$14k Cayman with nothing wrong?
08-26-2016, 02:18 PM
#61
08-26-2016, 02:22 PM
#62
I agree.
However I think the seller's motivation/reasoning could've been that I've taken all my cars to this shop and have formed a good relationship with them over the years. I don't want to jeopordize that good relationship and also want to give something back vs. no history or care with the buyer(Slakker). It doesn't make it right and I'm in no way condoning this type of behaviour but just trying to get in the mind of the seller on what he could've been thinking which then doesn't make it such a clear cut case IMO.
Either way, everyone can move on...
However I think the seller's motivation/reasoning could've been that I've taken all my cars to this shop and have formed a good relationship with them over the years. I don't want to jeopordize that good relationship and also want to give something back vs. no history or care with the buyer(Slakker). It doesn't make it right and I'm in no way condoning this type of behaviour but just trying to get in the mind of the seller on what he could've been thinking which then doesn't make it such a clear cut case IMO.
Either way, everyone can move on...
08-26-2016, 04:29 PM
#63
Rennlist Member
Agree with gnat's analysis.
#1 bad actor is the shop. As Gonzo pointed out with the real estate transactions, it's unethical in at least two ways: 1) offer to buy a car you gave a catastrophic diagnosis on especially with no further verification, and 2) offer to buy a car out from underneath the guy you've been hired by to perform a PPI.
Slakker, you should've trusted your instincts and told the shop you were paying $20,000 for it.
FWIW, I suspect that IMSB failure diagnosis is wrong. Why? The conventional wisdom regarding the low failure rate and the tech's eagerness to buy the car.
BTW, nothing that Bruce said in his post leads me to believe that this shop is above making a fake or incorrect diagnosis. He sees no problem with what his tech did in buying the car out from under a PPI customer. Ironically, he paints slakker as unethical.
#1 bad actor is the shop. As Gonzo pointed out with the real estate transactions, it's unethical in at least two ways: 1) offer to buy a car you gave a catastrophic diagnosis on especially with no further verification, and 2) offer to buy a car out from underneath the guy you've been hired by to perform a PPI.
Slakker, you should've trusted your instincts and told the shop you were paying $20,000 for it.
FWIW, I suspect that IMSB failure diagnosis is wrong. Why? The conventional wisdom regarding the low failure rate and the tech's eagerness to buy the car.
BTW, nothing that Bruce said in his post leads me to believe that this shop is above making a fake or incorrect diagnosis. He sees no problem with what his tech did in buying the car out from under a PPI customer. Ironically, he paints slakker as unethical.
08-26-2016, 04:46 PM
#64
Drifting
And then there is the trap of the moral equivalency : because Mr. S chatted about his plans he was somehow a deserving victim. The hierarchy of values that are the basis of decency seem to be ignored. And which of the parties seems most straightforward ?
08-26-2016, 05:29 PM
#65
That he should have kept things to himself doesn't mean he deserved to be screwed over, but it certainly open the door for said screwing.
The business of money is full of people saying the wrong thing at the wrong time for their opponent to take advantage.
So no he didn't deserve what the shop did, but he could have made it harder for them to screw him over.
08-26-2016, 05:52 PM
#66
Race Car
Thread Starter
Agreed. I'm much better at post game analysis than real-time play calling. My assumption was that the shop was crooked. If that was true, then having them finish the PPI offered no gain and gave them time to react and cover. I should have just wired the guy the money and taken my chances. It would have increased the risk a bit but also it would have increased my chance of success.
However, I no longer believe the shop is crooked I think they just handled this entire situation very poorly. Also, as stated when it first fell apart, I believe it was good karma that I didn't get it. I'm not a big fan of making money at someone else's expense.
However, I no longer believe the shop is crooked I think they just handled this entire situation very poorly. Also, as stated when it first fell apart, I believe it was good karma that I didn't get it. I'm not a big fan of making money at someone else's expense.
08-26-2016, 07:37 PM
#68
Rennlist Member
Because wrong.
Last year, I went to a luncheon for car guys being hosted by a retired car dealer in his garage/car collection/man cave. He had a new car franchise dealership here in KC from the late 1960's until about 10 years ago. He gave a very entertaining speech to the group, and he's a good storyteller. But, he told story after story about how he ripped people off on deals. He talked about how he always had an "odometer man" on staff to turn back the mileage on practically every high mileage trade in. And this guy is a revered icon to most of the old guys in the group. I suspect some of them were his victims over the years.
No matter how affable someone might be, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well . . . A common trait among con men is an appearance of legitimacy. Slakker, you got screwed, that's a fact, but essentially just out of a potential good deal. The guy who owned the Cayman is probably the real victim here, but no one will ever be able to prove that. SMH at the actions of this shop.
08-26-2016, 08:14 PM
#70
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Zuffenhausen, Georgia
Posts: 5,335
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,030 Posts
Wow , same car???
Was this just listed by the mechanic or the owner... Or is it an old listing?
Was this just listed by the mechanic or the owner... Or is it an old listing?
08-26-2016, 08:37 PM
#74
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Zuffenhausen, Georgia
Posts: 5,335
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,030 Posts
That's the same VIN, right???