Trading In Car At Dealership ?

[Bob]

Hello,

What is my legal/moral responsibility when trading in an older car at
Dealership, and purchasing a new one there, to tell them of any problem
with the car ?

Do I just say that "you take it as is," or tell them that there is
actually a "small" coolant leak ?

Nobody seems able to find cause for, surprisingly. Tried several places.
Might be just a pinhole somewhere, or beginning of radiator or
head-gasket failure. Truly don't know.

I imagine they will ask, and/or there is some form regarding.

It has 135,000 miles on it, a 2005, excellent condition other than this
small leak.

Would they just likely scrap it ?

Hate to see someone buy it and then find out that the leak gets worse,
or... ?

Don't want to give them excuses for really minimizing what they give me
for the car, but if it to be scrapped, no reason probably to tell them.

If they will sell it, not sure how best to handle ?

What should I, or am obligated to, tell them re leak, or not tell them ?

Thoughts on ?

Thanks,

B.

[A Michigan Attorney]

Bob wrote:

> What is my legal/moral responsibility when trading in
> an older car at Dealership, and purchasing a new one
> there, to tell them of any problem with the car?

You have no legal obligation to disclose a problem with
the car (unless you your state says you do, which is
unlikely, but I cannot address that because I don't know
where you are). Moral obligations are beyond the scope of
this newsgroup (and they are too varied to discuss in
a meaningful way).

> Do I just say that "you take it as is," or tell them that
> there is actually a "small" coolant leak?

You don't have to say either one. But if you are *asked*,
you should tell the truth. Lying about what you know may
expose you to liability.

Your remaining questions were not about legal issues.

[Evan Platt]

Likely depends on where in the world you are. But here at least in the
US, I've gone with dont' tell, unless they ask. If they don't ask,
don't say anything.

Trust me, they want your money, and your trade in makes it seem even
sweeter - to you :)
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

[Mark A]

In most jurisdictions, if you are not in the business of buying/selling cars,
then you don't have to tell them anything unless they ask. If they ask, you
must be truthful.

Probably not a good idea to ask lawyers about moral responsibility.

[Dan]

From my experience of trading in about 4 cars they'll take the car
as is. They'll have the service dept look it over (half hour) and then
they'll make you an offer. At 135k it won't be a lot since they expect
it to have problems. Also, at that mileage they'll send it to auction.

I don't know what state you're in but even in MA, as a individual
seller, you have no obligation to say anything about.

/dan

[slide]

Bob wrote:

> What is my legal/moral responsibility when trading in an older car at
> Dealership, and purchasing a new one there, to tell them of any problem
> with the car ?

[details]

I suppose in theory, even though the dealership has superior knowing,
you have a legal obligation to disclose known defects in anything you
are selling. I doubt that anybody has been prosecuted for failing to
disclose a minor defect such as you describe.

As to the disposition of the auto post sale, it would depend if the
dealership has a bargain corral sort of place. If not, it may be
wholesaled off to a lower tier lot or sent to auction. Usually dealers
do not handle, at least on their prime lots, 8 year old cars.

The good news is that given the value of the car, given that 8 year old
cars are not supposed to be perfect or expected to be, disclosing this
defect will not adversely affect the price you get in trade in. Your car
no doubt has a dozen other defects, such as worn bushings, you don't
know about.

Disclose away and feel good about yourself.

[Mike Anderson]

Bob wrote:>
> What is my legal/moral responsibility when trading in an older car at
> Dealership, and purchasing a new one there, to tell them of any problem
> with the car ?

With a house, in many areas, if you know of an issue (mold, bad
plumbing, leak in ceiling, etc.) you HAVE to volunteer this information
even if the person walks off the street, says "how much is this house?
OK, where do I sign?" In other areas, if you are asked about it,
specifically, (not "are there any issues with the house?" but "are there
any leaks in the ceiling?") you have to answer truthfully (to the best
of your knowledge, of course.) In other places, you may have to answer
with specifics that you know of but ONLY if asked about problems at all
(so if asked "is there any known issues?" you'd have to say "the floor
in the bedroom has a weak spot under the carpet and there's termite
damage in the garage.") There may be places (but I kinda doubt it) where
you can say "that's a good question. Let me know if you get an answer,"
even when you KNOW the place is about to collapse any second.

I.e. there's a broad spectrum in the law when it comes to houses. But,
as far as I've heard, there's no law that requires you to divulge
information on the condition of a car, whether asked or not (of course
you can't fraudulently lie about it but you can just say "I don't want
to say.") with maybe the exception of "has it been totaled or had flood
damage?"

[Rick]

"Bob" <rgs...@notme.invalid> wrote:

> What is my legal/moral responsibility when trading in an older car at
> Dealership, and purchasing a new one there, to tell them of any problem
> with the car ?

With that many miles on the car, the dealership is just going to wholesale
the car out along with a bunch of other cars. Defects such as the one you
mentioned won't be of any concern and won't affect the price they offer you.

[A Michigan Attorney]

Mark A wrote:

> Probably not a good idea to ask lawyers about moral responsibility.

I know this remark was tongue in cheek, and my
comments are NOT directed at Mark. But I must
speak because there *are* many people who perceive
lawyers (as a profession) to be immoral, or at
least amoral. That perception is inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is that most lawyers enter
the profession precisely *because* they have a
strong moral sense. Sit through a semester of
con law and you'll see just how passionate law
students are about right and wrong. Contrary
to popular belief, law school doesn't whip the
morality out of you; it simply teaches you how
to set it aside to analyze a situation. Aside
from a few rogue judges, courts only enforce
laws, not morals

[Mark A]

A Michigan Attorney wrote:

> The OP wrote:

>> Probably not a good idea to ask lawyers about moral responsibility.

> I know this remark was tongue in cheek, and my comments are NOT directed
> at Mark. But I must speak because there *are* many people who perceive
> lawyers (as a profession) to be immoral, or at least amoral. That
> perception is inaccurate.
>
> The fact of the matter is that most lawyers enter the profession
> precisely *because* they have a strong moral sense. Sit through a
> semester of con law and you'll see just how passionate law students are
> about right and wrong.

Actually, the remark was not made tongue-in-check. AFAIK, although many lawyers are
very passionate about politics (what they believe is right and wrong with the laws
of a society), they are usually not trained in ethics and don't know any more about
it than anyone else not so trained. If I see that someone has taken a philosophy
class in ethics (as is required now for business degrees at many universities) then
I might be willing to retract my remark for that person.

Also, it is accepted in the legal profession that one has an obligation to defend a
client, regardless of whether the client is innocent or guilty (or right or wrong in
a civil case). In fact, lawyers don't want their clients to tell them if they are
guilty. Now, I certainly believe everyone has a right to the best defense they can
muster, regardless of their guilt, but in their role as defender of those rights,
lawyers by definition sidestep moral issues in many situations to achieve that.

In addition, even for those lawyers who are very passionate about the morality of
society and its laws, in my experience they will often use unethical means to
achieve their political goals (i.e., the end justifies the means).

> Contrary to popular belief, law school doesn't
> whip the morality out of you; it simply teaches you how to set it aside
> to analyze a situation.

It's not just law school, it practical experience on the job. Setting aside moral
issues is not just advantageous in analyzing a legal situation; it is advantageous
to achieving money, fame, and power.

> Aside from a few rogue judges, courts only
> enforce laws, not morals

I would submit that there are MANY judges who decide cases based on what they
believe are morally correct grounds, regardless of what the law actually says. Of
course that kind of morality (society) is different than the kind of morality
discussed in this thread (individual).

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Mark A <ma...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> A Michigan Attorney wrote:
>> The OP wrote:

>>> Probably not a good idea to ask lawyers about moral
>>> responsibility.

