SpyderSenseOC

Thought you guys might enjoy this article.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebri...cid=spartanntp

TMc993

Guess he didn't get a PPI.

Suicide Jockey

I've been following this story casually mainly because European Collectibles is in my backyard. Thanks for posting.

Archimedes

The only thing that bugs me about this is Seinfeld's position that because he was duped, the guy he (unknowingly) duped has to seek recourse from the original duper. Interesting if that approach has legal legs. IMO, he should verify if the car actually is a fake and, if so, a) refund the buyer's money and take the car back, and b) sue the folks who sold him the car. I get that he didn't knowingly sell a fake car, but he still has to take ownership of the mistake and make his buyer whole. To just tell the guy to sue the other guy is ****ty IMO. Especially for someone as wealthy as Seinfeld who could probably find $1.5 mil in his couch cushions.

SpyderSenseOC

I tend to agree here. You make right by the person you may have wronged and then you do what you have to do. Especially when you have the means to do so without even so much as a hiccup in your financial condition. Or else instant karma is going to get you and knock you right in the head.

shus2006croc

I am not so sure. I'm a tie collector and I buy a Gucci tie and because it has a Gucci tag I assume it is in fact a Gucci tie. Further, I am known on TV as a celebrity tie collector. The tie is auctioned for twice what I paid for it. Later, after it is sold and regardless of any due diligence assigned and agreed, it is disclosed by the buyer that in fact it was made in China and a fake Gucci tie.

Then the whole notoriety or provenance of it being sold out of my tie collection now becomes suspect.

How does anyone know that the buyer of the tie from me in fact knew there were issues with the tie, or moreover that the seller of the tie to me originally knew or didn't disclose it? This happens with homes all the time.

I think this is Seinfeld's argument. I've been to this dealership, its in my backyard as well. They do fix the cars they sell and if Seinfeld bought it sight unseen as well and took the provenance as fact then they bear some responsibility as well. Yea probably true that he has the money, but the dealer that sold it to him has a reputation as well.

If I take the tie back and refund the money to the buyer, isn't that an admission that I did something wrong no matter how much money I have?

I think it's more about the seller(s) reputations....both of them.

kiznarsh

No, unless you knowingly sold a fake tie.

benben01

We can debate back and worth on the nuances and technicalities of who's responsible for selling the fake knowingly or unknowingly. It would be simply refreshing to see someone (Jerry...) with the means, reputation and influence do right by the buyer and simply take the car back and make the buyer whole.

fast1

If I invested a $1M+ in a vintage car, I certainly would invest another couple thousand to assure that the car was authentic and not rely on the word of the seller.

SpyderSenseOC

We don't know that he didn't. And he probably did. Some fakes pass muster even under the most discerning eye.

Suicide Jockey

Some more detailed info coming out of this article:

https://journal.classiccars.com/2019...orsche/#page-1

Some things to note in the article which may or may not alter how you feel about Jerry's obligation -- moral, legal, or otherwise -- to make the current owner "whole":

1. It appears that it is still unclear whether the car is, in fact, a fake. Jerry has apparently asked the current owner how it knows it's a fake and his inquiry has yet to be answered by the current owner. See #2 below.

Fica Frio claimed the vehicle was “inauthentic” and sued Seinfeld earlier this month to rescind the $1.54 million sale and recover any related costs. However, the company has yet to specify exactly what it found to be wrong with the vehicle.

If I was Jerry, I'd first want hard proof the car is not what it purports to be and until the owner provides that, I'm sitting tight.

2. Jerry's folks apparently did some due diligence before Jerry bought the car and didn't find anything amiss, further calling into question whether the car is, indeed, inauthentic. You would expect Jerry's folks to know a thing or two and if the car passed muster with them, well . . . .

The Fica Frio lawsuit also quoted Seinfeld as saying he “would also love to know how your guys figured it out because I find that to be interesting cause that’s impressive my guys did not, I guess, see anything amiss with the car when I bought it.”

3. The dealer that sold the car to Jerry apparently was up front and put Jerry on notice of unsuccessful efforts made to better establish originality and document the car's history.

Court documents showed the vehicle’s history file contained a note written by the person who likely sold the vehicle to Seinfeld that read, “Unfortunately we do not have a lot of information on the 1958 Porsche 356 A 1500 Carrera GT Speedster VIN 84908. We purchased the car from a broker who would not take me to the cars [sic] original location to meet the family that owned it originally. I tried very hard to find out more but never could.”

Sounds like Jerry went into the purchase with eyes wide open, which would lead one to believe that his folks were extra careful going over the car before giving the green light.

4. The current owner bought the car at auction and apparently didn't do its due diligence until after buying the car, which we all know is a no-no in the auction world where caveat emptor and purchasing "as is" are the rules of the day.

ClassicCars.com editor Andy Reid said that when Fica Frio purchased the Speedster at the Gooding auction, it likely signed an as-is agreement . . . .Reid also noted that it was incumbent on Fica Frio to have had the car examined by Porsche experts before the sale to determine its authenticity, not after it had the Porsche in its possession.

Some may find it tough to feel much sympathy for a knowledgeable buyer experienced in the business of buying and selling rare autos who is crying fowl after an auction purchase that apparently wasn't preceded by an expert's opinion and/or proper due diligence (if such is, indeed, the case). This is not an 88 year old grandma being taken advantage of. These are big boys buying and selling multi-million $$$ cars. They know the risks. One might argue you shouldn't raise your paddle at auction unless you've first done your homework.

SpyderSenseOC

Thank you for the additional info. Well said.

Dallas

I thought I heard that Jerry offered to buy the car back, but the new owner wanted damages. This information was relayed when the story first broke and may have subsequently changed.

Archimedes

Just because it's an auction, doesn't mean the seller can commit fraud. If the car was represented as authentic, and it was not, then the fact that it was an auction and bought 'as-is' doesn't matter. The buyer has a right to rely upon representations made by the seller, and if a fraudulent representation was made, the buyer has recourse. Of course, if it was never represented as authentic, that's another story, but that's not what appears to have happened here.

Suicide Jockey

Intuitively what you say sounds fair and makes sense. A buyer should, and normally would, have the right to reasonably rely on representations made by the seller and have recourse for fraud should those representations prove false and wrongful intent be established. However, when a buyer purchases a car at a Gooding & Company auction that buyer agrees to Gooding & Company's Terms & Conditions (which I'll bet are similar to every other auction house). In those Terms & Conditions the buyer agrees not only that the car is being purchased as-is, but also that the buyer is not relying on any statements or representations about the car made by the auctioneer or the seller. Thus, it is very difficult indeed for a buyer at auction to claim fraud against the seller or the auction house when the buyer has agreed that he/she/it hasn't relied on anything the seller or auction house has said about the car.

A perfect example that is exactly on point is the case from a few years ago where a buyer purchased what he thought was a 1967 Corvette at a Mecum auction. The car came with a certificate of authenticity and was represented to be a rare 1967 model. The car turned out to be a less desirable 1964 Corvette. The buyer sued for fraud. The Federal Court threw out the buyer's fraud and misrepresentation claims because the terms and conditions of the auction, which the buyer agreed to, contained an as-is disclaimer and a statement that the buyer was not relying on anything told to him by the auctioneer or the seller. The court found no fraud could have been committed when the buyer agreed that he was buying the car as-is and was not relying on anything told to him by Mecum or the seller.

In short, I don't think your statement that "[t]he buyer has the right to rely upon representations made by the seller," is true in the auction context where a buyer has no right to rely because he has agreed that he won't rely and hasn't relied.