ny _______________________________________________ DENIED: JUNE 17, 1994 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 12655 THOMAS JACKSON, III, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Thomas Jackson, III, of Aiken, SC, appearing pro se for Appellant. A. R. Dattolo, Assistant Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and HYATT. BORWICK, Board Judge. Background In July of 1993, Mr. Jackson, appellant, purchased a car--a 1988 Chevrolet Citation--from respondent, General Services Administration (GSA). Regrettably, Mr. Jackson did not inspect the car before he submitted his bid. Having purchased the car, when he started it, the engine smoked. Mr. Jackson tried to leave the car at the lot, but the sales contracting officer insisted he take the car. After Mr. Jackson had driven the car about a mile, the engine seized. Mr. Jackson, ascribing the trouble to a broken oil pump, sought from GSA either a refund of the purchase price or the cost of repairs. The contracting officer denied Mr. Jackson's claim, and this appeal followed. We deny the appeal, as Mr. Jackson is not entitled to relief. GSA did not guarantee the condition of the car, and it was Mr. Jackson's responsibility to inspect the car before bidding. Findings of Fact 1. On July 11, GSA placed an advertisement in the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle for a public auction of miscellaneous items from the Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations, including cars and trucks. Appeal File, Exhibits 1 and 2.1 The advertisement informed vendors that the inspection date and time was July 16, 1993, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and that the sale date and time was July 17 at 8:00 a.m. 2. The notice of sale provided (in capital letters) that "CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT GUARANTEED. YOU ARE CAUTIONED TO INSPECT AND ASSURE YOURSELF OF CONDITION PRIOR TO BIDDING." It repeated in the middle (again in capital letters): "CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED." At the bottom, for a third time, below the description warranty, vendors were warned (again in capital letters): "DEFICIENCIES, WHEN KNOWN, HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN THE ITEM DESCRIPTION. HOWEVER, ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATED DEFICIENCIES DOES NOT MEAN THE ITEM IS WITHOUT DEFICIENCIES. BIDDERS ARE CAUTIONED TO INSPECT BEFORE BIDDING." Appeal File, Exhibit 3. 3. The sale list for the auction included items 348, 350 and 351, three 1988 Chevrolet Citations. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. At the beginning of the auction, the auctioneer noticed that item 349, another Chevrolet Citation, was not on the list, but announced that that item was also for sale, grouped with items 350 and 351. Id., Exhibit 7. 4. On July 17, at 10:45 a.m., Mr. Jackson arrived at the auction, and requested permission to inspect the cars. Appeal File, Exhibit 8. He asked to be allowed to start the cars and was refused, as the inspection period had passed. Id., Exhibit 7. In fact, the keys had been removed from the cars. Id. 5. Nevertheless, Mr. Jackson submitted a high bid of $400 for item 349, the Chevrolet Citation with a four cylinder engine. Appeal File, Exhibit 5. On July 19, Mr. Jackson came to the sales lot to pick up the car. Id., Exhibit 6. He started it, and found that the engine was smoking. Id. Mr. Jackson tried to leave the car at the sales lot, but the sales agent threatened Mr. Jackson with default. Id. Mr. Jackson took the car, and drove it for about a mile, when the engine seized. He alleges that the oil pump had failed. Id. Mr. Jackson immediately wrote the sales contracting officer and requested a refund of his purchase price. Id., Exhibit 6. 6. The contracting officer denied Mr. Jackson's request stating: The problem with the engine is a problem of condition. The condition of the vehicle is not guaranteed. When ____________________ 1 Mr. Jackson suggests that the advertisement was placed in the paper on July 17, the date of the auction. Appeal File, Exhibit 8. We find this not to be the case; the Augusta Chronicle's billing invoice shows that the advertisement was placed a week before--on July 11. we know of problems, we will certainly tell the buyer; however, we do not always know there is a problem. We were not aware of any mechanical problems with the vehicle you purchased. After checking with the Department of Energy, it was determined they did not know of any problems. . . . . In your letter, you requested a refund or for the vehicle to be repaired. Since condition is not guaranteed and there are no provisions in our regulations which allow for repair of this vehicle, your request is denied. Appeal File, Exhibit 7. This appeal followed. Discussion Mr. Jackson says that he purchased the car in good faith "knowing that my Government would do the right thing." Appeal File, Exhibit 8. But this is a commercial transaction, where the notice of sale placed the risk of inspection on prospective buyers, and explicitly warned the buyers that the condition of the property was not warranted. Finding 2. The notice also advised buyers that there might be unknown defects in the cars: "ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATED DEFICIENCIES DOES NOT MEAN THE ITEM IS WITHOUT DEFICIENCIES." Id. The risk is on the buyer in this type of sale. Afaf Salem, GSBCA 10375, 91-1 BCA 23,343, at 117,063. Thus, the sale notice urged buyers to inspect carefully before submitting a bid. Mr. Jackson purchased the car without inspecting it because, even with one week to inspect the cars, he missed the inspection period. Findings 1, 4. The Government did not violate the contract in insisting that Mr. Jackson take the car he had purchased. Mr. Jackson is not entitled to a refund. Mr. Jackson might recover if he could demonstrate that the specific mechanical defect--in this case, the bad oil pump--was known to GSA, but was not described. Afaf Salem. The sales contracting officer maintains she did not know of the defect.2 Finding 6. Mr. Jackson has not demonstrated that the GSA knew of the bad oil pump, and he is not entitled to recover on the basis of a known, but undescribed, defect. ____________________ 2 The sales contracting officer verified that the Department of Energy did not know of the defect either. Decision The appeal is DENIED. ________________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ____________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge