Used car buyer complaining

LSashy on 21/05/2020 - 19:58

Hello,
I have recently just sold my car (10 years old) and have looked after it very well (always filled up 98% petrol), serviced at the dealership. Never had any mechanical issues with it.
I had it serviced and a RWC issued two weeks before listing it for sale. The buyer urgently needed a car, spent an hour inspecting and test driving it and haggling the price down. I didn't go down much as it was priced very well already and had several other interested buyers booked in two days later.
On the same day he bought it, he sent messages stating how unhappy he was as he ran the VIN and saw that this brand had a recall issued for the vehicle to be checked. I had it at the dealership with all recalls checked two weeks beforehand!
He stated I should have known and that he is disappointed and feels misled etc. and now he needs to bring it to a dealership to do a free check on the car.

I feel like I did all the right things, provided him with full service history (yes, even went as far as getting the dealership to send the detailed receipts) and he got a very good deal. (In comparison to what was being advertised on carsales at the time).
What is my responsibility in such a situation? I feel like I was offering a great deal, but the whole experience has left a sour taste in my mouth.
I feel personally attacked, and as if I purposely tried to mislead a buyer.

Automotive

Comments

      • pegaxs on 22/05/2020 - 08:47
        +19

        RON is not a measure of a fuels quality. Unless your car requires it, you are just burning money.

        • brendanm on 22/05/2020 - 10:30
          +12

          Don't you know that 98 cleans out the dirt from your engine? That's what BP told me, and they wouldn't lie

          • pegaxs on 22/05/2020 - 11:08
            +2

            @brendanm: It also boasts "mOaR PoWaH" while delivering unrivalled "fUeL eCoNoMy"…

            Apparently the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to BP fuels…

            • brendanm on 22/05/2020 - 11:26
              +1

              @pegaxs: Rules of thermodynamics are for sissys.

          • whooah1979 on 22/05/2020 - 13:34
            +2

            @brendanm: Are you saying that BP Ulitmate doesn't clean the engine?

            • pegaxs on 22/05/2020 - 13:59

              @whooah1979: Let's look at it this way… Fuel gets squirted into the intake tract, gets sucked into the combustion chamber, burnt and spat out the exhaust port… At what time is it actually in contact with any other part of the engine other than the inside of a sealed combustion chamber?

              • Technics on 24/05/2020 - 19:14

                @pegaxs: Not even that much of the car gets touched by petrol these days. It's bad for the environment so the intake has decided to ditch its association with fossil fuels in favour of direct injection. Combustion chambers are now known as warm and cosy fire enclosures and suck, squeeze, bang, blow is what you ask for on Tinder.

            • brendanm on 22/05/2020 - 15:08
              +1

              @whooah1979: If you have "dirt" in your engine, you have much bigger problems than bp ultimate could hope to fix. It would "clean" as well as any other petrol being squirted in, in a port injection engine. In a direct injection engine, it would be doing diddle squat cleaning, like all fuels do in that setting.

    • 91rs on 22/05/2020 - 16:07
      +2

      Yep both cars, ones 5 years old and the other 13 going on 14 years old.
      Only 98 in the oldest from day one, requires 95 minimum and the ECU has had a tune applied which works best with 98, so that's all I put in it.
      The other car I've twice had to put 91 in and the milage suffered in a noticeable way (rural area, couldn't get 95 or 98)

      I guess for many this isn't a big deal especially if you are a car person and take care of your things, but for those who struggle to even pay for insurance on their cars I can see how this would be baffling.

      Seems odd that so many find it strange that people would take care of their own possessions especially given how much you can spend on a car its not worth cheaping out on things sometimes (parts especially) as it can cost you more in the long run as does neglect etc.

    • CocaKoala on 23/05/2020 - 09:13
      +1

      Some cars do require higher RON fuel. For example, I used to have a 12 year old Nissan Maxima that required 95 RON fuel, and I did always fill it in with 98 RON fuel until the last day I had it. Why is it so hard to believe?

      Do note that filling in a lower RON fuel that what's required may actually result in expensive engine damage.

      • Euphemistic on 23/05/2020 - 09:51

        It’s not hard to believe. It’s just wasting money to put in higher spec fuel than required - and yes, I get it that some cars are tuned beyond what the manufacturer recommends, but unless you’ve done that there is no real benefit other than lightening the wallet.

