The car's listing had the following line:Isn't the problem with all of this that the car was a very poor example which was obvious from the most cursory examination of it? The seller didn't make the buyer buy it. The fact that it might have had a broken rear spring (the very least of its problems) seems to me to be irrelevant. What is truly wrong with it is obvious even from photos of it. The seller has generic descriptions of the dogs it sells with photos - warts and all. It would be a bizarre legal system that found any great fault with selling the worst examples of cars with photos showing just how bad they are.
I don't mean that I don't feel sorry for someone who buys one but I can't see how it is anyone else's fault. Why would anyone but a 40 year old car of a make they no nothing about without getting someone who does know something about it to have a look. If that had happened here, it would take less than a minute of looking at the car to reach the conclusion that the only sensible thing to do was run away.
"An extremely clean and presentable example and as well as being an excellent original California car which is mechanically sound."
I think it's obvious that calling the car mechanically sound is not true. And again, this is not a case of caveat emptor, the seller does have a responsibility to be truthful, at least in US law. They cannot simply lie. In the end, the final word will be either in a settlement or ruling by a judge and that is the only thing that matters. Everyone may have an opinion but it does not mean it is informed and hence relevant (I am speaking in general). The upside of this is that we will have an actual data point, eventually.
As for whether there is something obviously wrong with the car, it may be obvious to members of this forum but NOT to someone who is new to Alfas. If at the very least this keeps BHCC more honest in future listings, don't you think everyone benefits?