Semi-OT: Car sale conflict; opinions anyone?
10-25-2004, 05:15 PM
#47
Hey Man
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by AlexE
I would call him and tell him... sorry for everything but you have two options.
1. keep it or
2. keep it.
1. keep it or
2. keep it.
10-25-2004, 05:34 PM
#49
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lego,
Exactly!
Everyone here is drawing conclusions. How hard is it to be verified.
I bet he would get something in court if he comes in with any piece of paper from any person with a self proclaimed title that says it was repainted.
The cost of that piece of paper would be under $50 from any local bodyshop. He wold probably get one on his way to his lawyer. The guy may have a legitimate claim. Don't dismiss it because Mark relayed what a senile old man told him. Mark is honest, the old man is honest, the buyer is honest, but that little senile thingy clouds everything.
The reason mighty Texaco lost to puny Pennzoil in what was the largest jury verdict was because the demand was so crazy high Texaco didnt bother to dispute it. When the jury had to make a decision there was nothing to say Pennzoils figures had no merit. So when the decided Texaco was wrong and had to figure damages they just took Pennzoils number!
If the purchaser says the car is worth 10k less because it is repainted, guess what the judge will give him.
Oh, by the way, I purchased a car from a board member after looking at a few pictures. took his word the paint was original. deal fell through because he got a local buyer, but I still bought it sight unseen.
Exactly!
Everyone here is drawing conclusions. How hard is it to be verified.
I bet he would get something in court if he comes in with any piece of paper from any person with a self proclaimed title that says it was repainted.
The cost of that piece of paper would be under $50 from any local bodyshop. He wold probably get one on his way to his lawyer. The guy may have a legitimate claim. Don't dismiss it because Mark relayed what a senile old man told him. Mark is honest, the old man is honest, the buyer is honest, but that little senile thingy clouds everything.
The reason mighty Texaco lost to puny Pennzoil in what was the largest jury verdict was because the demand was so crazy high Texaco didnt bother to dispute it. When the jury had to make a decision there was nothing to say Pennzoils figures had no merit. So when the decided Texaco was wrong and had to figure damages they just took Pennzoils number!
If the purchaser says the car is worth 10k less because it is repainted, guess what the judge will give him.
Oh, by the way, I purchased a car from a board member after looking at a few pictures. took his word the paint was original. deal fell through because he got a local buyer, but I still bought it sight unseen.
10-25-2004, 05:45 PM
#50
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I am pleased to say that the situation is happily resolved!
The seller spoke to the buyer over the telephone, they all talked reason, and all is done!
Regardless of the originality of the paint, they buyer got a pretty good deal on a beautiful 356.
Perhaps the buyer read Rennlist!!!
Thanks to all,
Mark
The seller spoke to the buyer over the telephone, they all talked reason, and all is done!
Regardless of the originality of the paint, they buyer got a pretty good deal on a beautiful 356.
Perhaps the buyer read Rennlist!!!
Thanks to all,
Mark
10-25-2004, 06:00 PM
#51
Race Car
congrats on the resolution
10-26-2004, 01:45 AM
#54
Race Director
Originally Posted by Tom R.
Questions guys:
What if the car was in fact repainted, and what if the repaint reduced the value by closer to 10k?
Why is everyone deciding what is "right" or "wrong" without full knowledge of the facts?
Isn't this how countries go to war? C'mon, save judgment until the facts are at least gathered. Maybe the purchaser is right and the car was repainted.
What if the car was in fact repainted, and what if the repaint reduced the value by closer to 10k?
Why is everyone deciding what is "right" or "wrong" without full knowledge of the facts?
Isn't this how countries go to war? C'mon, save judgment until the facts are at least gathered. Maybe the purchaser is right and the car was repainted.
Fact: The buyer knew the the person he was talking with was absolutely NOT the seller.
Fact: The person he was talking to disclosed that the actual seller was of diminished faculties when the sellers recollections were passed on to him.
Fact: The buyer bought the car anyway, sight unseen.
To my way of looking at this, the buyer had enough disclosure to understand his risk. He made a conscious decision to buy it anyway despite the risk. He accepted this risk in making the deal. DONE DEAL.
Now, for a little background, I'm NOT one that just takes the attitude "screw him if he doesn't get a PPI." In this case, important issues were disclosed and he still elected to take a risk. As risk I believe he was fully aware of.
10-26-2004, 01:54 AM
#55
Race Director
Heh. My last reply was started before a 7:00 conference call and was finished at 11:30. I didn't see that this was resolved in the meantime.
But, for educational purposes, if the buyer sued and presented some claim by Joe Schmo that the car was worth $10k less, wouldn't an attorney with more than two synapses firing request that a decision not be rendered until an independent appraisal be done first? I realize that you can't count on a judge to exercise good sense (no offense Tom, some just don't), but wouldn't that be a reasonable request before the court? I mean, we're not talking small claims court here. Or are we?
But, for educational purposes, if the buyer sued and presented some claim by Joe Schmo that the car was worth $10k less, wouldn't an attorney with more than two synapses firing request that a decision not be rendered until an independent appraisal be done first? I realize that you can't count on a judge to exercise good sense (no offense Tom, some just don't), but wouldn't that be a reasonable request before the court? I mean, we're not talking small claims court here. Or are we?
10-26-2004, 09:56 AM
#56
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
George,
We see eye to eye on this so I'm not throwing gas on the flame here.
The point I was trying to make is every "fact" stated here has to be proven.
All the purchaser had to do was hire someone to write the paint was not original and tell a judge the person that sold him the car said the paint was original...
A lot of people said screw the purchaser, let him sue. By the time an appraiser is found and hired to look at a car locked in a garage across the continent $400, a lawyer from across the continent is found and paid a retainer $3000 with an hourly of $200 before you know it the $5,000 requested is spent and even if you win you loose.
And while everyone says the purchaser screwed up, a judge may say the purchaser had a right to rely on the assurance the seller made and merely transmitted by Mark.
At the same time, what if the 356 market tanks like the F40 market did a few years back.
We see eye to eye on this so I'm not throwing gas on the flame here.
The point I was trying to make is every "fact" stated here has to be proven.
All the purchaser had to do was hire someone to write the paint was not original and tell a judge the person that sold him the car said the paint was original...
A lot of people said screw the purchaser, let him sue. By the time an appraiser is found and hired to look at a car locked in a garage across the continent $400, a lawyer from across the continent is found and paid a retainer $3000 with an hourly of $200 before you know it the $5,000 requested is spent and even if you win you loose.
And while everyone says the purchaser screwed up, a judge may say the purchaser had a right to rely on the assurance the seller made and merely transmitted by Mark.
At the same time, what if the 356 market tanks like the F40 market did a few years back.
10-28-2004, 06:41 PM
#57
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to hear there was resolution. I'd bet the seller either found out they got a pretty good deal or decided they did not really have an argument...
Excluding real estate, the law is pretty clear regarding these kinds of disputes. In the case where there is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact or where a seller should have known the validity of a material fact and the buyer relies on that misrepresentation or ommission to make a purchase and if there is a demonstrable difference in the value of the purchase as a direct result of the misrepresentation (damages), the liability lies with the seller and/or selling agent.
However, if the seller or the seller's agent is representing the "facts" as best they can and assuming there is no negligence on the part of the seller or their agent (it was so obvious or material to the sale, they should have checked it out or not made the representation...), then any risk of loss falls to the seller.
Disclosure of material fact excludes "puffery", aka "opinions" a seller might express regarding the value/condition of merchasdise for sale. "I think you'd look great in this car" or "This is the best Porsche I've ever owned" are examples of puffery.
Also, if the seller is aware of a fact that a reasonable person might believe would impact the buyer's decision (odometer did not work for some period of time) and you do not disclose that fact, and that fact is discovered later on by the buyer, the buyer typically would have recourse against the seller for nondisclosure. Often, people believe if the buyer doesn't ask, you don't have to tell, but that puts the seller at risk. It is much better to disclose and have the purchaser buy anyway. If you've disclosed, they can't come back to you later.
YMMV
And I'm not a lawyer but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night !!!
Excluding real estate, the law is pretty clear regarding these kinds of disputes. In the case where there is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact or where a seller should have known the validity of a material fact and the buyer relies on that misrepresentation or ommission to make a purchase and if there is a demonstrable difference in the value of the purchase as a direct result of the misrepresentation (damages), the liability lies with the seller and/or selling agent.
However, if the seller or the seller's agent is representing the "facts" as best they can and assuming there is no negligence on the part of the seller or their agent (it was so obvious or material to the sale, they should have checked it out or not made the representation...), then any risk of loss falls to the seller.
Disclosure of material fact excludes "puffery", aka "opinions" a seller might express regarding the value/condition of merchasdise for sale. "I think you'd look great in this car" or "This is the best Porsche I've ever owned" are examples of puffery.
Also, if the seller is aware of a fact that a reasonable person might believe would impact the buyer's decision (odometer did not work for some period of time) and you do not disclose that fact, and that fact is discovered later on by the buyer, the buyer typically would have recourse against the seller for nondisclosure. Often, people believe if the buyer doesn't ask, you don't have to tell, but that puts the seller at risk. It is much better to disclose and have the purchaser buy anyway. If you've disclosed, they can't come back to you later.
