[Michael Zeleny]

As I stated at the outset, when I asked David Carroll to make good on his description of the revolver as 100% mechanically sound, he informed me that according to his lawyer he had no duty to disclose the damage at issue. So in my hypotheticals, assume that you have sold the Luger with the knowledge that it had an unnumbered firing pin, relying on your interpretation of the semantics of "all matching". Likewise, assume that you have sold the shotgun with the knowledge that it has had a bulge removed from its barrel, relying on your interpretation of the semantics of "100% mechanically sound". What would you tell the buyer that confronted you with a more exacting interpretation of these terms?

I agree that there has to be a point where the sale is done. That is why the law stipulates a three year statute of limitations on fraud. I don't think that liability for deliberate material misrepresentations is mitigated, let alone extinguished, under the "three day rule".