Resale lemon laws A truck is sought with the express intent of plowing (in RI). A truck, with a plow attached, is offered (in RI). The owner states that to the best of his knowledge, the truck plows and is in good condition. A standard bill of sale is produced for the truck at a cost. (The truck was purchased for $5k, above the cost of small claims.) A verbal agreement is offered that if there are any issues with the truck, it may be returned and the deal may be nulled. A third party was present during the sale, witnessed this, and is able to attest to it. The truck was taken immediately to 2 mechanics, and later a third, for inspection. All three mechanics independently determined: • Front chassis is rusted through. • Nothing can be performed to fix it, aside from purchasing a brand new frame, which is not cost practical. It has only been used for transit to these local mechanics for inspections. The seller has refused all phone conversations. The seller has stated textually that he has no intent to negate the deal, that the truck was inspected by a mechanic of his choice prior to the sale. . Are options available to negate the deal, as the truck remains in the original condition and is not what was originally verbally agreed upon: a truck in working condition without issues capable of plowing and trailering for heavy work use.
&quot;Lemon laws&quot; are about new cars and manufacturing defects. Used vehicles are sold &quot;as is&quot;, except that dealers are obligated to offer a 30 or 60 day warranty that the vehicle will continue to function. Using the term &quot;owner&quot; suggests that this is not a dealership sale. Generally speaking, you are out of luck, except for the verbal add-on to the sales agreement. If there is no written agreement, just a verbal contract and exchange of money for truck, you may be able to enforce the contract in regular court. The prospects decrease if there is a written agreement that does not include the money-back guarantee, and become effectively zero if there is a clause that says &quot;This is the whole agreement, the car is sold as-is&quot;. Assuming there is no written agreement, then you and perhaps the third party would testify as to the money-back guarantee, the seller would testify that there was no such guarantee (or that you misunderstood what he said), and the court would decide which version of the story is more believable.
It may be legal, depending on surrounding circumstances. Under MCL 257.904b(1) When a person is convicted of an offense punishable under section 904(1)(b) or (c) or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 904(1)(b) or (c) for operating a motor vehicle while his or her license to operate a motor vehicle is suspended, revoked, or denied, the court shall order the motor vehicle, if it is owned in whole or in part or leased by that person, impounded for not less than a period the court orders but not more than 120 days from the date of judgment Under the assumption that there was a violation of the law, a conviction and license suspension (for the relevant crime), then the vehicle shall be impounded. It would not be legal for the police to spontaneously decide to impound the vehicle without a court order (which the court must issue). The statute does require that the vehicle be owned or leased at least in part by the person who violated the law. You might then argue that this does not allow impoundment for a vehicle borrowed with permission, and if the judge rejects that argument you could try to argue it up to the Michigan Supreme Court.
It might be illegal, depending on where you are. If it is known to the person who owns the vehicle occupying your space prior to doing so that wheelclamping may be the result, then the common law doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to a willing party, harm is not done") would lead to a conclusion that one who knowingly places themselves in a situation where harm may befall them is not entitled to bring a claim of tort against the other party (in the United States assumption of risk is a similar doctrine, but doesn't apply here because wheelclamping is an intentional act). In your situation, this means that the owner occupying your space cannot bring a case in tort against you. While it is generally applied to harm to people, there is precedent (albeit in British case law) for the doctrine to be applied to vehicles, and specifically, to the situation you describe - see Arthur v Anker and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest. While cases from other jurisdictions are not binding, I have not been able to find any similar cases in the United States, and so it is possible that such cases will be persuasive. Note that this is highly jurisdiction-specific, and there may be laws in your state that make it unlawful - at least one high-profile case involving a McDonalds and its parking lot operator cites California law authorising only law enforcement to impound vehicles, and considering wheelclamping such an act. However, I have not been able to find the record of a judgement on this matter. It is also likely that if the payment you request is excessive, the owner would be able to seek relief, in the form of reducing the payment owed to a reasonable amount. However, if the parking space was not marked in some way to signal that it was reserved for use, then the owner of the vehicle may be entitled to seek injunctive relief and damages from a court. This would be on the basis of, if you only wheelclamped the car and declined to remove the wheelclamp upon the owner's request, the tort of detinue. But, if you attempted to request payment from them, then as Dale mentioned in his answer, you have committed extortion (wheelclamping is actually listed as a crime of extortion).
