Classic Car Inspection Gone Bad!

[m132f]

Jurisdiction

Other

Hello All,

First, a little background, and then my legal question:


Here's the background

I had a classic car inspection done late last year. For anyone not familiar, these inspections are usually done when you buy an older car sight-unseen. They are intended to provide information on any repairs the car needs. It is understood that these inspections cannot identify every possible repair, but should certainly identify repairs that become evident through a visual inspection and a test drive.

The inspection was done, and a few key things were missing: For starters, the inspector never put the car on a lift, the pictures of the undercarriage of the car were taken when he knelt beside it and stuck the camera under. Next, the car was never taken for a test drive. After I got the car, I had to replace bushings, shocks, an oil leak, and other stuff, that the mechanic identified by getting the car on the lift and taking it for a test drive. All in all, I wound up paying around $5,000 in repairs after I got the car.

On the company's website a disclaimer states that it:

"strives to provide the most comprehensive and current inspection of a vehicle's cosmetic and mechanical condition. The inspection serves to provide the client with as much information as possible. Many conditions and failures are able to be identified with a physical inspection but many are NOT. "

The disclaimer goes on to say that the company is:

"NOT guaranteeing that every possible vehicle condition or failure will be identified, and is in NO way guaranteeing the future performance of the vehicle."

Lastly, the company states it will:

"not be held liable for any future mechanical or electrical failures that may occur after the inspection."

The repairs the car needed existed during the time of the inspection, and were overlooked due to the incompleteness of the inspection. In my view, the company was negligent in this regard. Their negligence resulted in repair costs for me that I would like to take them to court to recoup. The company is based in Texas, the inspection was done in St. Louis, MO, and I live in New York City.


Which brings us to my question


What do I need to show in order to win this case, and where should I file it?

 

[mightymoose]

You need to show the company did not do something they were obligated to do.

Review any contacts you have for specific language that they violated.

Did they advertise or guarantee the vehicle would be put on a lift and test driven?

If you ere unsatisfied with the completeness of the inspection why would you proceed with the purchase? That is an indicator that you were satisfied.

You will likely find many disclaimers that will make a lawsuit over this unrealistic. If you want to pursue anything you will likely have to do it in Texas.

 

[adjusterjack]

m132f, I deleted your duplicate post. Please keep all of your discussion to this thread and don't open up any new ones.

You've posted this on several sites today.

One response was the following question:

Just curious, why did you buy the car if you could see certain inspection items did not take place?

My response was as follows:

Similar question:

Should have been obvious from the report and the photos that the car wasn't driven or put on the lift so why did you buy it after getting the report?

Another question:

Before you ordered the inspection why didn't you ask what the inspection entailed and/or request that it include a test drive and an inspection on the lift?

Are you a starry eyed newbie buying a classic for the first time?

As for your question:

What do I need to show in order to win this case, and where should I file it?

You would likely have to file where the inspection company headquarters are located.

As to what you would have to show, I don't think you could show anything that would overcome the disclaimers or your lack of due diligence.

PS: I've been collecting classic cars for 50 years. Trust me when I tell you that you blew it.

Another response from an attorney who participates on the other site:

The only duty the inspection company had here was the duty created by the contract. Thus, you don't have a negligence case to pursue; you'd have to make the case that the company breached the contract. So the issue becomes did the company do what it was contracted to do? Although the company included a lot of disclaimers, those disclaimers will not avoid liability for failing to perform what it said it would in the contract. Not having read the entire contract, I cannot say what obligations the company undertook in the contract let alone whether it performed those obligations. But if the company did what it said it would do, those disclaimers may work to shield the company from liability for failing to find the problems that you had with the car.

I assume that the contract does not specify the jurisdiction for litigating disputes or you would not have asked where you should file it. If that assumption is correct then unless the company has sufficient activity in New York such that it would be subject to jurisdiction in that state you are likely going to have to sue the company in Texas. Note that in contract cases Texas is unusual in that it flips the normal rule for awards of attorney's fees. In most states, each party bears their own attorney's fees and costs unless the contract says otherwise. In Texas, however, the rule is the opposite: the loser pays the winner's legal fees unless the contract says otherwise. So if the contract is silent on the issue and you lose the lawsuit, you could get stuck with paying the defendant's legal fees. Of course, if you win, the defendant would end up paying your legal fees. What this means is that you want to be reasonably sure your case is a winner before filing the lawsuit. You may wish to consult a Texas attorney who litigates contract cases for advice on whether you have a good shot at winning the case.

I suspect you'll be getting similar responses no matter how many sites you post on.