Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware !

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
:

And how would they determine that?

If I have to explain that to you you shouldn't be in this thread in the
first place.

How did he "misrepresent" it?

And I if I have to teach you to read as well, you should reconsider your
decision to be doing anything at all on Usenet.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in news:PaKBc.100$wd7.41167
@news.uswest.net:

Well put bull ****.

No wonder you get taken.

I got taken to a very nice restaurant this weekend. Your taste in food is
not something I share.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:57:37 +0000, Juan Jimenez wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
:

What does the price of a plane have to do with its airworthiness?

Maybe the fact that price is usually a measure of "suitability for
a purpose"?

Really? On what planet, Tom?

This one. What planets version of "value" (which determines price) are
YOU using? Kalifornia's?

Ah, so now you backpedal like there's no tomorrow and change your tune from
"price" to "value". Ok, fine. What does "value" have to do with
"airworthiness"?

chuckle someone pass the popcorn

"Dave Stadt" wrote in
gy.com:

If you look hard enough 10 out of 10 airplanes are unairworthy.
Nowhere did the buyer justify his claim the plane was not airworthy.
His post sounded to me like he seriously failed in his questioning
before looking at the plane then tried to blame the seller for his
poor questioning. His assumptions were based on what he thought he
heard and wanted to hear not on what the seller said. Jim Weir hit
the nail squarely on the head on this one.

Weir wasn't even in the building, let alone close to the nail.

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.

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.";

"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.

"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.

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.