        • CocaKoala on 23/05/2020 - 10:58
          +1

          It’s not hard to believe.

          Perhaps not for you, but I responded to this:

          yeah bullshit you "always" filled
          up 98 in a 10 year old car

          This sounds like the other person is having difficulties believing something simple.

    • Revrnd on 23/05/2020 - 13:34
      +1

      I always used BP 98 in a VT commodore and VX commodore up until they were sold a couple of years ago.

      for the sake of a few bucks per tank, it added up to around 900 - 950km highway driving per fill and was a lot more responsive.

      call it bullshit if you will, I'll call it ignorance on your behalf.

      • brendanm on 23/05/2020 - 15:56
        +1

        It's ignorance on your behalf as to what an octane rating does, and the ignition mapping of a V6 commodore.

        • Revrnd on 23/05/2020 - 19:05

          you know what. you're right. how 'bout we all fill up on the cheapest, lowest octane fuel we can'cause we all know now that RON isn't a factor in fuel quality, it's just a number. I'm sure tonnes of lower quality, lower octane fuels resist knocking and burn just as clean as the higher octane ones.

          • brendanm on 23/05/2020 - 19:13
            +1

            @Revrnd: Lol. If your car requires 91, it's spark map is tuned for 91, putting in 98 gets you a whole lot of nothing. If your car needs and is tuned for 95 or 98, then you need to run that.

            You should run your commodore on E85, the octane in that is well over 100, so it must be better, right? Hell, why stop there, run it on methanol! Even higher octane again.

            • Revrnd on 23/05/2020 - 20:19

              @brendanm: Ran my skyline on E85 for a while, next step was..

              …you know what. who cares. obviously whatever I've done with cars over the past 25 years (including fixing up things mechanics missed along the way, simple things such as hose clamps on intercooler piping and boost/fuel maps) doesn't mean anything 'cause I'm not a mechanic.

              • brendanm on 23/05/2020 - 20:23
                +3

                @Revrnd: No, it just means that you don't understand that if a car isn't tuned for high octane fuel, then the high octane fuel makes no difference, as it's only advantage is resistance to detonation. And if it's not detonating on 91, it won't on 95 or 98 either, and will just cost you more money.

                As you've had experience with E85, you'll know that octane isn't the be all and end all, and that energy density is pretty important for a normal road car.

      • pegaxs on 23/05/2020 - 21:00
        +3

        call it bullshit if you will

        I do. Quite often. Almost on a daily basis…

        I'll call it ignorance on your behalf.

        Nope, I'll call it ignorance on yours.

        for the sake of a few bucks per tank

        VT Bombodoor has a 75l tank. Picked a random set of service stations and the average difference between 91 and 98 is about 20c/l
        91 = $1.047/l = $78.53/tank
        98 = $1.247/l = $93.53/tank

        A difference of $15. That's hardly "a few bucks". At this price (roughly what fuel would have cost per litre back in late 90', early 00's) $15 would buy you an extra 14.3l of 91. At the VT's highway rating of 6.8l/100km (14.7km/l) the extra 14l of fuel would have you go another 210km on the highway drives… It's almost 20% of a tank. So for every 5 or 6 tanks of 98 you purchase, you get one free tank of 91.

        The other issue is that there is no change in energy density from 91 to 98. There is no more "pOwAh" to be had, let alone the 20% increase in efficiency required to make up for that difference in price on a VT Bombodore. The laws of thermodynamics forbid it.

        So, yeah, I'm calling bullshit… BIG TIME. "Maffs" is a terrible thing.

        how 'bout we all fill up on the cheapest, lowest octane fuel we can'cause we all know now that RON isn't a factor in fuel quality

        Wrong again. The fact that you even said this shows just how ignorant you are of what RON is. RON is not a measure of "quality". Your car needs the correct RON fuel because of engine design and tuning. RON is a HUGE factor in making the car's engine work how it's supposed to. Putting lower grade RON fuel into a vehicle that isn't designed or tuned for it can have catastrophic affects. The quality of fuel comes from contamination, things like water and dirt contamination, or how it is or how long it has been stored. RON ratings don't tell you anything about how much dirt and water is in the fuel nor how long it has been sitting around for.

