I think the buyers point was he was operating under assumption that pumps were 1.5 to 2 years old, if working, he wanted them, and that subsequent correspondence did not make it clear to him the initial affirmative representation about age was not correct.
The age of the unit is material because 7 years is probably about its expected lifespan. The buyer thought he had 5 years of life left.
Probably no one would buy at price offered for units that old.
Your point is essentially u misrepresented the age of the unit, inducing the sale, but then corrected not by affirmatively correcting the misrepresentation but by providing documents that the buyer could use to determine there was indeed a misrepresentation made.
The actual condition, video, and addition of items still operated under premise that units were 1.5 to 2 years old; those videos and additional consideration are not very relevant to misrepresentation issue at hand....
Again there was no affirmative correction of the misrepresentation so the buyer was left to figure out why the pumps were operating "rough". Not until inspection did he do so. The age of unit was a material term of the agreement.
In sum, you're taking the buyer beware stance. That is not favored in courts, expressly rejected by UCC, and IMO not proper in this forum.
At best for you there was a mutual or unilateral mistake, and no misrepresentation, but still under those doctrines, buyer can still void sale.
This forum is about helping others, being nice, and gentlemens agreements and sales.
If you're looking to make buck IMO, and pulling bait and switches like above, sell on ebay IMO...
The age of the unit is material because 7 years is probably about its expected lifespan. The buyer thought he had 5 years of life left.
Probably no one would buy at price offered for units that old.
Your point is essentially u misrepresented the age of the unit, inducing the sale, but then corrected not by affirmatively correcting the misrepresentation but by providing documents that the buyer could use to determine there was indeed a misrepresentation made.
The actual condition, video, and addition of items still operated under premise that units were 1.5 to 2 years old; those videos and additional consideration are not very relevant to misrepresentation issue at hand....
Again there was no affirmative correction of the misrepresentation so the buyer was left to figure out why the pumps were operating "rough". Not until inspection did he do so. The age of unit was a material term of the agreement.
In sum, you're taking the buyer beware stance. That is not favored in courts, expressly rejected by UCC, and IMO not proper in this forum.
At best for you there was a mutual or unilateral mistake, and no misrepresentation, but still under those doctrines, buyer can still void sale.
This forum is about helping others, being nice, and gentlemens agreements and sales.
If you're looking to make buck IMO, and pulling bait and switches like above, sell on ebay IMO...
Last edited: