What is my right?

[welkin]

I don't have to reread the thread. My information comes from what the OP posted, the Michigan statutes, and common sense. What information are you speaking of?

If you don't agree with my assessment, then why don't you post a legal argument rebutting it instead of bloviating and being cute.

But it is still a boat...one that YOU agreed to pay $750 for, but have only paid $200 for so far.

You need to do some research about what you post. It's not a boat just because it looks like a boat.

 

[Zigner]

Well think about it. Op was to junk the boat but now the seller wants the boat back with the trailer and motor. So OP is in a very good position. OP can junk the boat as in the second deal or return the boat, trailer, and motor to the seller.

It appears to me that the seller is just blowing smoke to get something more than what was agreed to from the buyer. I would call the seller's bluff.

I don't know where you are getting this from. The OP never disposed of the boat, thus the "subsequent agreement" was never acted upon and the original agreement stands. The OP bought the boat as-is. Period. The seller is only looking for what is owed him...$550.

I understand that you are not going to look at it from any other viewpoint except that which you have conceived (and contrived). I'm not going to argue this with you. The OP has the information he needs and now needs to choose his course of action.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I think welkin is basing his/her argument on this...

We agreed that I would dispose of the boat, he would come pick up the trailer and we could work something out on the motor.

...and that it would create some type of enforceable agreement. I too agree that this is incorrect on his/her part.

Even with a used boat there is an implied warranty of fitness for a particular use that it will function as a boat.

I also disagree with this. A used boat is unless otherwise agreed, sold "as-is."

 

[welkin]

I don't know where you are getting this from. The OP never disposed of the boat, thus the "subsequent agreement" was never acted upon and the original agreement stands. The OP bought the boat as-is. Period. The seller is only looking for what is owed him...$550.

I understand that you are not going to look at it from any other viewpoint except that which you have conceived (and contrived). I'm not going to argue this with you. The OP has the information he needs and now needs to choose his course of action.

And I will not argue with you. OP can still dispose of the boat under the second agreement. But the seller now wants the boat back. So how does that preclude the second deal where OP would owe the $550?

There is a difference between fraud and selling something as-is. The seller knew the boat was junk or would not have agreed to have it disposed of. The seller presented the boat as A Great Little Boat. Do you think that is committing a fraud if the seller knew that the boat was not seaworthy? It's not a question of the buyer examining the boat to the extent that he discovers the transom is rotted out. He took the seller's assertion that it was a great little boat.

Let's say you find a freezer on Craig's list. The ad says it's a good freezer that works well but it is a bit scuffed up. You go and look at it and decide to buy it for the price. You get it home and plug it in and nothing happens. You start to trouble shoot the problem and when you take off the back panel you discover that the compressor was removed. It was not a working freezer.

Under your theory of as-is, you are stuck with a worthless box. That is not the way it works. It was a fraud. And the freezer cannot be used for the purpose intended.

 

[Zigner]

Let's say you find a freezer on Craig's list. The ad says it's a good freezer that works well but it is a bit scuffed up. You go and look at it and decide to buy it for the price. You get it home and plug it in and nothing happens. You start to trouble shoot the problem and when you take off the back panel you discover that the compressor was removed. It was not a working freezer.

Your hypothetical situation doesn't fit the fact-pattern here.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

And I will not argue with you. OP can still dispose of the boat under the second agreement. But the seller now wants the boat back. So how does that preclude the second deal where OP would owe the $550?

Of course the OP can dispose of the boat. He owns it.

Where does it say the seller wants it back?

There was no "second agreement'.

There is a difference between fraud and selling something as-is. The seller knew the boat was junk or would not have agreed to have it disposed of. The seller presented the boat as A Great Little Boat. Do you think that is committing a fraud if the seller knew that the boat was not seaworthy? It's not a question of the buyer examining the boat to the extent that he discovers the transom is rotted out. He took the seller's assertion that it was a great little boat.

No reasonable person should think that a powered $700 boat would be seaworthy. We have been given no reason to think the OP didn't have every opportunity to inspect the boat. And as it was selling it for $700 he should have expected there to be issues.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Your hypothetical situation doesn't fit the fact-pattern here.

Am I'm not sure even in her hypothetical situation that the seller would be liable.

 

[adjusterjack]

Sorry, folks, all the arguing is not helping the OP.

Thread closed.