Used Car Legal Dispute

Summary

In a Wisconsin small claims court case involving a used car dealership, potential counterarguments include the as-is sale clause, buyer inspection opportunities, and claims of unawareness of issues. The dealership might also argue that their buy-back offer was a reasonable remedy. However, your counterarguments highlight that as-is does not protect against material misrepresentation or violations of the implied warranty of merchantability. You argue that the issue with the lifter seals required extensive diagnostics and was known prior to sale, supported by documented evidence. Your strong documentation and understanding of Wisconsin law regarding material misrepresentation bolster your case.

Full Conversation

I countered those in my filing: As-is sale doesn't protect against material misrepresentation and violations of the implied warranty of merchantability. The issue with the lifter seals couldn't have been known by mere inspection, and would have required extensive diagnostics and observation of symptoms arising from the degraded lifter seals. In the case of the mini cooper countryman, the ECU has persistent memory which can't be cleared by conventional means, and the error code that pointed to the lifter seal issue was present prior to sale. Which means they'd have had to have known of the issue. I have documented evidence for repair requests, but they're not necessary under Wisconsin law as per precedent to establish material misrepresentation.
Your argument seems strong, especially with documented evidence. Here are some potential counterarguments from the dealership:
- "As-Is" Clause: They may argue the sale "as-is" absolves them of responsibility.
- Disclosure: They might claim they were unaware of the issue.
- Inspection: They could argue you had the chance to inspect the vehicle thoroughly.
- Repair Offer: They may state their buy-back offer was a reasonable remedy.
How confident are you about your documentation and evidence?