>> I know this remark was tongue in cheek, and my comments are NOT
>> directed at Mark. But I must speak because there *are* many
>> people who perceive lawyers (as a profession) to be immoral, or
>> at least amoral. That perception is inaccurate.
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that most lawyers enter the
>> profession precisely *because* they have a strong moral sense.
>> Sit through a semester of con law and you'll see just how
>> passionate law students are about right and wrong.

> Actually, the remark was not made tongue-in-check. AFAIK,
> although many lawyers are very passionate about politics (what
> they believe is right and wrong with the laws of a society),
> they are usually not trained in ethics and don't know any more
> about it than anyone else not so trained. If I see that someone
> has taken a philosophy class in ethics (as is required now for
> business degrees at many universities) then I might be willing
> to retract my remark for that person.

For the most part you are wrong. In most of not all states lawyers
have been required to take not only classes but pass exams in legal
ethics, and keep updated on ethical issues through continuing
education.

> Also, it is accepted in the legal profession that one has an
> obligation to defend a client, regardless of whether the client
> is innocent or guilty (or right or wrong in a civil case).

While that is true in a criminal case (because even the guilty
deserve a defense), that is not true in civil cases.

> In fact, lawyers don't want their clients to tell them if they
> are guilty.

You are watching too many movies.

> Now, I certainly believe everyone has a right to the
> best defense they can muster, regardless of their guilt, but in
> their role as defender of those rights, lawyers by definition
> sidestep moral issues in many situations to achieve that.

How does providing a defense sidestep moral issues? The lawyer
isn't allowed to do or say anything underhanded - he points out the
weaknesses in the prosecution's case. How is that immoral?

> In addition, even for those lawyers who are very passionate
> about the morality of society and its laws, in my experience
> they will often use unethical means to achieve their political
> goals (i.e., the end justifies the means).

You are generalizing to the entire profession based on isolated
cases. It would be like saying I once knew a guy named Mark who
robbed a bank, so all Marks must be bank robbers.

> It's not just law school, it practical experience on the job.
> Setting aside moral issues is not just advantageous in analyzing
> a legal situation; it is advantageous to achieving money, fame,
> and power.

Again, in civil cases lawyers are not allowed to do that. Some
may, but certainly not all.

>> Aside from a few rogue judges, courts only
>> enforce laws, not morals

> I would submit that there are MANY judges who decide cases based
> on what they believe are morally correct grounds, regardless of
> what the law actually says. Of course that kind of morality
> (society) is different than the kind of morality discussed in
> this thread (individual).

And that's why there are appeals.

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Mark A]

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> For the most part you are wrong. In most of not all states lawyers have
> been required to take not only classes but pass exams in legal ethics,
> and keep updated on ethical issues through continuing education.

Legal ethics? I will skip the oxymoron jokes, but that obviously includes
an ethical responsibility to represent a client, even though said client
is almost certainly guilty. That is not the same kind of ethics being
discussed here, as you would learn in a real college class in ethics as
taught in the department of philosophy.

> How does providing a defense sidestep moral issues? The lawyer isn't
> allowed to do or say anything underhanded - he points out the weaknesses
> in the prosecution's case. How is that immoral?

I did not say it was immoral, since lawyers don't claim to be on the side
of morality and are providing the best legal services they can muster on
behalf of their client in an adversarial legal system. Prosecutors
representing the state and the people are not any more moral than defense
lawyers, due to the nature of their responsibilities and the same
adversarial justice system (not that I think there is a better justice
system that should replace it).

[Mike Anderson]

Mark A wrote:
> I would submit that there are MANY judges who decide cases based on what they
> believe are morally correct grounds, regardless of what the law actually says. Of
> course that kind of morality (society) is different than the kind of morality
> discussed in this thread (individual).

The way I've seen it defined, it's not a matter of "that kind of
morality" vs "this kind."

Morals = "what is good for your best interests."
Ethics = "what is good for society's (as a whole) best interests."