YMMV
And I'm not a lawyer but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night !!!
10-28-2004, 07:06 PM
#58
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by UDPride
This may be harsh, but anyone stupid enough to buy a 356 sight unseen with the specific intent to show it at concours in a preservation class deserves everything coming his way if the car is not to his liking.
Oops, didn't see that you'd resolved it. Anyway, I still think UDPride hit the nail on the head.
11-10-2004, 08:35 PM
#59
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Well, it looks like the situation is not resolved. Good God, what a pain in the rear.
Here's a message I received from the purchaser, John Audette (lives in Oregon), on Monday:
Hi Mark.....
You seem like a nice person, and Cathy seems like a nice person, but I'm really deeply underwater on this car. Please follow this reasoning:
(1) I can't use the car for the purpose that I purchased it for. The respray makes it ineligible for showing in Preservation Class. I took part of the responsibility for not inspecting it prior to purchase, but I trusted you and Cathy and paid a premium for something that did not exist.
(2) Since I can't use the car for the purpose I bought it for, I would like to sell it.
(3) Further negatively impacting its value is a total lack of documentation to support the claim that it has 60,4xx miles. It's entirely possible that the odometer has turned over beyond 99,999 miles. I don't doubt Cathy's statement that those are true miles, but without documentation there is no proof.
(4) Putting that all together the car is worth about $6,000 to $8,000 less than I paid for it.
Does that seem fair?
Could you PLEASE impress on Cathy that I need the documentation? She was very non-committal about it when I spoke with her on the phone.
I've dealt with a lot of different people in the buying and selling of cars, and I have never been damaged this badly.
Sincerely,
John Audette
HERE IS MY REPLY:
John,
I am, of course, sorry that you are disappointed with the car. I did believe that the car had the original paint. In looking at the car, I saw no evidence of overspray anywhere or any other clues that the paint was not original. Cathy had no knowledge of a respray. I think I was clear in telling you that my experience with the car was limited, and that you would have to refer your important questions to Cathy. I believe Cathy also made it clear to you that, given Ted's condition, she could not make claims on the car that were 100% certain.
Having purchased two used Porsches myself, I am quite surprised that you made no effort to have a third party inspect the car prior to purchase. Cathy told me that she suggested this to you, and you still refused. You seemed to be in quite a hurry to make the purchase. However, I cannot imagine spending nearly $30K on a 40-year-old car without a pre-purchase inspection.
Within 48 hours of advertising the car on the Internet, we had a dozen serious inquiries for purchase. At least three of those people were ready to drive to Maryland within a week or two to see the car. I have no doubt that $29,000 was a fair price for the car, even if it is not a top contender for preservation class. If you do not wish to keep the car, could you not sell the car yourself and get back the money you paid for it? From what I have seen on the Internet, $21 or $23K will not buy a car anywhere near as nice as the one you purchased from the Bitters.
Again, I truly am sorry that you are not happy with the purchase. Cathy and Ted just wanted to find a good home for their car. I truly believe they could have sold the car for significantly more than $29K had they let other interested parties bid on the car. I did not accept any commission for the sale of the car. I was just trying to help Cathy and Ted as fellow Porsche owners. I really find it hard to believe that you have been "damaged" by purchasing the Bitters' car. I've been to Hershey and various other PCA events, and I have seen few 356's in better condition than the one you just bought. If you have been damaged to some degree, then you really need to take responsibility for not putting forth a minimal effort to have the condition of the car verified before purchase. Were you concerned that if you didn't close the deal quickly that someone would have put in a higher bid?
Anyway, given how this has become a complicated situation, I think that you need to keep contacting the Bitters directly. Feel free to keep in touch with me if you wish. However, going through me just raises the risk of more confusion and more complications. I think that since the Bitters had the car in Maryland (perhaps since the late 80's) it was serviced by Ralph's Auto Service in Reisterstown, MD (410-526-2500). Perhaps you can call Ralph and get some documentation on the mileage.
Sincerely,
Mark
HIS REPLY TO MY REPLY:
Mark....
Thanks for the prompt reply. I suppose I will have to consider legal action.
Sincerely,
John Audette
Here's a message I received from the purchaser, John Audette (lives in Oregon), on Monday:
Hi Mark.....
You seem like a nice person, and Cathy seems like a nice person, but I'm really deeply underwater on this car. Please follow this reasoning:
(1) I can't use the car for the purpose that I purchased it for. The respray makes it ineligible for showing in Preservation Class. I took part of the responsibility for not inspecting it prior to purchase, but I trusted you and Cathy and paid a premium for something that did not exist.
