I agree with the majority view here - price is immaterial. The seller made a representation that the unit worked for him. It worked for you when it arrived as well as for a couple of weeks afterward. In the absence of an express warranty agreed to between buyer and seller, the seller has fulfilled his obligations and has no further obligation unless the jurisdiction(s) involved have statute law that imposes a greater duty on a seller.
If the seller had concealed a known (to him) condition that the unit worked sporadically it would be very different, but that would be hard to prove.
All audio gear is subject to failure sooner or later. Too bad for you that it was sooner, but as long as the item was represented to you correctly, I don't think you'd have any expectation of redress.
OTOH, if I was on the seller's end of such a deal and the gear went wrong, I would certainly cooperate with the buyer in making a warranty claim as the original owner if that was required (in your case it is not).
And I hold these opinions not as a hobbyist/layman, but as another lawyer, though in a different jurisdiction than yours.
If the seller had concealed a known (to him) condition that the unit worked sporadically it would be very different, but that would be hard to prove.
All audio gear is subject to failure sooner or later. Too bad for you that it was sooner, but as long as the item was represented to you correctly, I don't think you'd have any expectation of redress.
OTOH, if I was on the seller's end of such a deal and the gear went wrong, I would certainly cooperate with the buyer in making a warranty claim as the original owner if that was required (in your case it is not).
And I hold these opinions not as a hobbyist/layman, but as another lawyer, though in a different jurisdiction than yours.