Phil

The new owner is not hung out to dry. He had all the time and resources to check out the car. When it was sold, it was perfect, not a spot of oil or coolant. The new owner should not benefit from my loss. I paid out the $1700 to have it fixed before I even thought of selling it. I should recieve reimbursment not him. He paid for a car that checked out perfect, if it didnt then I would have adjusted the price accordingly. Not my problem the coolant bottle leaked after he bought it.

I love the sentence " HE PAID FOR A CAR THAT CHECKED OUT PERFECT, IF IT DIDN'T THEN I WOULD HAVE ADJUSTED THE PRICE ACCORDINGLY. NOT MY PROBLEM THE COOLANT BOTTLE LEAKED AFTER HE BOUGHT IT" Seems to me your sueing BHP PCA for the same thing! You paid for work....it was done..it worked for a day or two....then was faulty. Tuff luck, right?

Paul Marangoni

I think he is referring to the money paid to repair the rear main seal.

M Danger

I must have missed something, if was denied warranty work?? why should he lose??

Id like to know how this turns out as Id like to take BMW NA to small claims, over a comparably notorious problem

Tool Pants

Tough luck it is. That is why some sellers offer a warranty. That is why Porsche offers a warranty. That is why some independent shops offer a warranty for repair work. It is factored in the cost.

This panerai poster wanted comments about his small claims case against PCNA and BHP. After he paid money out of his pocket to correct the problems when they refused.

All the responses I have seen so far are as if the buyer of the car wanted to go after the seller, paneria.

The buyer has not asked a question.

As far as I can tell the question is whether or not panerai can get hiis money back.

I do not care if he made or lost money on the sale. I do not care if he gave the current owner the correct time of day. I do not care if there were problems with the car after the sale.

You folks need to read his original question.

Phil

Ok
from what I've read:
Watchman claims BHP did not tell PCA of the warrenty problem. All warranty work must be done by a factory authorized dealer. NO way around that. PCA pays the dealer to do the work. PCA knows about EVERY WARRANTY CLAIM.

I'd still like to know why "all warranty work/claims etc would be denied" The dealership cannot just deny warranty coverage. They can choose not to work on a car. If thats the case, why? or better yet...why not take it to another Porsche dealer?

Tool Pants

You need to read the messages again. He had a 1999. First question I asked.

Factory warranty was over at the time of the repairs that he paid for out of his pocket at an independent shop.

If it was my car and I had a warranty then I would have taken it to another dealer since we have a few in Silicon Valley. One dealer says no, and the next dealer says yes. You shop around. Out of warranty and if they do not like the color of your eyes, then you have a problem.

raidentech.com

Hey, please give the new owner the free 60k service. And don't take the 1000 for your GT.

Sanjeevan

L-E-T M-E T-R-Y T-O E-X-P-L-A-I-N T-H-I-S T-O Y-O-U G-U-Y-S, W-H-O A-R-E B-A-R-K-I-N-G A-T P.-W-A-T-C-H

TWO SEPERATE ISSUES HERE,
You guy's are blaming him for not diclosing to the new owner the possibility of the coolant leak in the future.
1) The lawsuit is NOT for the RECURRENT leak, it is for a repair that was done under warranty that failed within a short time that porsche is refusing to repair again PERIOD.(I know the problem was coolant leak, but he is not suing porsche for the recurrent coolant leaks, just for that ONE REPAIR)
2) To make it even easier, we all know that RMS can fail, now porsche doesn't disclose that during their sale, but if I happen to get a car with RMS problems, now am I suppose to tell the future buyer that RMS can keep failing.
3) To make it even easier, imagine a guy trying to sell a Ferrari, the guy has to write a BOOK each time he sells a ferrari of what all can go wrong.
So, this is basically a car that keeps giving problems (coolant leak) to P.watch due to a possible manufacturing defect we all know is there with a porsche 996, he is tired of dealing with it, and he REPAIRED THE CAR TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITIES THROUGH A PORSCHE AUTHORIZED MECHANIC and he has sold it, what the f*&k do guy's not understand.
P.W. Good luck with you lawsuit!

