NEED HELP WITH FOLLOW UP QUESTION BELOW! THANK YOU

Original question :

Shopping for goods on the Internet can pose hidden risks for the unwary shopper. For instance, are the remedies of a buyer limited? Your task is to locate two different vehicles with a sales price under $10,000 that are offered for sale by a dealer, and to then analyze the advertised terms regarding the buyer's remedies. For each vehicle, you must then: (1) identify the web site where it is advertised; (2) the terms regarding remedies; and (3) what risks, if any, that these remedy terms may pose for a buyer.

Answer :

The buyer has a number of options under Article 2 of the UCC.The first vehicle I discovered was on the website of Sterling Heights Dodge. A price of $8,995 was advertised on the website. Since it does not explicitly say "plus tax, title, and license," the average buyer will be misled into believing that this price is the actual total cost of the car. Despite the fine print, a customer can be committed to buying at the advertised price for personal reasons. Salesmen and conversion techniques are very tricky in the automobile industry. This vehicle is not listed as still available, which is misleading and deceptive. If a customer is duped into purchasing a more costly or undesirable car, the buyer has the option to reject the nonconforming item. The second vehicle I found was a 2012 Fiat for just $6,995 on Parkway Chrysler's website. I found a used car specials button before going to the used inventory, and I was led to an online credit app to get prequalified for the specials. Now I'm being told that I need to have credit details as well as a deposit. A customer who does not know a vehicle is available is liable for remedies for non-delivery of conforming products. Not only did Parkway make it difficult for me to get to the inventory list, but none of the marketed vehicles have buyer guides. In certain jurisdictions, ignoring the visibility of buyers' guides in a pre-owned vehicle is illegal. If a dealer fails to inform a customer of an "As-Is-Sale" or such repairs coverable, the buyer may be able to recover damages for car repairs.

Flow up question :

Do you think a buyer would be able to negate the contract under another theory (from earlier chapters) for any defective flaws discovered after the purchase?