DTMiller

Pretty sure stasha is KKs attorney desperately attempting to stave off the obvious impending crushing liability.

cerex

Can we sue Porsche again? They started it all in the first place.

5CHN3LL

Gonzo911

IMS Class Action Part Deux...

Honestly don't know why Stasha is so damn excitable about the prospect of the OP suing KK. Under the circumstances, I'd sue just to f with him. If it cost him one sleepless night, it would be worth the $$$.

He must have been on the wrong end of a verdict at some point. Oh well, we are all entitled to his opinion...

FRUNKenstein

. . . no matter how desperate they sound. Seriously, KK's a big boy. He can do the right thing and I bet an offer to split the rebuild cost would have him come out looking like a hero for way under $10k. The ball's in his court.

By the way Stasha, how about you agree to pay any judgment OP gets against KK? It should be a no-brainer since there's no way any lawyer will even take the case.

G.T.

To the folks who seem well-informed of things legal, maybe you can help this knucklehead understand. Without being too familiar with KK or anyone else here, it's easy to view this thread without bias.

I see the word "fraud" tossed out there but from the original post, it seems that it was a lack of due diligence. It's not as if this was a case of a flood-damaged car being passed off as one that isn't. Why is this different from someone buying a 996 without getting a proper PPI (or asking the right questions) and having the car crap out several thousand (7k?) miles later?

C4911: I'm not looking to rub salt in your wounds, just trying to see where all this is coming from.

Youri Ko

When you say dumplings, do you mean "pelmeni" ? Yammiii

Sneaky Pete

This is the difference. KK says the car had the IMSB replaced using the Pelican IMSB. What KK does not say to the buyer is that a portion of the Pelican IMSB was used while other parts were not and the other parts that were not used were replaced with an unproven experimental material. Buyer thinks he bought a car with a known IMSB replacement but KK knew otherwise and did not disclose that little part to the buyer. Kinda sounds like fraud to me. Re: the PPI comment........no $300 PPI is going find what the IMSB is or isn't unless you drop the tranny. And even if that had happened it still wouldn't have been found.

gnat

Victims often find blame with themselves, this is not unusual.

That's why this is talked about as a fraud case and not a warranty case.

The key pieces are that he was told the IMSB was replaced, was ultimately given a receipt for the Pelican bearing, and was not told that the Pelican bearing was not used.

While the IMSB issue is well known, there is little you can do up front as part of your due diligence to verify any claims about it or it's current state. It is also reasonable to believe that if someone claims the bearing has been replaced, that it was replaced with one of the popular/accepted options (LN, Pelican, Vertex, etc..).

KK also has a long posting history so it is questionable if going through it all to find that nugget from years ago is within the realm of due diligence.

There are certainly things the buyer could have done (gone through all of KK's posts, gone ahead and replaced the bearing anyway, had the bearing inspected during a PPI), but the question would be if those are reasonable or not.

If KK had simply not included the Pelican receipt this would simply be a story of bad luck and/or another POS seller. It's the inclusion of the receipt that makes it explicitly advertised as something that it was not that makes it fraud and opens the door to a legal case.

cerex

Who wants to start an IMS retrofit online registry.

In 2 years we will sell it to Carfax and retire in Aruba.

Simple concept. Register your car, provide vin, date of remediation, shop, supporting invoices for job done, even pictures!

I am genius, wait why did I just share this brilliance with all of you?

docmirror

What the heck. Might as well jump in the sewage a bit.

The tech aspect: Without rehashing the whole thing, this is the 'perfect storm' of failure modes. Single row bearing, low annual mileage, and a replacement bearing that is not of the upgraded type. Don't know about the oil changes but surely a 7k mileage claim in 1.5 years would tend to say there was some acidic build up in the oil from products of combustion. No blame, just as I see it.

The design is clearly at fault, Porsche has already admitted that and paid out peanuts to some few affected. Again, not mitigating what the PO did, or what the new owner did, just pointing out that the design is substandard, and has been known for a long, long time.

Remediation was attempted by the PO, in using HIS(not Raby's, not Pelican, not mine) best judgement based on what he knew at the time, and with an eye toward the budget. Was that a good idea? I guess it seemed so to the PO at the time it was done. At any point in the service he could have stopped and said 'this does not make me feel good, I will use the xyz bearing'. But no - he soldiered on, with all due diligence related to his own path and the reasoning behind his method. Again - do we agree with it? Maybe not, but his intent(more on that later) was beneficial, to see if the job could be done at a lower cost for the masses so that maybe more cars would undertake the steps to mitigate an IMSB failure. The job was a partial success, as it covered the original issue with a remediation, but the devil is in the details when it comes to resolving a faulty design from the get-go. Enter the LN, and other vendors with their methods, and solid engineering behind them.