LVDell

wow! jeeva are you on the take for p-watch? I have never seen anybody get so worked up for another person on this board. I think the reason everybody has taken the stance they have is the manner in which p-watch has approached this whole situation with the apparent lack of ethics and disregard for the new owner of his car. Maybe he is in the right, but the facts ARE NOT out there even after several people has asked specific questions to understand his complaint. It would be nice if p-watch was to answer those questions people are asking (why wasn't it repaired, etc?) so they can maybe understand where he is coming from. Who knows, maybe we would all be on his side after that.

I think this thread just needs to die so we can get back to what we do beston this board.....talk about all the mods kirb is doing or what is the maximum tire size I can put on a rim, etc.

ebaker

Since the parts repeatedly failed they should have fixed it. Good luck in court. The transmission in my wife's honda failed under warranty. Since it was a known issue they replaced it and gave an extended 100,000 mi. warranty on the trans. Evidently Honda is more worried about their reputation for reliability than PCNA.

Sanjeevan

Eric - Plug Guy

ROFLMAO!

paneraiwatches

Tool Pants,
Exact wording on the work order is:
In bold face type:"Free repair or replacement of defective parts and accessories for 24 months, or unlimited miles.
1.PcoNA warrants that every new and factory rebuilt Porsche part and accessory, which is imported or distributed by PcoNA and sold as new or factory rebuilt part or accessory to a retail customer, will be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service for 24 months after the date of delivery of the part or accessory to the original retail customer or until the vehicle in which the part or accessory is installed has been driven unlimited miles."
It states nothing about authorized warranty repair to the retail customer. Do you have any idea if there is any warranty?

I think jeeva summed it up nicely.
How can you blame me for the possibility of mechanical failure somewhere in the future? What part of that do you guys not understand?

My lawsuit in not about a RECURRENT leak it's for a repairs done under PORSCHE WARRANTY by an authorized dealer that failed soon after repair.

RMS, and coolant tanks fail in these cars, it's a fact we all know about. One of the guys here is on his 5th.
This thread is not about the new owner it's about the old owner!! I fixed this car to the best of my ability and then sold it.

According to ScottS and LVDell if your car has RMS problems or coolant leaks you should just find someone willing to take a gift of a 996 cabriolet, because it's worth nothing or close to nothing anyway!
Oh yeah, don’t forget to write a book noting every possible problem that the future owner could experience. You must be joking. It's not like I held a gun to the buyers head and told him this is the only 996 you can buy. He was a big boy and understood that he was buying a preowned car.
FWIW a week after the new owner had been driving the car I got a call from him telling me that this car was perfect for him, he loves it and he's been looking for a car like this for a long while. I did tell him about all the great Porsche websites out there with number one being Rennlist (so I hope he's reading), but the most important site is Renntech.org with all the repair and DIY information!
Maybe LVDell and ScottS should start a thread with a name like how to inform future Porsche owners that 996's have RMS and coolant issues. Then you could add every problem that might occur just to cover your ***. You guys need to read and if necessary re-read my original question it's black and white. LVDell and ScottS just interested do you guys support the Kerry campaign?
Guys, Thanks for the good wishes with the suit.

Tool Pants

The language on the work order is almost identical to what is on the back of mine. Technically they should not use the preprinted paper with that language on the back on a warranty work order since it has no application to warranty work. But my dealer on has one type of paper in the printer, and warranty and non warranty work or printed on the same paper.

That is the warranty language for a cash paying customer that pays out of pocket for parts and labor. The 4 year warranty that came with your car has nothing to do with this.

I assume none of the prior repairs done under warranty were paid for by you. You were never sold nor did you purchase a new or rebuilt part. You were not a retail customer, you were a warranty customer.

Based on what I have read so far you had a goodwill claim. It was denied for whatever reason - the reason is not relevant.

Cross your fingers and hope the small claims judge is also a pissed off Porsche owner.

1AS

As a Porsche owner continually since 1980, I'm dismayed that Porsche can't fix this problem once and for all. My 99 Boxster had a coolant leak at 10,000 miles, and now is at 30,000. With the rms issues, coolant issues, and track use issues, I'm torn between doing the 30K service and keeping the car, or just selling it now. This is a problem of Porsche's making, and they can solve it by standing behind a clearly defective product. To satisfy the moral indignation of several posters, I'd have to tell every prospective buyer to read Scouser's posts, and then wait to see if he still wants a Porsche.
GM sells a lot more cars, but I'm doubtful that they have this many RMS leaks- granted no data, but I suspect we'd hear a class action suit by now. At this point, I'm guessing we're all a mite anxious about impending leaks. AS