        And why didn't you run your Skyline on LPG? It's cheaper than petrol but has a RON of about 112. Must mean it's better quality, has mOaR PoWaH and you can go further per tank fill…

        Don't use Diesel though, at around 20RON, it must literally be mud and sludge. (For the players at home Diesel has a RON, but is actually the "Cetane" rating you need to be aware of.)

        • tomleonhart on 23/05/2020 - 23:43
          +3

          Lol. Goes to show how marketing works, people see bigger number, must mean better fuel, even after they have been explained, still have their head stuck in the sand.

          • pegaxs on 24/05/2020 - 09:34

            @tomleonhart: It would be like putting a rating on sparkling water for the bubble content. There would still be the idiots that claim that the water with the higher bubble count makes them feel better, run faster and need less water…

            “It’s the bubbles of nothing that makes it really something…”

    • goraygo on 23/05/2020 - 18:37

      It’s not BS, I have a car mechanic friend (real friend), he drives an 10 years old Japanese sports car where he hook up his laptop to the car computer.

      He try different fuels 95, 98 and different brands. He told me BP & Caltex’s 98 normally keeps the computer happy without going to low octane mode (or whatever it’s called, can’t remember, it’s too technical for me).

  • Sashy on 21/05/2020 - 23:17
    +1

    I bought it new and loved that car. Didnt drive a lot as commuted by train , so filled up fortnightly or less, so it made financial sense for the longevity of the engine.

    • Euphemistic on 22/05/2020 - 05:24
      +1

      so filled up fortnightly or less, so it made financial sense for the longevity of the engine.

      Unless the model specified it needed 98 it is not worth putting in 98. The only thing it Will do is cost extra.

  • Sashy on 21/05/2020 - 23:20
    +2

    Some people actually look after their things

    • Euphemistic on 22/05/2020 - 05:25
      +13

      And that’s great, but putting in premium fuel when it isn’t needed is false economy. You’ve been had by the marketing departments.

      • Mechz on 22/05/2020 - 11:52
        -3

        Depends if the manufacturer says 98 and above only. Some older BMWs for example.

    • DonWilson on 22/05/2020 - 16:03
      -6

      Let's say your computer takes a 240V input. Do you think giving it 250V is looking after it better?

      • CocaKoala on 23/05/2020 - 14:50
        +1

        This isn't a good analogy. Filling in a higher RON rated fuel won't destroy your car, but running an electrical appliance at a higher voltage than what it is rated for may likely result in a spectacle that may burn up the appliance.

        • DonWilson on 23/05/2020 - 15:18
          -2

          Running an appliance 4% above nominal voltage will not destroy it and certainly won't make it blow up. It's probably not good for it long term but that kind of tolerance is built in.

          The point of the analogy is pretty simple: a higher number on a thing doesn't mean it's higher quality.

          Is it a perfect analogy? No. But it should get the point across. Higher number != Always better.

          • stewy on 24/05/2020 - 02:54
            +1

            @DonWilson: You are showing though that you don't really know what you are talking about. The nominal voltage in Australia is 230V, not 240V. There is also a +10% tolerance, so the maximum voltage under the standard is 253V. 250V is therefore well within what is to be expected in Australia. If your computer PSU can't handle that, it's because it's a poorly designed piece of crap. Not to mention majority of quality power supplies these days are electronically controlled so that they can take a wide range input and then put out a clean consistent output.

            98RON fuel is undisputedly a higher quality fuel, aside from having a higher resistance to pre-detonation it has to meet lower sulphur levels than 91RON (50ppm vs 150ppm). So yes, the higher number for the fuel does mean it's a higher quality fuel.

            Also some cars (eg. later model V8 commodores and I6 Falcons) will say they are suitable for 91RON fuel but can adjust their operating parameters such that they will develop more power on 95/98RON fuels.

            • pegaxs on 24/05/2020 - 09:31
              +1

              @stewy:

              98RON fuel is undisputedly a higher quality fuel

              No, no it isn’t. If you believe that shit, then the marketing departments have done their job.

              You could quite well have a batch of 91 that is the same or lower in sulphur content than 98, as the figures you quoted above are their “maximum allowable”, not their minimum.

              Most of the time, all the fuel comes out of the same tap at the factory and the additives to give its RON are added later. So it’s entirely possible that the fuel in all 3 bowsers at your local fuel station, 91, 95 and 98 all came from the same batch, but just had different amounts of anti-knock additive added to it.

