My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: California, USA
Defendant deluded plaintiff by violating the terms stated in the contract for the sale of stated vehicle :
(car listed + vin)
Reasons For Void Contract:
1. This legal binding is void because where it states "all information given on Aug 11, 2014... was stated true." This is false information because a conversation between the plaintiff and defendant on Aug 11, 2014 states:
P - Ok and was the smog done legally?
D- Yes took it to the shop call quality smog here in (city)
P - Do you have the paper?
D - Let me look for it (shows paper)
P - Did you have the swap done at a shop too?
D - Nah I do all that work myself
P - Did you smog it before or after the swap?
D - The swap was done like a year ago right after I got the car
P - So smog was done after right?
D - Yes
P - Is there anything wrong with the car? Aside from ac and radio?
D - Nothing just that
D - It idles right now
D - That's the only thing
This information is false because after having the car inspected by (MECHANIC), I was informed that the Catalytic Converter is missing, and the headers and intake manifold equipped on the vehicle are non-compliant with California emission standards.
2. The smog test completed and signed by (SMOG SHOP) given to the plaintiff by the defendant was dated on (date surpassing one year).
This voids the contract furthermore because the DMV states:
"The seller is required to provide the buyer with a valid smog inspection certification at the time of the sale or transfer. Smog certifications are good for 90 days from the date of issuance.
The inspection is not required on a transfer if a biennial smog certification was submitted to DMV within 90 days prior to the vehicle transfer date (a vehicle inspection report may be required for proof of certification)."
This shows that the defendant is held responsible for providing the plaintiff with a valid smog inspection during the time of sale, which the defendant did not.
Alongside, the last smog inspection dated was (date surpassing one year) according to www.bar.ca.gov using the VIN number: (VIN NUMBER). The license plate number listed on the smog certification, (LICENSE PLATE 1), is not identical to the CERTIFICATION OF TITLE which lists (LICENSE PLATE 2). Upon further investigation, the license plate, (LICENSE PLATE 2), listed on the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE and REGISTRATION CARD have no Vehicle Test History.
2.5. There is also a paradox between the smog certificate and the contract. This is because although the defendant had the car pass smog AFTER swapping engines. The plaintiff was informed during inspection that the car will not pass emissions without, most importantly, a Catalytic Converter, and non-compliant headers and intake manifold.
3. I was given an outdated "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE"
While transferring over the vehicle at the DMV, I was informed that there was a new CERTIFICATE OF TITLE sent out in (recent date) and could not register the vehicle.
So with all this, does fraud trump an "as is" contract? I do realize that I accepted the car "as is" but because he did not keep his end of the contract, the contract is now void right?