Desperately need some help here- Buyer wants to return car

[islandjock]

I'm super stressed and really need some help, I live in Victoria, BC, Canada. I sold someone my 1972 Chevrolet Nova privately. We had no bill of sale or anything like that, there was no warranty or anything. We had been conversing by email for a while, he asked me questions and I answered them to the best of my ability. But I do not know too much about cars, and made a mistake. He asked me if the car was a GMC crate engine car. I said yes it was. I thought any engine that was 454 cubic inches was a crate engine. I emailed to him that the car is a crate engine. I also gave him the VIN number to inspect the vehicle history.
He came to inspect the car. I gave him as much time as he wanted to inspect the car. He went underneath, opened the hood, took it for a drive, heard it run, felt around the wheel-wells - everything. I was as accomodating as possible, and let him give as thorough an inspection as he wanted. He builds cars all the time, and knows cars well. I figured if anything was wrong or I had been mistaken he would notice, that is the point of him inspecting every inch of my vehicle isn't it? So he bought the car, and then 4 days later sent me a curse-word laden email saying the engine was not a crate engine, just a regular 454, and that the car had been in a previous accident. I had NO idea, I was not desperate to sell the car so I had no motive to lie. I did GIVE him the VIN at his request, is it not his responsibility to look up the vehicle history, especially since I gave him the VIN? He is furious. I would never lie about the car on purpose, I had no reason to, I feel horrible. Can he sue me, even though this was a private sale and he came to inspect the vehicle in person front to back, and I supplied him with the VIN (which I have a record of). I admit that I screwed up in telling him the engine was a crate engine, but I honestly thought any 454 was a crate engine, and he did come and inspect the car. Am I going to get sued here? Do I have anything to worry about? PLEASE help I'm stressed to my max.

 

[dee_dub]

is it not his responsibility to look up the vehicle history, especially since I gave him the VIN?

Not necessarily.

Can he sue me

Yes, he can. Whether he will succeed, and what judgment he might obtain, are open to speculation. If he can convince a judge that he never would have bought the car had he known it didn't have a "crate" engine, he might be entitled to cancel the contract, return the car, and get his money back. He might be entitled to the difference in value of a '72 Chevy Nova with/without a crate engine. He might get bubkus. He might get reamed out by the judge for not checking it out himself.

Don't stress. At most it's a small claims matter. If you want to be proactive, find out what your car was worth with/without the engine, and offer him some portion of that to go away. Otherwise, forget about it unless and until you get served.

 

[islandjock]

Thank you so much for your help. I never said the car was accident free, I actually had no idea about any accidents on the car, so I gave him the VIN to look it up for himself. I never made any claims about accidents on the car. I was under the impression the car was accident free, I never looked it up when I bought it, but I did supply him with the correct VIN. If he decides not to look it up, am I really at fault? If I am served, can I simply contact him to work something out without going through the courts, I cannot currently afford any lawyer. I thought as long as someone did an inspection on the car by any means they deemed fit, there was no warranty on the car, and he was supplied with as much information and time needed to cross-reference my information, especially since I told him I knew little about the car, that I would be covered. Well I guess I'll have to wait and see. Does this fall under a "lemon law", or "vooetstoots" or "caveat empor" if I do not have a warranty or guarantee?

 

[Duranie]

He bought a really really old car. I say buyer beware. Unless you implied a warranty I do not see he has any case. Ignore him for now but if you are served court papers you need to respond.

 

[dee_dub]

If I am served, can I simply contact him to work something out without going through the courts, I cannot currently afford any lawyer.

Absolutely. The courts encourage settlement. In BC, you can't get to small claims court without first going to a settlement conference. And you don't probably need a lawyer - small claims is user-friendly.

Does this fall under a "lemon law", or "vooetstoots" or "caveat empor" if I do not have a warranty or guarantee?

A "lemon law" protects the buyer of a car that constantly needs repairs. I doubt this applies.

Voetstoots - you're not from around here, are you? I take it you mean you sold the car "as is". This overlaps with the doctrine of caveat emptor. I don't know if it will assist - usually it means that the buyer is responsible for investigating and finding defects. If you represent something about the car that turns out not to be true, that might not be a "defect" you can avoid responsibility for.