I agree, read what I wrote, he saw damage and reported it, but used the wrong nomenclature, which implied a very different thing.

 

Roger was always a good mechanic and honest guy with me but I have not taken a car to him for a few years so things may have changed. Or he had his son do the PPI

 

Whine-able, but not winnable.

I wouldn't buy it with crushed rails either in that price range.

That's exactly what the PPI is for on multi-thousand dollar car.

 

Someday I am going to do Sterling's fix for the seat rail dents. I have some REAL bad ones from an off-road excursion. I tried to find Sterling's description of the method to fix this, but my search attempts failed to locate it.

 

So, using "bent", and "frame" together incorrectly in a car description only rises to the level of 'wrong nomenclature'?

 

The purpose of a PPI is to get a third party, independent evaluation, exactly what everyone on here preaches. In your case, the potential buyer paid a mechanic to provide a professional opinion on the condition of the car, which he got. The fact that this is not a concours level car makes no difference. The mechanic reported what he saw, and the buyer should be expected to read and act on the report using his own judgement. As far as I can tell, he didn't comment on your integrity or your credibility, but stuck to the condition of the car. It worked just the way it should, it just didn't turn out the the way you like.

 

I just had a reporter call me a liar in print, for a local advisory committee that I am chair of. Revised my outlook of lawyers completely

P.S. The only straight rails I've seen lately are on our '88 S4. Bought new, serviced by the dealer and a knowledgeable independent (well, knowledgeable out lifting 928's at least), and now me. It's hopeless, they are just too tempting...

 

Um, no. The mechanic's poor documentation of the problem made a mountain of a mole hill. This is like saying a car is a non-runner because it is turned off.

 

Just like using seat rails to describe the box section of the unibody is.

it is laughable that he thinks he could win that in court.

If he was on the other end of this and paid for a PPI and the mechanic had not reported it what would his out look be?

Sorry, when he threatened to sue, any respect I had for him went out the window.

 

I see, you equate misnaming those box sections, with your 'wrong nomenclature' defense of "bent frame". oooooookkkkkkkkkkaaayyyy!

 

Greg, I don't believe he was threatening to sue. Mike is an attorney, and I believe what he was saying is that, had he taken a deposit, he would have a case. Not that he would sue, but that he could.

 

And lose.

 

It needs to be reported, the issue is what to call those things. "Seat rails" are what the seats attach to, so that won't do. And there is no "frame", as such. As far as I can figure, those box-section thingies are there to stiffen the floor-pan against deflection and vibration-- I don't think they add anything to the stiffness of the car as a whole (which is what a "frame" does).

How about "longitudinal sacrificial jacking members"? LSJM's for short... SLJM's??

Edit: Maybe "Floor Pan Stiffeners"?? FPS's for short? Or maybe "Stiffies"??

 

You can sue pretty much anybody for anything, why even bring it up.

There is a very solid reason that many in my line of work WILL NOT do work for lawyers, I am not in that crowd, but many wont.

 

It's likely, but I do get the impression that Mike is pretty good lawyer.