Post removed as per the advice of my attorney. I will happily post an update once the matter is resolved if I am at liberty to do so.

-Steve

 

Steve, If it's the car I'm thinking of it was taken back under lemon law because a sway bar mount broke and took too long to replace from the factory and the guy who owned it found an easy way out. I guess the guy was also an attorney.

 

Have BH Porsche buy your car back at your current asking price... $135k

 

POST REMOVED

 

BH are a really motley crew, I've always found them arrogant, rude and unhelpful, so I'm not surprised to hear this at all.

FWIW I have been delighted by my dealings with Rusnak Westlake and McKenna, these two dealerships have always gone above and beyond, so if you would consider another Pcar I'd say go to one of them. I live a frisby throw from BH, so I find it a little annoying that I have to drive an hour to be treated right. I wish I could take over that dealership, I'd make it the best one in the USA!

Good luck with the claim, I hope you skin them alive in court

 

If it's true that it was lemoned for a defective sway bar, it's not like it was a bad car meaning engine/tranny problems. Good luck getting it resolved. I would be steamed about the failure to disclose too.

 

don't stop until you get what you deserve. if everything you say is true, shouldn't be a problem at all from a legal perspective.

the only issue is that so much time has passed, but it shouldn't be a problem

thats why i love tihs little statue...

 

You could get John Edwards to represent you- don't suppose he's too busy these days...

 

edwards has a hard enough time trying to find a doctor to take care of his wife, for obvious reasons

(for those who have never watched tv/read a newspaper, edwards made his fortune suing doctors)

 

Steve,
Sorry to hear your misfortune and although i can't help you much but i have lost my faith in dealers as well.In general with very very few exceptions they are all worthless people who have no values in life and yes guys i am ready to take all the bulltes,go ahead and shoot me now.

 

Steve ---

Is there no California statute that requires this sort of problem history to be relayed to potential buyers of autos? I'd imagine that since it is the weekend, you haven't had the chance to pulse PCNA about assistance in resolving this heinous problem. I suggest that you write a detailed, non-inflamatory statement of what transpired at BHP (once your brain has come back from orbit), and e-mail that to both PCNA and Mr. Hoffman, and include the Autocheck statement. Ideally you might contact the originally selling dealer in Wisconsin, and even the previous owner for more info.

There's no doubt that BHP made a significant profit on the sale to you, as they likely bought the GT2 at auction (knowing the lemon history) at a very good price, and not disclosing the history to you, you paid somewhere around retail for a 1 - 2 year old car. You should receive a refund of all monies paid, and a fantastic break on a new car (the break being negotiated thru PCNA, so that you can go to a different dealer).

Good luck!

Jeff

 

Wow! Please keep us in the loop Steve. I for one will not use Beverly Hills Porsche again until this is made right. I actually haven't used them in about two years because they charge so much more than anyone else. It's too bad, because there was one mechanic there who was outstanding. I can't remember his name, but he had sort of long hair.

 

Steve,

You may try to look up Tyson, Hamann7 on this board (M5board.com as well). He has great connections in the legal profession, is in Malibu, and a HUGE Porsche (car) guy. He can be a tenacious advocate.

Good luck.

CP

 

Dont mind me.............................this might help....CA law

(b) This section and Section 1793.24 shall be known, and may be cited as, the Automotive Consumer Notification Act.

(c) Any manufacturer who reacquires or assists a dealer or lien holder to reacquire a motor vehicle registered in this state, any other state, or a federally administered district shall, prior to any sale, lease, or transfer of the vehicle in this state, or prior to exporting the vehicle to another state for sale, lease, or transfer if the vehicle was registered in this state and reacquired pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, cause the vehicle to be re-titled in the name of the manufacturer, request the Department of Motor Vehicles to inscribe the ownership certificate with the notation "Lemon Law Buyback," and affix a decal to the vehicle in accordance with Section 11713.12 of the Vehicle Code if the manufacturer knew or should have known that the vehicle is required by law to be replaced, accepted for restitution due to the failure of the manufacturer to conform the vehicle to applicable warranties pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, or accepted for restitution by the manufacturer due to the failure of the manufacturer to conform the vehicle to warranties required by any other applicable law of the state, any other state, or federal law.

(d) Any manufacturer who reacquires or assists a dealer or lien holder to reacquire a motor vehicle in response to a request by the buyer or lessee that the vehicle be either replaced or accepted for restitution because the vehicle did not conform to express warranties shall, prior to the sale, lease, or other transfer of the vehicle, execute and deliver to the subsequent transferee a notice and obtain the transferee's written acknowledgment of a notice, as prescribed by Section 1793.24.

(e) Any person, including any dealer, who acquires a motor vehicle for resale and knows or should have known that the vehicle was reacquired by the vehicle's manufacturer in response to a request by the last retail owner or lessee of the vehicle that it be replaced or accepted for restitution because the vehicle did not conform to express warranties shall, prior to the sale, lease, or other transfer, execute and deliver to the subsequent transferee a notice and obtain the transferee's written acknowledgment of a notice, as prescribed by Section 1793.24.

(f) Any person, including any manufacturer or dealer, who sells, leases, or transfers ownership of a motor vehicle when the vehicle's ownership certificate is inscribed with the notation "Lemon Law Buyback" shall, prior to the sale, lease, or ownership transfer of the vehicle, provide the transferee with a disclosure statement signed by the transferee that states:

"THIS VEHICLE WAS REPURCHASED BY ITS MANUFACTURER DUE TO A DEFECT IN THE VEHICLE PURSUANT TO CONSUMER WARRANTY LAWS. THE TITLE TO THIS VEHICLE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY BRANDED WITH THE NOTATION "LEMON LAW BUYBACK"."

(g) The disclosure requirements in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) are cumulative with all other consumer notice requirements and do not relieve any person, including any dealer or manufacturer, from complying with any other applicable law, including any requirement of subdivision (f) of Section 1793.22.

(h) For purposes of this section, "dealer" means any person engaged in the business of selling, offering for sale, or negotiating the retail sale of, a used motor vehicle or selling motor vehicles as a broker or agent for another, including the officers, agents, and employees of the person and any combination or association of dealers.



In a nut shell it says they should have notified you and have you sign a release form, I must add, although I dont think it is a big deal having a "Lemon law" car, I would buy one, afterall, the problem must be fixed before it can be resold, it IS a big deal not being told about it and IMO it is unethical and gives us people at the dealer a bad name. you can try the legal route, they are in clear and obivious violation of fedral law which means it will probably never go to court and the dealer will fold (hopefully) at the sight of your attorneys legal letter head.

 

Gee, fixnprsh, after seeing the picture at the bottom of your post, I have the urge to go "singing in the rain..." (Kubrick movies were the best!)