Discovered defect after purchase of a second-hand item from a private seller I recently bought a second-hand bike from a private seller. On the second day after I bought it, I discovered a problem with the rear tyre, which was not disclosed to me by the seller. The seller let me inspect the bike on the day of deal, but I didn't notice the problem. Was this my fault that I didn't discover the problem before making a deal? Can this be considered dishonesty on the part of the seller? Is there anything I could do to avoid this from happening in my future purchases?
In general, a private seller of second hand goods makes no warranty as to their merchantability or fitness for purpose: the onus is the buyer to find any faults. However, if the seller has taken active steps to conceal the fault for the purposes of the sale then they are responsible. For example the courts have held that a boat placed deliberately on the sand to conceal a hole made the seller responsible while a painting covering a hole in the wall of a house did not because it had been there for many years. Different laws apply if the seller is in the business of selling second hand goods.
One legal notion of &quot;abandoned property&quot; pertains to tenants leaving things behind after they leave – clearly not applicable. A second regards e.g. bank accounts that haven't been used for a while, again, clearly not relevant. The law regarding goods dropped in the street, and so on, is here. The law starts by saying Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal. Also relevant is the fact that stealing lost property is a crime: One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft. There is no specific legal definition of &quot;lost&quot;, so the courts would look at the facts and ask whether the property was indeed &quot;lost&quot; – clearly, it is not. Property that is intentionally placed somewhere and is unattended is not &quot;lost&quot;, and there is no law declaring open season on unattended property. This is true of bicycles, as well as unofficial ballot boxes.
Generally speaking, the police will not return property known to be stolen to someone other than the owner of the property, even if it is illegally seized in a search that violates the 4th Amendment. While stolen property is not strictly speaking, contraband, it also isn't something that the person who would seek its return would be entitled to reclaim. This is particularly true when, in a circumstance like this where the motorcycle's ownership can be confirmed with a VIN number on file with a government agency linking the VIN number to the true owner of the vehicle, so the fact that it is stolen can be confirmed with great certainty. If the police do not return the property voluntarily, which they would not do, the person in possession of it would have to bring a suit for possession against the police who are in possession of it. In the face of a civil lawsuit to regain custody of the property from the police after they failed to return it, the police could insist that the true owner be joined to the action and could also raise the issue of unclean hands or similar defenses. A court filing claiming property known to be stolen by someone who is not the true owner would also provide evidence of the stolen property charge that would probably not be tainted "fruit of the poisonous tree" and instead, would be treated as an independent confession to the crime that was dismissed for lack of evidence after the original seizure under the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule.
No crime is committed if a person performs a service and ineptly describes the service. To change the context a bit, I might contract with a guy to build a wall and he says he will charge me for installing a "Swedish drain" when in fact what he will install is called a "French drain". If he installs the thing, it does not matter (legally) whether he calls it by the conventional name. I am not relying on the distinction between French and "Swedish" drains, and that is not material. However: he may specify that the drain will use 18 inches of 1.5" drain rock, but he uses (and intends to use) 18 mm of 3/8" crushed rock, and that is a material fact. In the latter case, he has committed fraud. The same considerations go into dealing with "unnecessary" service, which however is more about "what he said". Let's assume that you come in with a flat tire and the mechanic offers to overhaul the engine. If you agree to this service, that is not fraud, because he did not say something false that you depended on. If, however, you ask "Why would overhauling the engine be necessary" and he says, I dunno, "Because by law, I can't repair a tire without first overhauling the engine", or "Because you flat was caused by astral radiation from a poorly-tuned engine", then that would be fraud – the statements are false, and you relied to their truth, in agreeing to the service. On the third hand, reasonable statements like "it might help", "it could work" are not deceptive, even if it turns out they are not true. Fraud is not about statements that "turn out not to be supported by the facts", it is about statements that you know to be false.
There is an ordinance about abandoned bicycles which defines a derelict bicycle as well as a ghost bike (also &quot;public property&quot;). The key to removing the bicycle is that In the event that a derelict bicycle is affixed to public property, a notice shall be affixed to the derelict bicycle advising the owner that such derelict bicycle must be removed within seven days from the date of the notice. This notice shall also state that the failure to remove such derelict bicycle within the designated time period will result in the removal and disposal of the derelict bicycle by the department of sanitation. This ordinance is specifically addressed at the sanitation department. It does include a quasi-exception for ordinary citizens Nothing in this section shall preclude the immediate removal of any bicycle, including, but not limited to, a derelict bicycle or ghost bike, or the taking of any other action by any city agency if the presence of such bicycle which creates a dangerous condition by restricting vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or otherwise violates the law. What you should take away from the ordinances is that you are not legally authorized to remove a non-dangerous derelict bicycle. Supposing that you do take the law into your own hands, this page would be useful to you, because you have to turn in any abandoned property to the proper authorities. The &quot;have to&quot; part comes from this state law: please note that non-compliance is a crime. There is a $20 threshold for the requirement to turn in the property. An abandoned bike may be lost property under the statutory definition of lost property: Abandoned property, waifs and treasure trove, and other property which is found, shall be presumed to be lost property and such presumption shall be conclusive unless it is established in an action or proceeding commenced within six months after the date of the finding that the property is not lost property It is thus legally risky to not turn an abandoned bike in to the police. The police would have the discretion to arrest you for theft for vigilante bike-cleanup, although I suspect they have other priorities. Larceny is defined thus: A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof. This specifically includes &quot;acquiring lost property&quot;. So it's not risk-free.
You have a right to reject the item and receive a refund if a fault occurs within 30 days of delivery. The vendor has an obligation to repair or replace an item that develops a fault after this time. A vendor has no obligation at all to accept the return of a product that is not faulty. Amazon chooses to do so under contract and subject to the conditions of that contract. The gadget was faulty and you are entitled to (and are getting) a full refund. The charger is not faulty and so you must comply with the contract which requires you to pay shipping for the return (or keep it). If the products were sold by Amazon as a complete unit or you had made known to Amazon that the charger was "for" the gadget, then you would be entitled to a refund for both. However, even though they were ordered together, Amazon does not know that one is "for" the other - this may be different if you had interacted with a human over the order.
It is likely that the law applying will be both that of the USA and your country. If you went to court this would be one of the things you argued over. For example, Australian Consumer Law applies to any goods or services sold to a customer in Australia irrespective of where the vendor is located. Your jurisdiction may have similar laws. At first blush you must comply with the term of the contract preventing reverse engineering. They would be within their rights to terminate the licence if you don't. However, they probably have an obligation under your equivalent to the ACL to supply a product that: is merchantable is fit for purpose does what it says it will do If it doesn't then you have a right to terminate and get your money back, sue for damages and your country's government may prosecute.
Let me simplify the question for you, because there is TMI in your question. Can I sue the repair shop for fraud, because they told me that the framistan need replacing to fix the noise, and they did that, but actually as proven by 3 other experts, the framistan was perfectly fine, the noise came from a broken veblitzer The crucial legal question is whether they lied to you in making the claim about the framistan. If they had a good-faith belief that the framistan was the problem, it was technically bad advice but not fraud. Incompetence is not the same as actually lying. A shop might (imaginably) offer a warranty to the effect that they guarantee that framistan-replacement will eliminate the noise, so that is a different potential cause of action for a lawsuit (breach of contract). Once you monkey around with the work they did, or hire someone else to do some monkeying around, you provide them with an avenue to avoid legal responsibility – it wasn't us who caused the problem, it was the other guy. Actually suing over this would be expensive, hard to win, and not likely to yield substantial financial benefit. It is a sad customer service tale, but not reasonably addressed through legal channels.