Lovely tammy
Cranberry Twp,#2Author of original report
Tue, March 26, 2013
This document is Carl's reply to my initial email offering him $4,000 for the vehicle. Carl is shown in the email describing the condition of the Cadillac 2002 Deville in the email. The email and bill of sale is proof of Carl's 'deception'. His deception is shown in his advertisement, in his email and also shown on the BILL OF SALE when he selected 'poor' as the condition of the vehicle in section A box 6 of the BILL OF SALE!!! Carl KNEW the condition of the Cadillac prior to the sale!!!!
Carl clearly violated the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws: These laws can often be used even if the used car is sold "as is," as long as the seller is guilty of a verbal deception or a failure to disclose information about the vehicle.
coast
#3Consumer Comment
Mon, March 25, 2013
I didn't dispute your claim that he lied about the condition of the vehicle. I disputed your ability to prove that in court. That's why I wrote, "You had no chance of winning a civil judgment because you have no proof that the vehicle advertised as a 'cream puff' was the same vehicle you purchased... You test-drove the vehicle (or not?) so apparently you thought it was in fine working order at the time of purchase." The buyer must convince the judge that the seller intentionally deceived the buyer to reverse an AS-IS sale.
However, I was incorrect when I wrote, "the seller may have thought the vehicle had no problems at the time of sale" because he wrote 'poor condition' on the bill of sale. The four chips in the window should have been an indication that the vehicle was not a cream puff. You failed to check the heated seats and sunroof during the test-drive. The power steering leak and the rodents weren't observed during your initial inspection so the seller would have claimed that happened after the sale.
Offering the seller money for a car sight unseen is an indication that the potential buyer is weak and can be easily duped. Accepting a verbal guarantee verified that theory. Better observation and the use of common sense would have been an asset in the purchase.
Lovely tammy
Cranberry Twp,#4Author of original report
Mon, March 25, 2013
I've attached a few more documents pertaining to the above captioned report.
Both documents are emails:
The 1st document is an email from Carl stating he will contact his sister that is a lawyer in Ebesnburg.
The 2nd document is Carl's reply to my initial email offering him $4,000 for the vehicle. Carl is shown in the email describing the condition of the Cadillac 2002 Deville in the email. The email and bill of sale is proof of Carl's 'deception'. His deception is shown in his advertisement, in his email and also shown on the BILL OF SALE when he selected 'poor' as the condition of the vehicle in section A box 6 of the BILL OF SALE!!! Carl KNEW the condition of the Cadillac prior to the sale!!!!
Tammy
Guy from Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania,#5General Comment
Mon, March 25, 2013
I can definitely relate to your experience. He sold us a piece of junk back in 2006. We believed everything he said as well. Our vehicle was in extremely poor condition too yet he said all his vehicles are in excellent condition! It had a sticker but when we took it to get it inspected, it failed. We found out a lot of work was needed (and a lot of money) to get it to pass! But we didn't pursue him in court. We decided to let our credit card company handle our transaction!!! We performed a public record search on him too and he's been sued many times! Therefore, there were others in line before us awaiting compensation!!!
I totally agree with you about the BBB and having a reputable mechanic perform diagnostic work on the vehicle prior to purchase! The fee is usually under $100 bucks!
To anonymous #2.... she answered many questions in her report you questioned in your comment. Con-artists are out there in full bloom pulling many fraudulent ponzi schemes!! People just be careful!
David!
Lovely tammy
Saint Cloud,#6Author of original report
Sun, March 24, 2013
And to answer your question referencing Ken Albright. The bill of sale was completely blank. So yes I was a witness to him completing the form and signing it. I also believe a notary must be present to witness the transaction. But once again, I didn't catch on therefore I wasn't aware of his scam! Like I said in my original report, he completed the report as if it was an even trade but it wasn't! I just wasn't paying attention so now I'm warning others.....that's all I can say.
Lovely tammy
Saint Cloud,#7Author of original report
Sun, March 24, 2013
Hi,
Yes I test drove the car but I neglected to mention this was my first time car shopping and I was alone. The car ran smooth. A person can't be foolish if they were basically unaware of someone else's intentions or what to expect. As far as the New Yorker goes the whole sale was a scam which put the vehicle in his hands. I also don't know much about vehicles and didn't have anyone else to go with me to view it and basically help me out. As I wrote in my original report, the New Yorker was to be a trade-in for the remaining fees, taxes etc. and if Pennsylvania didn't receive their fair share it wasn't my doing. The only people that at the meeting was Carl, his mother and myself. That was it. My father, who isn't around much, realized the scam on the bill of sale. As stated in the report, I was naive and believed everything he said and believe me I have learned my lesson!
You honestly don't know if I would have lost in the civil lawsuit. I had and still have all documentation. In his original craigslist listing ad (as attached) he stated the vehicle was a creme puff. The seller knew very well the state of the vehicle because he selected 'poor' in the condition of the vehicle box on the bill of sale! Do you recall reading that? So YES he knew! AND I guess you didn't read #5. from my What I've learned list. #5 states: DO NOT take people's word for face value! I guess you missed that too huh!
Lovely tammy
Saint Cloud,#8Author of original report
Sun, March 24, 2013
Yes, I will caution everyone to get their vehicle inspected. And about the personal information, that wasn't truly my address. Thanks again!
coast
#9Consumer Comment
Sun, March 24, 2013
It is unlikely (yet possible) that a vehicle with 90K miles is a cream puff. Offering $4K for a vehicle sight unseen was foolish. A verbal guarantee is worth the paper it's written on. You no longer owned the New Yorker so they had the right to advertise and sell it for whatever amount they chose. You failed to read the bill of sale at the time of purchase, which resulted in the state of Pennsylvania getting cheated out of the sales tax. Did you realize that?
"Carl forged the issuing agent's signature as Ken Albright."
Did you witness that signing or is it possible that Ken Albright's signature was on the document prior to your meeting with Carl?
You had no chance of winning a civil judgment because you have no proof that the vehicle advertised as a "cream puff" was the same vehicle you purchased and because the seller may have thought the vehicle had no problems at the time of sale. You test-drove the vehicle (or not?) so apparently you thought it was in fine working order at the time of purchase.
I agree with your statement about the BBB. They sell their ratings, which is disgraceful
You made numerous avoidable errors and apparently did not learn that a verbal guarantee has no value because it isn't on your "What I've learned" list.
Peter
Brighton,#10Consumer Comment
Sun, March 24, 2013
I can not speak about Mr Anderson except to say sounds like you got a bad car next time get the car inspected before you buy.
But what I want to say is that there is a lot of your personal information in the photos you posted. You have to be careful what you post. Always edit your pictures and remove any personal information before you post. You don't want to be a victim with identity theft.