AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION: November 21, 2012 
CBCA 2870-R 
AMIN FARNAM, 
Appellant, 
v.
 
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
Respondent. 
Amin Chaim Farnam, pro se, Roslyn Heights, NY. 
Ashley M. Bender, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges POLLACK, GOODMAN, and ZISCHKAU. 
GOODMAN, Board Judge. 
Appellant, Amin Farnam, has filed a motion for reconsideration of our decision dated 
October 5, 2012, which granted summary relief to respondent. See Amin Farnam v. 
Department of the Treasury, CBCA2870, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,159. We grant appellant’s motion 
for reconsideration and affirm our prior decision. 
Background 
Appellant states in his motion for reconsideration that the auction documentation 
listed several defects that actually were not on the vehicle he purchased, and he believes that 

 
               
             
              
                
             
            
               
               
              
              
              
            
          
            
              
              
            
  
               
              
              
         
               
                 
                 
              
             
      
            
                
               
             
2 CBCA 2870-R 
the person listing the defects may have been looking at another vehicle.1 He states further 
that the auction documentation did state that the “check engine” light was illuminated, and 
he thought this meant the engine was in running condition. However, when he took 
possession of the vehicle he found that the engine did not start, and he therefore spent $2500 
to get the vehicle running and correct defects not noted in the auction documentation. 
Appellant states that the Board in its decision misunderstood the reason why he 
incurred costs for repairs, as the Board found that he incurred costs to repair the conditions 
indicated by the illuminated “check engine” light. He has clarified that the costs he incurred 
were to repair conditions that were not noted in the auction documentation, i.e., that the 
engine would not start. Appellant states that “[i]n my case miss description [sic] is 
determined after removal of the car from the storage lot, the Government will refund any 
money paid toward the cost or repair create[d] by the miss description [sic].”
2 
Discussion 
In our decision granting summary relief to respondent, the Board incorrectly 
concluded that appellant incurred the costs for repairing the problems indicated by the 
illumination of the “check engine” light. Rather, as appellant asserts, the repairs were for 
conditions not noted in the auction documentation. As we misinterpreted an issue of fact, 
we grant the motion for reconsideration. However, upon reconsideration, the Board affirms 
its prior decision. 
As we stated in our decision, the vehicle was sold “as is” and was not misdescribed. 
The only warranty contained in the general sales terms and conditions was that the vehicle 
would be properly described. The fact that the vehicle was accurately described by year, 
make, model, and VIN number satisfies the warranty of description. 
In appellant’s case, the terms of the auction urged bidders to inspect the items for sale 
prior to bid. The fact that the engine would not start would have been apparent to appellant 
had he inspected the vehicle prior to bid. He is not entitled to reimbursement for the repairs 
1 Appellant has submitted as Exhibit G to his motion for reconsideration a document 
which he alleges shows the auctioneer misdescribing other vehicles. This informaiton is not 
relevant to the resolution of this appeal. 
2 Appellant cites Carl Lukitsch v.General Services Administration,CBCA1013,08-2 
BCA ¶ 33,894. That decision is not favorable to appellant. The Board denied the claim, 
noting that the appellant was on notice that there were no guarantees as to the vehicle’s 
condition and repairs for defects not noted in the auction documentation may be required. 

 
               
     
__________________________________ 
  
 
 
    
  
3 CBCA 2870-R 
he made, even though the fact that the engine would not start was omitted from the 
description. 
Decision 
Our decision is AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION. 
ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
__________________________________ ___________________________ 
HOWARD A. POLLACK JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU 
Board Judge Board Judge