So a murderer may have good morals when he kills (if he can figure out
how, by some logic, killing that person helps him) but lousy ethics
(killing someone rarely helps society as a whole.)

People often don't agree on morals but they can reach a consensus on ethics.

[A Michigan Attorney]

Mark A wrote:
> A Michigan Attorney wrote:
>> The OP wrote:

>>> Probably not a good idea to ask lawyers about moral responsibility.

>> I know this remark was tongue in cheek, and my comments are NOT directed
>> at Mark. But I must speak because there *are* many people who perceive
>> lawyers (as a profession) to be immoral, or at least amoral. That
>> perception is inaccurate.
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that most lawyers enter the profession
>> precisely *because* they have a strong moral sense. Sit through a
>> semester of con law and you'll see just how passionate law students are
>> about right and wrong.

> Actually, the remark was not made tongue-in-check. AFAIK, although many lawyers are
> very passionate about politics (what they believe is right and wrong with the laws
> of a society), they are usually not trained in ethics and don't know any more about
> it than anyone else not so trained.

I'm disappointed that you were serious. If you think moral ignorance is
common in society, then why did you single out lawyers?

> Also, it is accepted in the legal profession that one has an obligation to defend a
> client, regardless of whether the client is innocent or guilty (or right or wrong in
> a civil case). In fact, lawyers don't want their clients to tell them if they are
> guilty.

False on all points. The criminal lawyers I know (which I suspect are
greater in number than those you know) *do* want to know if their
clients committed the charged acts. As to the obligation aspect of your
comments, lawyers are permitted to decline or terminate representation
in circumstances that include learning the client is guilty. I can't
respond to the "right or wrong" comment because I don't know what you
mean; but I can tell you that termination of representation in a civil
case is allowed if the client insists on pursuing an objective the
lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent.

> Now, I certainly believe everyone has a right to the best defense they can
> muster, regardless of their guilt, but in their role as defender of those rights,
> lawyers by definition sidestep moral issues in many situations to achieve that.

Can you clarify what you mean by "sidestep moral issues", and hopefully
give some examples of cases where it occurred?

> In addition, even for those lawyers who are very passionate about the morality of
> society and its laws, in my experience they will often use unethical means to
> achieve their political goals (i.e., the end justifies the means).

But in terms of class characteristics, doesn't that apply to *anyone*
seeking political office, rather than lawyers in particular?

>> Contrary to popular belief, law school doesn't
>> whip the morality out of you; it simply teaches you how to set it aside
>> to analyze a situation.
>
> It's not just law school, it practical experience on the job. Setting aside moral
> issues is not just advantageous in analyzing a legal situation; it is advantageous
> to achieving money, fame, and power.

It's not an issue of advantage. It's an issue of competence. A court's
duty is to enforce laws, not morals. A lawyer's duty as an advocate is
to analyze the situation as the tribunal would. Therefore, a lawyer's
professional duty is to apply the law, not morals.

>> Aside from a few rogue judges, courts only
>> enforce laws, not morals

> I would submit that there are MANY judges who decide cases based on what they
> believe are morally correct grounds, regardless of what the law actually says. Of
> course that kind of morality (society) is different than the kind of morality
> discussed in this thread (individual).

I'll take this as an expression of your perception, rather than
objective fact, and on that basis I'll say simply that our perceptions
differ. If you specify some cases, I'll be happy to discuss what you post.

[Mark A]

A Michigan Attorney wrote:

> I'm disappointed that you were serious. If you think moral ignorance is
> common in society, then why did you single out lawyers?

Lawyers concentrate on what is best for their client, not what is best for society.
In an adversarial legal system like we have in US, that is what they should be
doing. But those kinds of habits in work and thought (concern for the interests of
the client instead of society) makes them somewhat less likely to understand larger
ethical questions.

> Can you clarify what you mean by "sidestep moral issues", and hopefully
> give some examples of cases where it occurred?

