NSW caveat emptor defence

[raynmanuk]

I purchased a vehicle privately which broke down the first time we drove it.
The fault was a starting motor issue which only occurred after the vehicle had been driven long enough for all engine and ancillary components to be warmed up.
It did not show up during the test drive and would not have been made evident through any inspection.
I have evidence in the form of a text from the previous owner stating the same problem had occurred with him before.
I also have a copy of a service invoice which states ‘investigate starting issues’.
The invoice also states no fault could be found but 'customer to monitor' and I have spoken to the garage involved and they have confirmed they did not release the car ‘without fault’.
This invoice is dated a month before we purchased the car.
The case finally went to court last week and the assessor began the proceedings by telling me that caveat emptor applies and that a seller is under no obligation to divulge any problems a vehicle might have.
The only evidence that the previous owner supplied were some invoices one of which states the job to diagnose starting issues. It took him a year to supply these and none of these invoices indicate that he was not aware of the problem, in fact they imply the opposite.
When I asked for permission to obtain a statement from the garage confirming the condition of the car when it was released he told the garage not to talk to me.
I was shocked the decision went against me and the fact that the assessor dismissed the previous owner preventing me obtaining evidence from the garage.
To add insult to injury I was ordered to pay costs.
All the research I’ve done tells me I had a good case and that this sort of behaviour by a seller IS accountable in law.
I want to appeal this decision as I believe the assessor got it wrong but I need to confirm that caveat emptor, when selling a car with known, undeclared issues, is not a valid defence.

 

[Atticus]

I believe the assessor got it wrong but I need to confirm that caveat emptor, when selling a car with known, undeclared issues, is not a valid defence.

More about how the vehicle was advertised, ie, if it was advertised as something like "no known issues" & you have clear evidence that there was a known issue not mentioned then you may have something to go on as that may be considered a fraudulent representation to get the sale & at a greater price then if the problem was declared (gain a financial advantage)

On the other hand, If the vehicle wasn't advertised as having no known issues, then it is pretty much the CE principal in a private sale.

 

[raynmanuk]

I've got clear evidence that the issue existed prior to the sale but unfortunately Gumtree no longer have the advert so that bit's a dead end. I'm sure I've seen threads that indicate this is covered under common law and to be honest I would expect it to be covered somewhere. The idea that a seller can off load a car that he knows is a lemon without fear of comeback from the law doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Atticus]

The idea that a seller can off load a car that he knows is a lemon without fear of comeback from the law doesn't sit well with me.

I understand your frustration, & appreciate that even a vehicle inspection may not have flagged the problem in your case, but the CE principle will prevail I think without solid evidence that the advertiser actually advertised that the vehicle had no known issues.