ld also defend his action by noting that he took the car to a mechanic to have it checked out, something he was not required to do, and that if he had not done so, he would not even be deducting $300 from the price of the car, although the car's condition would not be any different from what it is now. Also, there is some burden on the consumer to have it checked out by his or her own mechanic in order to ensure that the buyer understands the condition of the car when it is purchased.
Despite these arguments, Ron must be held accountable for his failure to disclose what he knows about the vehicle. From a strictly financial standpoint, he is making choices that are only the consumer's to make. It is up to each individual consumer whether the $300 discount is sufficient to cover the expected repairs, particularly since part of Ron's rationalization is that the car will then be worth more than the buyer put into it. But this argument only is valid if the buyer intends to sell the vehicle. If the buyer is purchasing the vehicle for transportation (much as Ron used the vehicle), then an unexpected breakdown and out-of-pocket cost of $600 might well dissuade him or her from purchasing the vehicle. Certainly such knowledge could be expected to change the pool of buyers interested in the vehicle.
In addition, there is an additional responsibility which falls to Ron which is not f
...