Thank you for your reply.
Under the law, used car purchases are considered as is. This means that people who purchase used items are tasked with exercising their due diligence BEFORE making the purchase. This is held by the courts to mean that the responsibility is on the buyer to inspect the vehicle for defects and do their due diligence regarding pricing and are held to get "the benefit of the bargain" that they agreed upon as the courts state. The courts use the term "caveat
emptor" or "buyer beware" when discussing used car purchases.
In situations where a buyer agrees upon a price with a seller they are stuck with the benefit of the bargain they agreed upon (sometimes that bargain is in favor of the buyer and sometimes it is in favor of the seller) and that is a general principle of contracts
. People are bound to contracts they agree upon and are expected to do their research (due diligence) prior to making their purchase, new or used.
In the case of a used purchase that has hidden defects without warranty, the buyer bears the liability of any such defects with limited exceptions. In a used vehicle purchase without written warranty, there are two implied warranties
that can apply. Both of the implied warranties involve defects to a vehicle and require proof of the seller having knowledge of the defect prior to the sale. There is the warranty of merchantability, which requires proof the seller knew or should have known that the vehicle was not fit for its intended purpose at the time of the sale. There is also the warranty of good faith, which requires the seller to be shown to have known of defects in the vehicle prior to the sale and they failed to disclose them or concealed them from the buyer.
As you can see, under the law, there are limited legal recourses available to a buyer of a used item.
Even in a new sale though, negotiation of a contract regarding price and terms is something between buyer and seller and each gets the benefit of the bargain they negotiate absent any intentional fraud or misrepresentation and the burden of proof
of such fraud or misrepresentation is on the party claiming it occurred.