishonest intent from the beginning on the aprt of the seller...

soundguy

 

[AndyG]

since on the delivery paper it does seem to indicate he knew it wasn't a 76 model... ie.. it was a transaction with dishonest intent from the beginning on the aprt of the seller...

soundguy

That is why you need to go lay hands on the machine before paying for it! You either make time to go look at it first or you make time to deal with the mess afterwards. The choice is yours.

 

[Soundguy]

true.. not saying that physically traveling there, looking at the numbers, and independently researching them vs relying on seller data would have likely headed this off. however, past that. once the seller stated the data as fact.. it became a material part of the deal.. and if i was the buyer.. that's what I'd be pusing on the legal point.

heck.. if you print up a fake check and go defraud a bank with it.. YOU are the one going to jail. not the bank for not detecting the fraud... right?

soundguy

 

[JDGreenGrass]

I find it hard to believe people will (are) defend the seller in this instance.??

There is time for the seller, a dealer no less, to make it right. If not, it's a "I'll see ya in court, Buddy."

 

[Soundguy]

i agree totally on both counts, 110%

defending the misleading and ambigous tactics of a dishonest person do make you wonder...


soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

For the sake of argument and comparison, here's a similar situation that I was involved in 15 years ago, and it's outcome.

I was the seller. I went by the serial # on the ID plate (located on dash of Massey Ferguson tractors) The serial # stated this was a 1974 model year tractor. I sold it as such. After the buyer got it home, he found the casting date on the engine block, which was for a 1967 engine. With the vague system of serial #'s Massey used, we had no way of knowing which was correct. EITHER the serial plate was swapped, or the engine was swapped. (You'll find a LOT of old tractors that were built out of "wrecks".....2 or 3 tractors to build one GOOD tractor)

In either event, or with whatever the correct story was, I was sued over misrepresenting the tractor. I had no idea what had happened, and I did NOTHING intentional to mislead the buyer. It went to court, where my attorney proposed my buying it back from the buyer, who in turn wanted "punitive damages". Judge awarded him $1000 for his troubles. I had to buy back the tractor @ full price, plus the punitive damages, plus court cost and attorney fees. Needless to say, I lost my rear end on that tractor. I was found to be responsible for misrepresenting the tractor when I advertised it as a 1974 model, even though it was never proven NOT to be a 1974 model.

The irony (as I saw it)? Book value on the tractor was the same regardless of model year.

Even with no intent to defraud, I was held liable. YMMV

 

[JDGreenGrass]

For the sake of argument and comparison, here's a similar situation that I was involved in 15 years ago, and it's outcome.

I was the seller. I went by the serial # on the ID plate (located on dash of Massey Ferguson tractors) The serial # stated this was a 1974 model year tractor. I sold it as such. After the buyer got it home, he found the casting date on the engine block, which was for a 1967 engine. With the vague system of serial #'s Massey used, we had no way of knowing which was correct. EITHER the serial plate was swapped, or the engine was swapped. (You'll find a LOT of old tractors that were built out of "wrecks".....2 or 3 tractors to build one GOOD tractor)

In either event, or with whatever the correct story was, I was sued over misrepresenting the tractor. I had no idea what had happened, and I did NOTHING intentional to mislead the buyer. It went to court, where my attorney proposed my buying it back from the buyer, who in turn wanted "punitive damages". Judge awarded him $1000 for his troubles. I had to buy back the tractor @ full price, plus the punitive damages, plus court cost and attorney fees. Needless to say, I lost my rear end on that tractor. I was found to be responsible for misrepresenting the tractor when I advertised it as a 1974 model, even though it was never proven NOT to be a 1974 model.

The irony (as I saw it)? Book value on the tractor was the same regardless of model year.

Even with no intent to defraud, I was held liable. YMMV

That reads to be an honest mistake. I am surprised that you and the buyer couldn't reach an out of court agreement.

The dealer in this case may be making an honest mistake but, he sure is taking the long route on that map.:confused2:

 

[Soundguy]

i feel for ya on that one.

in the case of 2 possible numbers.. it's a doozy.

i hear ya on swapped machine parts.

soundguy

For the sake of argument and comparison, here's a similar situation that I was involved in 15 years ago, and it's outcome.

I was the seller. I went by the serial # on the ID plate (located on dash of Massey Ferguson tractors) The serial # stated this was a 1974 model year tractor. I sold it as such. After the buyer got it home, he found the casting date on the engine block, which was for a 1967 engine. With the vague system of serial #'s Massey used, we had no way of knowing which was correct. EITHER the serial plate was swapped, or the engine was swapped. (You'll find a LOT of old tractors that were built out of "wrecks".....2 or 3 tractors to build one GOOD tractor)

In either event, or with whatever the correct story was, I was sued over misrepresenting the tractor. I had no idea what had happened, and I did NOTHING intentional to mislead the buyer. It went to court, where my attorney proposed my buying it back from the buyer, who in turn wanted "punitive damages". Judge awarded him $1000 for his troubles. I had to buy back the tractor @ full price, plus the punitive damages, plus court cost and attorney fees. Needless to say, I lost my rear end on that tractor. I was found to be responsible for misrepresenting the tractor when I advertised it as a 1974 model, even though it was never proven NOT to be a 1974 model.

The irony (as I saw it)? Book value on the tractor was the same regardless of model year.

Even with no intent to defraud, I was held liable. YMMV