chrisannjordan

I recently watched a episode where the plaintiff purchased a used car as is without test driving the vehicle. While that was a faulty decision, the plaintiff relied on the defendants honor and trustworthiness in liue of that action to make his decision. As such he bought the car which turned out to have a blown head gasket. This was a overtly fraudulent action on the defendants part which surely should have voided the transaction. I do not understand why this was not obvious to the judge, clearly obvious. I had a car that my daughter drove hot and the first thing that occurrs to every vehicle that is driven hot is the head gaskets crack or warp. The only difference in vehicles is how long it may take to do this damage. Some vehicles it may occur in 5 seconds of being hot, others may take 20 seconds but all vehicles will be damaged. This is what happened to the car in question and the seller most definitely tried to hide it. As for the mechanic assessment of this vehicle, a mechanic looks for signs of evidence of head gasket damage because a engine would need to be torn open to definately state the obvious. That's standard procedure in this field as the cost to tear engine open outways the results that are already clear. I am not a mechanic but I've had many used cars and have gained a great deal of knowledge. You really incorrectly judged this case and in the future you should not close your ears to the obvious.