(2) Since I can't use the car for the purpose I bought it for, I would like to sell it.
(3) Further negatively impacting its value is a total lack of documentation to support the claim that it has 60,4xx miles. It's entirely possible that the odometer has turned over beyond 99,999 miles. I don't doubt Cathy's statement that those are true miles, but without documentation there is no proof.
(4) Putting that all together the car is worth about $6,000 to $8,000 less than I paid for it.
Does that seem fair?
Could you PLEASE impress on Cathy that I need the documentation? She was very non-committal about it when I spoke with her on the phone.
I've dealt with a lot of different people in the buying and selling of cars, and I have never been damaged this badly.
Sincerely,
John Audette
HERE IS MY REPLY:
John,
I am, of course, sorry that you are disappointed with the car. I did believe that the car had the original paint. In looking at the car, I saw no evidence of overspray anywhere or any other clues that the paint was not original. Cathy had no knowledge of a respray. I think I was clear in telling you that my experience with the car was limited, and that you would have to refer your important questions to Cathy. I believe Cathy also made it clear to you that, given Ted's condition, she could not make claims on the car that were 100% certain.
Having purchased two used Porsches myself, I am quite surprised that you made no effort to have a third party inspect the car prior to purchase. Cathy told me that she suggested this to you, and you still refused. You seemed to be in quite a hurry to make the purchase. However, I cannot imagine spending nearly $30K on a 40-year-old car without a pre-purchase inspection.
Within 48 hours of advertising the car on the Internet, we had a dozen serious inquiries for purchase. At least three of those people were ready to drive to Maryland within a week or two to see the car. I have no doubt that $29,000 was a fair price for the car, even if it is not a top contender for preservation class. If you do not wish to keep the car, could you not sell the car yourself and get back the money you paid for it? From what I have seen on the Internet, $21 or $23K will not buy a car anywhere near as nice as the one you purchased from the Bitters.
Again, I truly am sorry that you are not happy with the purchase. Cathy and Ted just wanted to find a good home for their car. I truly believe they could have sold the car for significantly more than $29K had they let other interested parties bid on the car. I did not accept any commission for the sale of the car. I was just trying to help Cathy and Ted as fellow Porsche owners. I really find it hard to believe that you have been "damaged" by purchasing the Bitters' car. I've been to Hershey and various other PCA events, and I have seen few 356's in better condition than the one you just bought. If you have been damaged to some degree, then you really need to take responsibility for not putting forth a minimal effort to have the condition of the car verified before purchase. Were you concerned that if you didn't close the deal quickly that someone would have put in a higher bid?
Anyway, given how this has become a complicated situation, I think that you need to keep contacting the Bitters directly. Feel free to keep in touch with me if you wish. However, going through me just raises the risk of more confusion and more complications. I think that since the Bitters had the car in Maryland (perhaps since the late 80's) it was serviced by Ralph's Auto Service in Reisterstown, MD (410-526-2500). Perhaps you can call Ralph and get some documentation on the mileage.
Sincerely,
Mark
HIS REPLY TO MY REPLY:
Mark....
Thanks for the prompt reply. I suppose I will have to consider legal action.
Sincerely,
John Audette
11-10-2004, 08:47 PM
#60
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
well - he threw down the gauntlet, now its time to beat him up with it.
i'm not a lawyer, but since he brought it up i'd now CEASE communicating with him unless its through registered letters or his and/or the sellers attorneys.
i think he's just blowing smoke - he didn't want to spend the minimal amount of time and money to have a PPI, do you think he's REALLY going to spend the time and money to attempt legal action??? not to mention the fact that any actions would probably have to take place in YOUR neck of the woods - not his. not to mention - he doesn't have a leg to stand on. print/copy all correspondence between the two of you - and save it on your computer as well - just in case.
what a piece of crap. you wrote a great letter - very tactful, yet kind, and this ***** decides to threaten legal action??? let him try. he'll just end up paying court costs.....jerk.
his response does NOT deserve a response from you.
i'm not a lawyer, but since he brought it up i'd now CEASE communicating with him unless its through registered letters or his and/or the sellers attorneys.
i think he's just blowing smoke - he didn't want to spend the minimal amount of time and money to have a PPI, do you think he's REALLY going to spend the time and money to attempt legal action??? not to mention the fact that any actions would probably have to take place in YOUR neck of the woods - not his. not to mention - he doesn't have a leg to stand on. print/copy all correspondence between the two of you - and save it on your computer as well - just in case.
what a piece of crap. you wrote a great letter - very tactful, yet kind, and this ***** decides to threaten legal action??? let him try. he'll just end up paying court costs.....jerk.
his response does NOT deserve a response from you.