              You cannot possibly know how much sulphur is in your fuel by looking at a number on the pump. RON is not a measure of quality. To know the “quality” of the fuel, you would need to take a sample and send it away to be analysed.

              Is there any harm in running higher octane fuels than required? No, go nuts, but you’re just burning money. There is no more “pOwAh” as 98 and 91 have the same energy density. So, an average vehicle that is not tuned to run on 98 will derive little to no benefit and certainly not enough to justify the massive difference in price.

              And a vehicle that is tuned for 91 does not adjust itself for running on 98. You can’t put 98 in the tank of your V8 Bombodore and it retunes itself. It doesn’t know what fuel you put in it. It only listens for pinging/knock and adjusts accordingly. If it is tuned to run fine on 91 and doesn’t ping/knock then, then adding a higher RON rated fuel does nothing, as it’s already not pinging on the recommended fuel it is tuned for.

              • stewy on 25/05/2020 - 00:33
                +1

                @pegaxs: If the 91RON fuel was always coming through with sulphur levels under 50ppm like PULP, then there should be no reason for the petrol companies to put up a fight against lowering the limit down from 150ppm.

                Regardless, the fact it has higher resistance to knocking which can allow more power to be developed would alone in my opinion be reason to call it a better quality fuel.

                I'm not saying go run 98 in your i20 nor am I touching into the economics of it, That's up to the consumer to decide whether they want to do that, but to say PULP is not a higher quality fuel is not correct.

                You better get on the blower to Holden plus Ford and tell them they have no idea what they are talking about, as they have both stated a difference in power between 91, 95 and 98 RON fuels:
                https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/ve-under-the-s…
                https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/new-falcon-bas…

                • pegaxs on 25/05/2020 - 08:32
                  -2

                  @stewy: Woah! A whole 5kw for Ford and a whopping 7kw for Holden. That’s a massive 2.5% power increase… Totally worth the 15~20% price increase in the cost of 98 over 91… (And that’s on quite large engines…)

                  So, an average vehicle that is not tuned to run on 98 will derive little to no benefit and certainly not enough to justify the massive difference in price.

                  The point is that RON is not a measure of “quality”. You cannot be certain of a fuels quality based on its RON. To know it’s “quality”, you would need to have a sample analysed.

                  The other issue is that fuel companies sell a lot less 98 than they do 91, so 98 can sit around a lot longer than 91, possibly allowing more contamination, condensation and evaporation… looking at a RON on a pump won’t tell you these things.

                  But either way, you keep spending that extra 20% more on your fuel so you can pick up that 2% extra killerwasps… and don’t forget “it cleans your engine while you drive…” *catchy_jingle.mp3*

            • DonWilson on 24/05/2020 - 11:21
              -1

              @stewy: It's the hypothetical device from my first post. It's 240V nominal. That's part of the hypothetical. In the hypothetical I originally put 230V and 240V and even considered 115V-230V and 240V but figured too many people wouldn't get the point if I did so I changed it to 240V to 250V before I posted. Little did I know a crazy pedant who completely agrees that my analogy works because raising the voltage doesn't raise the quality and doesn't destroy the device would pick at that.

              • Euphemistic on 24/05/2020 - 14:44
                +1

                @DonWilson: It’s not a very good analogy. You don’t get the choice of voltage out of the power point. The drive will typically convert the voltage to one suitable for the electronics and also convert to DC.

      • dbun1 on 24/05/2020 - 16:36

        Analogy fail

  • nebula98 on 22/05/2020 - 07:19

    Buyer is just looking for things that a wrong so that you feel bad and offer part refund.
    Total bull,all sales are final,block his number and move on

  • pjcook on 22/05/2020 - 07:41

    Give him nothing, take him nowhere, bring him home early…

  • haimrevolution on 22/05/2020 - 07:59

    Middle finger time!

  • Speckled Jim on 22/05/2020 - 08:52
    +2

    In before OzB member identifies as buyer with their side.

  • Seraphin7 on 22/05/2020 - 09:20
    +1

    All sales final in the private second hand market.

    • whooah1979 on 22/05/2020 - 09:33

      The private seller may be held liable if they deliberately mislead the buyer by omitting important information. e.g The buyer asks if the vehicle has been in an accident and the seller says no.

      • TheMindsetTraveller on 22/05/2020 - 09:42
        +1

        Totally incorrect; a private seller has zero obligations to the buyer, and the buyer accepts all risks at settlement.

