Does Fraud Trump an "As Is" a Contract

[xPannda]

My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: California, USA

Contract Breach;

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?

[adjusterjack]

No, the contract is not "void" until a court of law says so.

Until then it's "voidable."

But, yes, it could be voidable due to fraud.

All you can do is file your lawsuit and present your evidence.

[xPannda]

I hope all goes well then, thank you for your speedy reply, adjusterjack.

[Disagreeable]

CA has a law requiring the seller to present a valid recent smog cert, pay for the car to be corrected to pass smog or you can work a deal where they take the car back. He can play all the games he wants but unless it was a salvage title he will be paying. Contact the States Atty General if this is a car dealer before fighting it out in court. The prospect of a license suspension will likely be compelling.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/smogfaq.htm

[xPannda]

Disagreeable: This was a private seller from Craigslist. I have taken matters to the court. I do hope that justice gets served here (not because I am the one suing) but because no one should have to go through this.

Another question I have is, I feel that the one who has been sending me information was the wife. I only thought of this while filling the small claims form, so I decided to put both husband and wife as defendants. She did not sign the "voidable" contract. Can this problem effect the upcoming trial?

[Disagreeable]

We are back to small claims court and this:

When a vehicle is more than four model years old, a seller must provide evidence of a current smog certification except when one of the following occurs:

The transfer occurs between a spouse, domestic partner, sibling, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild.
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).

[xPannda]

An update to the case...

Is it possible to raise the amount I'm suing the defendant for? I have already submitted the claim to the courthouse.

The reason why I want to sue them for more is because they are literally trying to f*ck me over. Pardon my French. How? I stated above that they did not give me a title recent. When filling out their end of the bill of sale, they rolled back the date of the Bill Of Sale to 04/14/2014 to prevent themselves from getting in trouble with the law.

By putting the date back to 04/14/2014, the car now passes the law of having a recent smog check within 90 days of the sale. I found out by checking out the CARFAX again. This is giving me so much more stress that I need....

[Disagreeable]

Accepting a title with an incorrect date can cause you to loose if you cannot prove it and they deny it.

[xPannda]

The only way I can break their argument is from the registration card they have given me. It was issued 04/15/2014 and is registered to the same owner.

But really, is it possible to raise the amount?

[Disagreeable]

The "amount" is how much you paid for the vehicle. Your chances of success I could not guess at. I suspect you will find a sympathetic judge in small claims.