I mean that lawyers are taught to deal with the laws as they are written and to
exploit the legal system to the best interests of their clients. There are some
exceptions, but it happens in almost every legal case due to the adversarial nature
of our legal system.

In fact, a lawyer has a moral duty to represent his/her client in the best possible
way, sometimes to the contradiction of the best interests of society as a whole. I
don't believe that a lawyer is allowed to say (or at least not likely to say) that a
court made a wrong decision in ruling in favor of their client in cases where the
lawyer knows that, from a moral standpoint (not just a legal standpoint), an
injustice was done by the court.

> But in terms of class characteristics, doesn't that apply to *anyone*
> seeking political office, rather than lawyers in particular?

I wouldn't ask politicians about ethical matters either. Are you happy now?

> It's not an issue of advantage. It's an issue of competence. A court's
> duty is to enforce laws, not morals. A lawyer's duty as an advocate is
> to analyze the situation as the tribunal would. Therefore, a lawyer's
> professional duty is to apply the law, not morals.

Exactly, so they have no particular expertise in ethics (other than the ethics of
attorney-client relationship, judicial ethics, etc). And by practice in their daily
work they are trained to deal with existing laws, and to side ethical issues (which
may or may not be codified into law). Obviously there are some exceptions.

Some ethical principles are well-reflected in our laws, but sometimes they are not.
A good example is the OP in this thread where a distinction is being made between
what is legally required to be disclosed about problems with the used car, and what
should be disclosed from an ethical standpoint.

[Mike Anderson]

A Michigan Attorney wrote:
> Mark A wrote:
>> A Michigan Attorney wrote:
>>> The OP wrote:

>>>> Probably not a good idea to ask lawyers about moral responsibility.
>
>>> I know this remark was tongue in cheek, and my comments are NOT directed
>>> at Mark. But I must speak because there *are* many people who perceive
>>> lawyers (as a profession) to be immoral, or at least amoral. That
>>> perception is inaccurate.
>>>
>>> The fact of the matter is that most lawyers enter the profession
>>> precisely *because* they have a strong moral sense. Sit through a
>>> semester of con law and you'll see just how passionate law students are
>>> about right and wrong.
>
>> Actually, the remark was not made tongue-in-check. AFAIK, although many lawyers are
>> very passionate about politics (what they believe is right and wrong with the laws
>> of a society), they are usually not trained in ethics and don't know any more about
>> it than anyone else not so trained.
>
> I'm disappointed that you were serious. If you think moral ignorance is
> common in society, then why did you single out lawyers?

Not that I agree with him (totally to the contrary) but it may have been
because the OP was (apparently) singling out lawyers (or at least a
legal forum) to ask the question of.

[A Michigan Attorney]

Mark A wrote:
> A Michigan Attorney wrote:

> Some ethical principles are well-reflected in our laws, but sometimes they are not.
> A good example is the OP in this thread where a distinction is being made between
> what is legally required to be disclosed about problems with the used car, and what
> should be disclosed from an ethical standpoint.

Let's discuss that. Do you think it would be unethical for OP not to
volunteer that the car has specific problems? How would society be
harmed by his silence? How would it benefit from his disclosure?

[Mark A]

A Michigan Attorney wrote:

> Let's discuss that. Do you think it would be unethical for OP not to
> volunteer that the car has specific problems? How would society be
> harmed by his silence? How would it benefit from his disclosure?

My understanding is that in most states there are specific laws about what must be
disclosed. In some cases the rules are different when the buyer and/or seller is in
the business of buying/selling cars versus a private buyer/seller. Or in some cases
it may depend on the age of the car. Since a buyer/ seller who is in the business of
buying/selling cars should know what the laws are, and should know if such
information does not have to be voluntarily disclosed to them, and that there may be
problems unless they investigate further, then I have no ethical problems if a
private buyer/seller is not legally required to volunteer such information to
someone in the business of buying/selling cars, and therefore does not voluntarily
disclose that information (so long as they abide by the applicable laws).