        A licensed motor dealer has different sets of (disclosure) obligations - this does not apply to the OP.

        • whooah1979 on 22/05/2020 - 09:46
          +4

          https://www.lawanswers.com.au/blog/faulty-second-hand-car-yo…
          private sellers are also bound by common law contract requirements. In particular, private sellers can be liable for misrepresentations they make about the vehicle that the buyer relies upon.

          What does this mean? The private seller cannot lie to you or deliberately or negligently omit important information about the vehicle that is relevant to your decision to purchase the vehicle.

          • Snake 4 on 22/05/2020 - 10:39
            -2

            @whooah1979: You missed a bit from you link.

            "Purchasing through a private seller can be risky. However, this doesn’t give private sellers the right to defraud you and there are some (limited) options if you’ve bought a faulty or encumbered vehicle from a private seller."

            Note the word "limited".

          • TheMindsetTraveller on 22/05/2020 - 11:09

            @whooah1979: whilst that is the law, it is common acceptance that caveator emptor applies.

            End of the day nobody is going to take anyone to court of a used car purchase and expend significant legal costs - unless it's a near new Ferrari.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 23/05/2020 - 10:47
              +4

              @TheMindsetTraveller: Whooah1979 is absolutely correct. Private sellers have obligations as well. Many, many examples of misrepresentation in car and property sales resulting in damages awarded to a purchaser (or recision).

              Situations like this don't go to Court.

              If someone was stiffed they can go to VCAT, NCAT or equivalent in your state. It's cheap, relatively easy and generally prompts some sort of settlement between the buyer and seller.

  • pantsparty on 22/05/2020 - 09:45
    +1

    You did everything right. You have no responsibility to make the buyer happy with their purchase.

    https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/cars/buying-a-used-car/ways-…

  • crazyboy on 22/05/2020 - 14:28

    Shouldn't have filled with 98% petrol. Keep it 90%.

    • hasher22 on 23/05/2020 - 00:57
      +1

      OP means 98 Ron fuel

    • TEER3X on 23/05/2020 - 10:53

      Nah should be 20%-80% for lithium batteries.

      Who still uses fossil fuels? We aren't cavepeople anymore.

  • funnysht on 22/05/2020 - 15:00

    The only reason you should reply/try to resolve it is if yo're worried he knows where you live etc….but then again you should know where he lives too ?

  • tomleonhart on 22/05/2020 - 16:00

    Just ignore him OP.

    On the other note, it grinds my gear as to why people think "looking after their car" = filling it up with 98. What if it only requires 91? You only throw money away, not looking after it! Grr.

  • Herbse on 22/05/2020 - 16:05
    +2

    It's your duty as a seller to offer a full refund and compensation for the error.

    /s

    • berry580 on 22/05/2020 - 17:38
      +3

      Should consider throwing in a complimentary $100 Coles gift card out of goodwill as well.

    • hasher22 on 23/05/2020 - 01:00
      +1

      There was no error.

      It's the duty of the buyer to do background checks of the car, check any faults that may have been missed, test drive etc. That's why car sales offer background checks for a fee and other companies offer checks for X fees.

      That's why when I buy a car, I actually pay $300 for a certified mechanic to check out the car I am about to buy. They check everything from driving to condition to parts. They give me a comprehensive list and they give their opinion if it's a good buy or not.

    • UFO on 23/05/2020 - 11:48
      +1

      To the people negging, you should have gone to Specsavers.

      /s = end sarcasm

  • 91rs on 22/05/2020 - 16:10
    +1

    "What is my responsibility in such a situation? I feel like I was offering a great deal, but the whole experience has left a sour taste in my mouth."

    Welcome to dealing with "people". They're the worst.
    It'd why I'd rather throw things out than waste my time giving things away for free or cheaply on gumtree or ebay, just the giant F around from people is not worth it.

    Ignore him, move on.

  • bulletbill88 on 22/05/2020 - 16:20
    +8

    I once gave away an old stereo for free and the guy who picked it up had the nerve to then text me a complaint that it was missing the am radio antenna. People are the worst.

