Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware !

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
G.R. Patterson III wrote:


TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.


None of this is required in any of the States in which I have lived.

According to the Rogue's Gallery page you live in New Jersey.

Less than 5 minutes with Google yields the following info about New
Jersey:

C. Disclosure of Body Damage

N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A.7 entitled unlawful advertising practices makes
unlawful:

"The failure to disclose that the motor vehicle had been previously
damaged and that substantial repair or body work had been performed on
it when such prior repair or body work is know or should have been known
by the advertiser; for the purposes of this subsection, "substantial
repair or body work" shall mean repair or body work having a retail
value of $1,000 or more.";

That would be 25% of how much?

xyzzy wrote:

N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A.7 entitled unlawful advertising practices makes
unlawful:

Applies only to dealers. Private sellers are not required to disclose anything.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.


None of this is required in any of the States in which I have lived.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

I had to do this when I sold my house in PA a few years ago and I
believe it is required across the border in NY as well.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

I had to do this when I sold my house in PA a few years ago and I
believe it is required across the border in NY as well.

Perhaps so, but I did not have to do this when I sold my house in New Jersey a few
years ago.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message ...
But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.


Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
have to be responsible for actually figuring out if something we buy
is good. Its good to know the gov't is willing to do all that for me.
I really, really hate it when I have to think. Just like I know its
safe to fly the J-3 into icing conditions because it doesn't say not
to. I know the gov't wouldn't let me hurt myself. In the mean time
I'll continue to let my 8 year old taxi the plane around by himself. I
know its safe, I checked the FARs.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message ...

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.



Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
[over the top sarcasm snipped]


Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
volunteering the info that it had received major repairs. Apparently a
lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it. Someone
else cited automobiles and real property as an analogy to "prove" that
it's in fact OK to lie by omission and hide behind the buyer's failure
to ask the exact right question. I was simply pointing out that in fact
it is generally considered unethical to sell these items without this
disclosure, so much so that in many states that disclosure is legally
mandatory which kinda blows holes in the whole "no seller has to tell
any buyer anything" argument.

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary wrote:

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message
...

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.



Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
[over the top sarcasm snipped]


Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
volunteering the info that it had received major repairs.

That's a part of the maintenance record.

Apparently a
lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it.

It is. It's called Caveat Emptor.

Someone
else cited automobiles and real property as an analogy to "prove" that
it's in fact OK to lie by omission and hide behind the buyer's failure
to ask the exact right question. I was simply pointing out that in fact
it is generally considered unethical to sell these items without this
disclosure,

Only with ignorant people who've probably screwed up themselves by their own
ignorance.

so much so that in many states that disclosure is legally
mandatory which kinda blows holes in the whole "no seller has to tell
any buyer anything" argument.

And when the seller doesn't know, or doesn't think it's relevant, then he's
liable. And the seller continues with his head up his ass.

Ever see those jokes such as not using the hair dryer in the shower? Now you
know the source of that mentality.

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
volunteering the info that it had received major repairs. Apparently a
lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it.

That information should be in the logs. If it's not logged, I would agree that the
seller's actions are immoral. I do not feel that the seller has a moral obligation to
volunteer anything other than offering the logbooks for inpection and truthfully
answering any questions the shopper asks.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary wrote:

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message
...

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.



Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
[over the top sarcasm snipped]


Regardless of what you think about laws, the point of this thread is
that it is debating the ethics of selling an airplane without
volunteering the info that it had received major repairs. Apparently a
lot of poeple think that if someone uknowningly buys the airplance it's
their own fault for not asking the right question to uncover it. Someone
else cited automobiles and real property as an analogy to "prove" that
it's in fact OK to lie by omission and hide behind the buyer's failure
to ask the exact right question. I was simply pointing out that in fact
it is generally considered unethical to sell these items without this
disclosure, so much so that in many states that disclosure is legally
mandatory which kinda blows holes in the whole "no seller has to tell
any buyer anything" argument.


And we all know that laws fix everything. The more laws the better off
everybody is. Not. My guess is the buyer in those states with the
disclosure laws are ripped off at the same rate as buyers in states without
the laws. In fact in many cases such laws generate legal loop holes that
have the exact opposite effect of the original intention of the law.

If someone doesn't know to ask the right questions it is their fault. If
you don't know the rules, don't play the game. Especially if you can't
afford to lose.

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message ...
But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

I don't know what 'people' think, but if the accident damage was not
"disclosed", how did the original poster find out about it?

What I think you're missing is the issue doesn't seem to be one
of not disclosing major damage. The issue is when and how it was
disclosed. The seller didn't volunteer the information on the
phone. The buyer either found out from the maintenance records
or was told when he looked at the plane/asked questions.

Those laws in your state require you to burble out every negative
thing/"whole laundry list of problems" to everyone who calls
and expresses interest in your car/building, before they even
come look? Even if they don't ask?

Suppose I have a car which was rear-ended. It was properly repaired
by a reputable shop, drives perfectly, and there's no way to tell by
looking at it. On the phone, you don't ask me if it's ever been in
an accident and I don't volunteer the info. You come, look at my car,
drive it. I say "it was rear-ended in '99 and repaired by XXX" (or maybe
I offer you a written document which provides this information and give
you a chance to read it) You either make me an offer or go away at
that point.

Is that unethical? Is that against the disclosure laws in your state?

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.

How so? Are you saying the laws in your state require you to volunteer
every negative piece of information you have about an item you're selling,
to everyone who calls or emails you? Or even in your state, are you just
required to disclose it at some point before the potential purchaser
makes an offer?

Cheers,
Sydney