If I remember correctly from my business law class decades ago the seller is required to disclose any defects that you cannot see easily. They are called "latent defects" so if a seller had removed the kick panels and knew there was birdcage rust then they are required by law to disclose that information. The problem with enforcing that is that it is almost impossible to prove that the seller knew about it. So it's buyer beware.

On the other hand, if the windshield is cracked it is readily visible so the seller is not required to make any statement about it.

In my opinion, it's best to disclose everything you know because it isn't worth the potential issues you could have when the buyer finds out the car isn't in the condition they thought.

 

In my opinion it's up to the buyer to inspect and find any issues with a used vehicle unless directly asked. Does the car leak? The seller should answer honestly. How does the car drive down the road? The answer from the seller now is just an opinion. So it's ultimately up to the buyer to decide what's good or not.

 

Two words, folks: AS IS. Laws may vary state by state, but don't miss those two magic words on the bill of sale.

 

there is no question some sellers are less than honest , but the way things are these days if I were selling I would be very cautious about saying anything that is subjective , could be misunderstood , or anything about anything that didn't have physical proof to prove it. a garden variety car not so much, but collector cars in general and corvettes in particular there seems to be an extraordinary amount of value placed on certain qualities or components. in the litigation happy society we are now living in , even an honest mistake , or something the seller said that was misunderstood will have lots of people making a beeline to the nearest ambulance chasing lawyer looking for blood.
honestly answer questions and let the car speak for itself

 

I feel like I'm too honest and want to tell someone about everything I can think of wrong with the vehicle in the advertisement. I just don't want some one to drive to see something and be disappointed.

If I were to sell my 76 for instance, I'd be inclined to tell a perspective buyer more about the car than they'd find tinkering with it every weekend for a couple months.

 

[I]Agree, I would not overate either as well, however, again it is a significant consideration. Given the choice between a zero feedback or 90% from a low transaction number vrs 1000 transaction + of 100%, I prefer the later.[/I]

 

I think it is ultimately up to the buyer to know what he's buying and have it inspected, but I would personally disclose everything I know about the car. I'll be going through that when we sell our truck. I still have to be able to look in the mirror and sleep at night.

 

as a side note, it seems to me that dealers (who use glowing terms to describe cars and never mention rust or mechanical faults) always command and receive higher prices for these cars than do individuals. i guess that when your only interest in these cars is to make a buck, veracity doesn't matter.
since ebay was mentioned, another fact i've noticed is the widely different prices very similar cars sell for. i never could understand that.

 

Agreed. And the amount of scammers bidding on cars on EBay is staggering. I sell cars a lot and rarely use eBay because of the scammers who will/and are allowed to set up a fake account and bid your car up to reserve only to try and extract money from you. Rant over. Due diligence always falls on the buyer. I always assume someone is hiding something. I hide nothing when I sell and that's why I'm so successful at moving cars.

 

cars are sold AS IS and it is up to the buyer to confirm that the car meets their requirements.

BUT, a lawyer can argue and convince a judge just about anything. they can even argue and win by stating that even though you were 'silent' on an issue, you are obligated to know about and disclose the issue.. even if you stated nothing and did not lie.
the seller is obligated to a good faith transaction and if a buyer can convince a judge that there was just the tiniest smidgeon of bad faith, then it opens up the transaction to multiple levels and definitions of fraud. And fraud negates all statements regarding cars are sold AS IS.

the trick is to avoid the buyers from hell with a good long discussion regarding their motivations and requirements before money changes hands.. and to have a well detailed sale contract.

you really never hear about this stuff in the court records because most of these types of disputed transactions never reach trial due to negotiated settlement money changing hands. the buyer with the right lawyer can make your life hell...

I would not want to scare away buyers with extremely detailed disclosure. .buy I also don't want to waste both our times by even showing the car to them if I know that it won't meet their requirements.. have this discussion long before even showing the car.