    • PinzVidz on 22/05/2020 - 17:49

      I hope you told him where to go…

    • Never Pay RRP on 22/05/2020 - 19:00
      +2

      You should have offered them a refund :P

    • fozzie on 23/05/2020 - 09:19
      +1

      Wtf

  • greatlamp on 22/05/2020 - 19:15
    +1

    91 RON fuel has much more allowable sulphur in it then 95 and 98

    https://rac.com.au/car-motoring/info/state_fuel-and-how-wa-u…

    • pegaxs on 23/05/2020 - 11:23

      Doesn't mean that is "does" have it, it's just that it's "allowed" to have it.

      • IamEzza on 24/05/2020 - 19:36

        It costs money to remove sulphur

        • pegaxs on 24/05/2020 - 23:47

          Costs more money to make up 3 different batches of fuel with various sulphur levels…

          Cost a lot less to make up one batch with low sulphur content and just add the various levels of anti-knock additive to that single batch…

      • Tsuivan on 24/05/2020 - 23:31

        I read that even though the limit for Sulphur in 91RON is 150ppm, typical values are around 80ppm.

  • LFO on 22/05/2020 - 19:39

    Based in your version of events, just ignore

  • zooter on 22/05/2020 - 20:39
    -1

    2 questions:

    1. where is mspaint diagram?

    2. plot twist. op is actually buyer and trying to see how he can get his money back

  • piece on 22/05/2020 - 20:46
    +1

    Are you ZackyD in disguise?

  • CalmLemons on 22/05/2020 - 20:48
    +1

    It's his responsibility now. You are not responsible for his feelings or his inadequacy as a male who believes something so minor is worth complaining to you about.

    Move on with your life.

  • HerpinDerp on 22/05/2020 - 21:08

    Reimburse him for indicator fluid replacement. Then bikies.

  • TEER3X on 22/05/2020 - 21:33
    +1

    Unless you are in the business of selling cars, there is nothing you owe this clown. Not time and certainly not money.

  • Sashy on 22/05/2020 - 23:53
    +5

    Thank you for everyone's input - always good to hear all sides and opinions. Kept getting messages about other concerns on the car, so I ended up blocking the number. He noted that he will be taking the car to a mechanic, like its some sort of threat to me. (Shoukd gave done it before buying.) I've always had it serviced at the dealership and they told me that it's in great condition and has been looked after well. I hope that's exactly what any other mechanic will tell him.

    • hasher22 on 23/05/2020 - 01:02

      Good,

      Don't worry, you did nothing wrong.

  • TheBird on 23/05/2020 - 06:58

    What is my responsibility in such a situation?

    Caveat emptor
    Caveat emptor is a Latin term that means "let the buyer beware." Similar to the phrase "sold as is," this term means that the buyer assumes the risk that a product may fail to meet expectations or have defects.

    Your responsibility is working out how you're going to spend your money. That's it.

    Optionally, if it makes you feel better, you could feed on his tears.

  • FoxHunter on 23/05/2020 - 09:16

    Caveat Emptor. Ingnore him, there are always idiots who complain. Hes probably found a cheaper car he considers a better deal and will ask for his money back……OR……hes looking for a partial refund due to "defects"

    IGNORE HIM
    BLOCK HIS CALLS
    IGNORE HIM

    Get on with your life

  • dbun1 on 23/05/2020 - 09:24

    Second hand purchase thus caveat emptor applies. It appears you tried your best to represent the vehicle as accurately as possible, so good work as a seller. He had every opportunity to do his due diligence prior to agreeing to the purchase.

    It's amazing the number of entitled people who think they can return a second hand purchase, contact you some months later for “warranty refund” because it failed etc.

  • Hangryuman on 23/05/2020 - 10:10

    last century (before the internet) I once sold a 10yo car I'd bought new when I was about to head overseas for a year. It had been well maintained and I'd had no problems with it.

    but I had a lot of stuff to dispose of before I went so I'd priced it at a fire sale rate hoping for a quick sale

    attracted by the very cheap price - was a friend of a friend - a fairly pretty fashionista girl I didn't know - and after her cursory inspection she happily paid me the very cheap price.

    when I came back a year later - my intermediate friend told me that the girl was unhappy and wanted her money back.

    I asked the reason - apparently with no further checks, she had gotten in the car to drive from Brisbane to Sydney.

    Halfway there a red light came on the dashboard - she didn't know what it meant so she just kept driving.

    anyway - the red light was an overheating indicator - a rubber pipe to the radiator had leaked, the engine overheated, and when she kept driving the engine blew up.