The deal: It's my opinion that the PO sold his car with the expectation that the IMSB he did would not explode in 18 months/7k miles. Did he sell the car as a time bomb? That would be something I would need to delve into very deeply before getting bent about the deal. Most if not all used car sales in TX are defined by the 'as is where is' unless specifically stated with warranty and the terms of such. I've bought a lot of used cars in TX from private, and dealers, and the assumption from the start is no warranty, and in most case is exclaimed in big bold letters. Private party sales are not as well defined, but I'm pretty sure the buyer knew that the sale was no warranty. If there was a warranty, believing that it covered more than 1 year would be - stretching credibility. The buyer is silent on the terms of the sale. The 'as is where is no warranty' statement is prominent on every car I sell with a BOS.

The lawsuit: I've stayed at a Holiday inn, so that makes me qualified to comment on the legal parts. TX tort on fraud: The elements of a cause of action for fraud are:
(1) that a material representation was made; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted in reliance on the representation

Pretty boilerplate. We don't know what 1, 2, or 3 were. But without letting KK completely off the hook(although evidence aside, it sounds like what I'm doing) he certainly made statements that the IMSB was replaced. How far did he go? Did he describe the job/materials in detail? Was the buyer privy to the rennlist info posted about the method? Did the buyer rely ONLY on what KK said about this specific repair? All interesting questions, but I think given that KK had only good intentions by his action to remediate a known bearing issue and not build a time bomb, I think most jurists would have trouble with #3. I know I do. Proving fraud is a tough one. And on a used car deal, and on a car that has a known issue, and with a seller who has taken some time, expense, and effort to alleviate it, and not make it worse on purpose, I can see failing the fraud test. But - happy to admit it could go the other way.

I think the collective judgement of KK is colored by rennlist dislike of his character, and/or his off-putting communications and thread skills. Frankly, I don't care for some of his commentary either, but plenty of people find me to be a azzhat, oh - how will I sleep tonight? I've offended someone I never met on rennlist. Oh the huge manatee.

As for paying out of pocket for the engine replacement, that's something between the buyer and seller. If it were me, and I did NOT write a 'as is where is' statement on the BOS pretty sure I would be helping the buyer out with some cash. If that statement is in the BOS, then - I'm sorry, but sometimes one is the bug, and sometimes one is the windshield, and occasionally bug meets windshield.

5CHN3LL

TX tort on fraud: The elements of a cause of action for fraud are:
(1) that a material representation was made: A receipt for a Pelican IMS retrofit kit was included.
(2) the representation was false: The bearing in that kit was NOT utilized.
(3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion: Seems self-explanatory. With the amount of crowing the previous owner did about this upgrade, the fact that he did not disclose it suggests this was intentional.
(4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it: Seems obvious.
(5) the party acted in reliance on the representation: The purchaser stated in this thread that this was a factor in the purchase.

The buyer of the car has made it clear that the details of the IMSB used were not shared and that he relied upon the documentation provided with the car along with the seller's assertion that the IMSB had been retrofitted.

FURTHER, it was documented in the previous owner's DIY thread that another RL member contacted the bearing manufacturer and was advised that the bearing was not appropriate for this application. Finally, the only other RL member ever known to use the same bearing alleges that he contacted the previous owner to let him know that the bearing had failed prematurely, and that he would be doing a service to the new owner to let him know that the bearing used now has - as far as RL knows - a 50% failure rate in a very compressed time frame. No contact was made (at least as far as the buyer has reported), and that bearing now has a 100% failure rate in all known M96 installations.

Sue Esponte

Unfortunately, you seem to struggle a bit with reading comprehension and staying on point but I'll do my best to respond as clearly as I possible.

1. I made NO attempt to educate you on anything because you clearly know better than anyone here. On behalf of the forum, I bow to the depth of your legal knowledge.

2. If you step off of your soapbox for a minute and actually try to engage in a bilateral conversation, you would note that I only suggested the OP speak to a lawyer in TX to see whether or not he might have a viable claim. Your legal degree and knowledge of the full set of facts clearly tells you he has no claim. See point #1.

3. I have no interest one way or another in seeing the OP sue anyone (let alone KK) and never said the OP should sue him. You are entitled to reach your own conclusions based on your own facts and (mis)understanding of how the law works. In case it's useful, I'll happily share that, yes, there are leprechaun's and unicorns at the end of the rainbow.

-Eric

kromdom

Just noticed something: not a peep from either C4911 or KK?? Could we all have been TROLL-ed???

Sue Esponte

You do realize that you're trying to educate non-lawyers who know the law better than lawyers on how the law works, right? The statute of limitations for a fraud claim is something less than 7k miles, dontchaknow?

-Eric