Sold Car now threatned to be sued?!!

[mommie2hayden]

My husband and I recently sold our 1993 Nissan pathfinder. It was my husbands daily driver and he sold it to get a z28. We sold it to a girl in our hometown in kansas. She is 22 and has 3 kids and has no job and is on welfare. Her Aunt in Wisconsin gave her the money for the pathfinder to help her out. 22 Days after purchasing the vehicle she lets a friend borrow it and the rear axle breaks. No injury..the axle broke backing up from a gas station. She calls my husband and is treating to sue us becasue it broke within 30 days. I am unsure where is is getting this 30 day stuff from. We sold her a used car and it broke are we liable. We gave her no warranty and told her everything we knew was wrong with it at the time of purchase. Everything was fine unitl it broke on her and her treats are becoming quite annoying. Any help would be greatly appreciated. She called again last night to ramble on again that if we don't pay to have it fixed she will sue. I simply told her "We are not responsible, sorry for your bad luck we are not responsible any further conversations will be through our attorney, Good bye. and I hung up." The part that broke on her vehicle is going to cost her 200.00 and she cannot afford. Any suggestions?? And exactly what is considered harrassment. She cannot call and cause any more drama we are sick of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated

 

[NYClex]

Some details would be necessary to evaluate this. First of all, one would have to know exactly what happened. Why did the axle break? An axle doesn't break every day. This is a major defect.

I don't know how the laws of Kansas specifically deal with this problem, but here are some general rules laid down in the Uniform Commercial Code which is part of Kansas law:

Once one would know exactly why the axle broke, one could establish if the seller knew or should have known about that defect. Under the theory of misrepresentation the buyer could sue for avoidance of the contract if she can show that the seller knew of the defect and did not disclose it to her.

She also could sue for cure under the theory of revoking acceptance. Under that theory a prior acceptance of a non-conforming good can be revoked if the defect was existing at the time of acceptance but hard to find. This revocation has to be made within a reasonable time of acceptance.

So an evaluation if she can assert a claim depends very much on the details.