    She figured it was my fault. My friend quickly advised her otherwise. I only heard about it in retrospect.

    • TEER3X on 23/05/2020 - 11:02

      I'd never sell a car to a friend. A friend of a friend maybe. People are just so irrational these days.

    • CalmLemons on 23/05/2020 - 11:31

      Blame culture. Lack of responsibility cause you are too stupid. Seems to run at the presidential level these days. See the red warning light, doesn't mean GO!

  • curtturtle on 23/05/2020 - 11:29

    You did everything alright. This buyer is just being a Karen. Ignore them. Recalls are done when you service it at a dealer. If the car hasn't had them done, they will do them when the new buyer takes it in. Not your problem. If the buyer was concerned about recalls THEY should have looked them up and checked your car when they inspected it. Recalls are noted in plates/stickers in the door well. So that is on them.

  • UFO on 23/05/2020 - 11:43
    +3

    Send him one more text message:

    "Hi.
    This is my last message to you, and you need to read it very carefully. I believe I have gone above and beyond to sell this car to you. I have been very patient, even when you spent nearly an hour looking over the car on the test drive. I provided you with all the information I can provide, and I sold the car to you in good faith but with no warranty implied. It was your responsibility to ensure the car was to your satisfaction. The fact you now have what I consider to be 'buyers remorse' is not my concern. Please stop contacting me. If you don't stop I will be forced to seek a protection order against you and make a complaint to Police in regards to harassing messages. I can't be any more clear. Do not contact me again.
    Thank you".

    • pegaxs on 23/05/2020 - 11:50
      +1

      I would omit everything about the vehicle and the sale and just make it a point blank;

      "This is the last message, if you continue to contact me, I will be seeking advice from the police in regards to harassment and stalking. Do not contact me again."

      Or better yet, just use the block feature or reject any calls from unknown numbers.

      • UFO on 23/05/2020 - 11:52

        I was going to suggest that… but putting in there that he spent an hour looking over the car (due diligence), and above and beyond patience (fairness) is a good final summary to any other 3rd parties reading in the future.

        I don't agree with blocking, because then the other party could escalate due to being 'ignored'.
        Telling them to stop and now you're getting serious is better.

        • pegaxs on 23/05/2020 - 12:38

          Can escalate it all they like, they are going to get no mileage out of that course of action. It's a private sale, so fair trading oragnisations are not going to care and lawyering up is going to cost more than the car. A magistrate would toss this case out as a waste of time.

          Providing that OP has not been misleading with the sale of the vehicle, the best option is to ask the buyer to cease and desist with harassment or face possible police intervention and then block the buyer from further contact. If the buyer than changes numbers or calls from a family/friends phone, then OP has cause to contact police.

          • UFO on 24/05/2020 - 21:17

            @pegaxs: I completely agree with you. I'm not talking about legal ramifications though, seller is in the clear 100%.

            I'm talking about people with mental health issues, who will happily escalate unreasonably due to perceived injustices borne by them.

            Its that type of escalation that can bite people unexpectedly. I'm just suggesting a course of action that can minimise that risk. I completely with you regarding the legal side of things though. No issues at all there.

  • Brianqpr on 23/05/2020 - 11:51

    Sold as seen following inspection and test drive, no warranty.

    Wish him luck with it and don't engage.

  • striker5950 on 23/05/2020 - 12:18
    -1

    tell him that you tricked him and you are happy that he is sad about the purchase, put a laugh emoji at the end that ought to make his blood boil

  • CocaKoala on 23/05/2020 - 12:30

    After the car is sold, it's their car. Tell them you don't know why they're talking about their car problems with you. Or better yet, ignore them completely.

  • YouSirName on 23/05/2020 - 17:15

    Send this thread link to him and ask him to bug off 😊

  • KLoNe on 23/05/2020 - 19:43
    -1

    I feel personally attacked, and as if I purposely tried to mislead a buyer.

    Wow. Personally attacked by a text message. Brutal.

    Dude, block him and get on with your life.

  • kaleidoscope on 23/05/2020 - 21:59
    +1
    • ignore
    • reply with random emojis
    • random gifs … pick your choice
  • iknowtj on 23/05/2020 - 23:28

    With private second hand car sales they all come with a 1, 2 warranty

    Once you've paid it's too late.

  • sarahlump on 24/05/2020 - 01:32

    Block their phone number and move forward in your life.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join