Disclosures are prescribed by state law. Fair housing, which is a federal concept, pertains to issues such as using prohibited personal facts to determine whether to accept an offer. (Hazardous materials disclosures are also mandated at the federal level, but are are included in state requirements which can get pretty broad). If you are buying in Washington state, RCW 64.06.020 says what and how you must disclose. The list of disclosures is very detailed, covering title and covenants, water, sewer, structure, systems and fixtures, environment, and mobile home related. The only one of the 86 questions about smoke is whether smoke alarms are present. Thus smell of smoke is not a legally material fact that must be disclosed, in this state. The California disclosures, even longer, are here, and there is likewise no "smells bad" disclosure. It is unlikely that any state in the US mandates such a disclosure, since it is somewhere between a subjective evaluation and a self-evident fact. Some people are very sensitive to certain smells while others do not care. The burden is on the buyer to pursue matters of personal concern (in writing!), such as whether any dog has been present in the house in the past 5 years (some people care). You have to look carefully at the response. "Don't know" is usually a safe bet, unless you actually have factual knowledge. From what I can determine, Massachussetts is on the opposite end of the spectrum from California. There are some requirements imposed on real estate agents, and there is the federal lead paint disclosure, but otherwise it appears that nothing is mandated by law. This form seems to be used by the real estate association, and there is a question about "history of smoke/fire damage to structure". The reasonable interpretation of that is "has the house caught fire and suffered damage", so "no" from a cigar-smoker would not be fraudulent. If the intent of the question were to reveal if someone has smoked frequently in the house, that would he the question they'd ask. You can check whether you have this form and see what it says, but "smoke damage" would not normally be interpreted as meaning "smells a bit funny".
The simple answer is, get a lawyer and explain your case, and pay him to solve the problem (or tell you that it's hopeless). The two main questions would be whether the appraiser have any duty to you, and whether his action was within the scope of what he is supposed to do. If you hired the appraiser, he has a duty to you. I will assume it was you that hired the appraiser (if it was the bank, that's a different matter). Then the question is whether his action or non-action is within the scope of the job. If the place is infested with termites, that is probably irrelevant because an appraiser is not a termite inspector. On the other hand, if he failed to measure the structure, or erred substantially in the measurement, that kind of negligence could be legally actionable. The seller (not the appraiser) is required to "disclose", so it's not obvious that there is any thing that an appraiser could disclose that relates to a map.
The law says don't drive an unsafe vehicle on the road. You disobeyed the law. There were methods of having your tyres fixed without driving on the road (e.g. taking the tyres to the mechanic in a different vehicle, calling a mobile mechanic etc.) so you have no defence of necessity. In all likelihood you will be convicted and penalised. You need legal advice. Whether it's fair or not is a philosophical consideration, not a legal one.
You paid a higher amount so you got to drive the latest model for a year. I can buy a lower amount right now, but I only get to drive last year's model. Or I can pay a higher amount to drive the latest model again. That's life. I have a Wii. I didn't buy it when people queued up for it, but when the shop was selling them off for half the price. That's life. You pay more for the latest and greatest, and then it gets cheaper. The protection you are talking about is this: If the shop advertises a motorbike for £8,000 and when you go into the store the price is suddenly £10,000 then there is some protection in place. The protection means the shop will get a major telling off from trading standards if you complain, and possibly a fine. It doesn't mean you get the motorbike for £8,000. And it most definitely doesn't mean you get money back when they reduce the price a year later.
The statute in question is section 26708 (13)(B): A vehicle equipped with a video event recorder shall have a notice posted in a visible location which states that a passenger's conversation may be recorded. It doesn't require it be visible to all passengers and doesn't make any provision for visually impaired passengers. I am not licenced to practice in California but know of no cases clarifying how "visible" the notice needs to be. I wouldn't suggest trying to hide the notice, though.