+1

Good chance that whoever buy that car will end up in this forum too.

What a bunch of wusses.

Not sure I understand the statement?

The issue is that the potential buyer was being aware; It was the seller who intentionally circumvented the system to quickly dump a faulty product.

Is the buyer then supposed to sue Carfax for its "faulty" reporting?

If having integrity and being upfront makes one a "wuss", then I wear my wuss badge with great pride.

OP - Apologies for taking your thread awry. You know what to do and hopefully you'll recover some of your lost value through the appropriate channels.

If being offended when it's recommended that we few who are privileged to own 991's should deceive CarFax, or trash a 2 year leased car, so the next owner has a much higher probability of getting screwed...then I'm a proud wuss.

That's nuts. No one can deceive CarFax and no one has suggested such. There is no obligation whatsoever to volunteer that a car has been in an accident unless asked. One cannot withhold if a car has been rebuilt (that's not the same as repaired), or in a flood, or is a salvage vehicle. To do so is illegal, immoral and risks being sued when the truth comes out.

Selling a car or trading it in before CarFax has updated its info about the car is perfectly legal and in no way immoral. One has no obligation to wait a certain grace period if it is inconvenient for the seller to wait. If waiting ends up costing the owner extra depreciation, then that's damned inconvenient and I urge the O.P. to cut his losses by trading now rather than later. There's nothing immoral or unethical about doing so.

We can debate the issue SS, without resorting to silly name calling, because there is nothing 'nuts' about the fact that questions of fairness, ethical behavior, and morality are often in the eye of the beholder. You and I clearly have a differing perspective on this.

Since I know I won't convince you of anything, that's my last word on this.

I hope it's the last word of anyone on this.

Are you absolutely sure? At least in NC, it looks like you MUST disclose:

"For used cars less than five years old, the seller must disclose damage of more that 25 percent of the car’s fair market value to the buyer in writing."

http://www.ncdoj.gov/Consumer/Automo...ar-Damage.aspx

$16,000 in damages might cross the threshold for disclosure. Other states may vary.

I'm not going to touch the "morality" issue...that's for the OP to decide. Just a pure legal question. Sure, even if it's illegal, he might be able to get away with it. But make sure you know for sure it's legal or not. Ignorance is not a defense.

Iowa also has a requirement for damage disclosure (much higher, 50%):

http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ovs/selling.htm

"Damage must be disclosed if it exceeds 50 percent of the fair market value of the motor vehicle before it became damaged. The amount of damage shall be based on estimates of the RETAIL cost of repairing the vehicle, including labor, parts and other materials if the vehicle has not been repaired; or on the ACTUAL RETAIL cost to repair, including labor, parts and other materials if the vehicle has been repaired. All repair charges, including sales tax, must be included."

I am not an expert. All these disclosure requirements might not apply to trade-ins...just make sure. Yes, I am a "wuss" in this regards....I rather not deal with potential headaches to save a few $$$$.

Please don't resort to calling names just because there's a disagreement.

I apologize for calling others "wusses". Name-calling is immature and counterproductive.

I never suggested to the O.P. to lie about his car or misrepresent it. I only suggested that he trade it in on a new car so as to cut his losses due to depreciation caused by the accident that was no fault of his own. When you trade in a car you are usually not asked to verify anything other than that the mileage is accurate. If asked about the car's history, tell the truth. Otherwise, it's caveat emptor and the buyer assumes all risks on an as-is sale.

Each and every one of us makes moral and ethical decisions on a regular basis, and that's a private matter. To the extent that the non-wusses draw the line at the pure issue of legality, i.e., if it's not illegal, go for it, I'm happy to exclude them from my circle of friends and associates. In fact, I consciously choose my social and business acquaintances based upon, among other things, their sense of right and wrong which goes way beyond statutes and case law.