GA PLT FLEW SMA AFTER SALE DISPUTE ALLEGING THAT SAID ACFT RADIOS AND AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES WERE OUT OF DATE. RPTR CONCERN OVER EXPOSURE TO FAR VIOLATIONS IN FLYING THE ACFT.

Narrative

I FLEW MY ACFT XXX FROM RHODES ARPT NEAR JACKSON; OH; TO A SMALL ARPT; BELLVIEW; NEAR DAYTON FOR A PRE-PURCHASE INSPECTION TO COMPLETE A SALE TO A MR XYZ OF DETROIT; MI. BBB WAS THE IA/AP WHO WOULD COMPLETE THE PRE-PURCHASE INSPECTION. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE INSPECTION OF THE ACFT XXX; THE BUYER XYZ INFORMED ME THAT ALL AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES AND INSPECTIONS WERE NOT COMPLETE AND THAT THEIR RADIOS WERE NO LONGER LEGAL AND THAT THE XPONDER WAS NOT CURRENT FOR USE. THIS ACFT HAD JUST HAD AN ANNUAL INSPECTION COMPLETED BY AAA OF JACKSON; OH; AND IT WAS THE SECOND ANNUAL COMPLETED BY HIM SINCE AUG/98. THE JAN/99 ANNUAL WAS DONE ONLY TO SATISFY THE BUYER. SINCE THE BUYER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ACFT; I FLEW IT TO ITS BASE AT VINTON COUNTY ARPT; OH; AND ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY SHORTCOMINGS OF THE ANNUAL INSPECTION OR THE RESTRS OF THE USE OF THE ACFT RADIOS; I MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY COMPROMISED SOME OF THE FARS. IN SPEAKING TO MR XYZ SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THIS EVENT; HE THREATENED TO 'CALL THE FAA' IF I DIDN'T RETURN HIS DEPOSIT TO HIM. I INFORMED HIM THAT OUR CONTRACT HAD BEEN BREACHED BY HIM ALONE AND THAT I CONSIDERED HIS ACTIONS TO BE THREATENING AND THE FAA WAS NOT THE CORRECT VEHICLE TO SOLVE OUR DIFFERENCES. THE MECH; AAA; IS PRESENTLY OUT OF STATE; SO I WAS UNABLE TO REACH HIM CONCERNING THE DISCREPANCIES. THEREFORE; I DON'T KNOW IF ANY REGS WERE COMPROMISED BUT THE ACFT WAS FLOWN WITHOUT THE USE OF THE RADIOS OR THE USE OF THE XPONDER. IT SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT THE BUYER ARRANGED FOR AND PAID FOR THE PRE-PURCHASE INSPECTION AND THAT ALL INFO ABOUT ANY DISCREPANCIES WAS GIVEN VERBALLY WITH NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION EVER BEING GIVEN TO ME. I WOULD WELCOME DISCUSSING THIS MATTER OVER THE TELEPHONE TO PROVIDE CLARITY TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.