My poor car
07-15-2013, 02:40 PM
#361
Intermediate
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mega bummed for you. I would have driven it through the window of the dealership by now so I respect your patience. At this point, I do not expect Beverly Hills Porsche to do anything for you though. Hopefully legal action will produce results for you. Good luck, keep pressing for results.
07-15-2013, 03:02 PM
#362
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OP: I really hope this gets resolved in your favor, the actions by Beverly Hills Porsche have been nothing short of dispicable...please continue to keep us posted in this matter.
07-16-2013, 09:10 AM
#363
Rennlist Member
Disclaimer - I am not licensed to practice in California or Colorado, I am not your attorney, and I am not giving you "legal" advice. I am sharing information that you that is readily available on the internet that you are free to consider, ignore or discuss with your attorney. Colorado, like most states, has a long-arm statute - Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124. For some reason I thought that I read that you were in Colorado. If you live elsewhere, I am sure that they have an equivalent statute. Wherever you live, it may make sense to focus on your home-state's laws rather than California's laws. If you are already doing this, my apologies.
§ 13-1-124. Jurisdiction of courts.
(1) Engaging in any act enumerated in this section by any person, whether or not a resident of the state of Colorado, either in person or by an agent, submits such person and, if a natural person, such person’s personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state concerning any cause of action arising from:
(a) the transaction of any business within this state;
(b) the commission of a tortious act within this state (i.e. fraud & conversion);
(c) the ownership, use, or possession of any real property situated in this state;
(d) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk residing or located within this state at the time of contracting;
(e) the maintenance of a matrimonial domicile within this state with respect to all issues relating to obligations for support to children and spouse in any action for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, declaration of invalidity of marriage, or support of children if one of the parties of the marriage continues without interruption to be domiciled within the state;
(f) the engaging of sexual intercourse in this state as to an action brought under article 4 or article 6 of title 19, C.R.S., with respect to a child
who may have been conceived by that act of intercourse, as set forth in verified petition; or
(g) the entering into of an agreement pursuant to part 2 or 5 of article 22 of this title.
In Classic Auto Sales v. Schocket, 832 P.2d 233 (Colo. 1992) even if the signing of a contract occurred outside the geographical confines of the forum state, the statutory test of a claim arising out of the business transaction within the state may be met by proving that the defendant performed other “purposeful acts,” related to the contract, in the forum state, even though such acts were preliminary, or even subsequent, to the execution of the contract).
A number of people suggest that you address this as a public relations matter. I can respect that but Beverly Hills Porsche does not seem to care about their reputation. However, by requiring BHP to either appear in Colorado (or wherever you live) for litigation, or if you can get a judgment that you can then file in California, you might actually get the resolution that you seek. Good luck.
§ 13-1-124. Jurisdiction of courts.
(1) Engaging in any act enumerated in this section by any person, whether or not a resident of the state of Colorado, either in person or by an agent, submits such person and, if a natural person, such person’s personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state concerning any cause of action arising from:
(a) the transaction of any business within this state;
(b) the commission of a tortious act within this state (i.e. fraud & conversion);
(c) the ownership, use, or possession of any real property situated in this state;
(d) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk residing or located within this state at the time of contracting;
(e) the maintenance of a matrimonial domicile within this state with respect to all issues relating to obligations for support to children and spouse in any action for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, declaration of invalidity of marriage, or support of children if one of the parties of the marriage continues without interruption to be domiciled within the state;
(f) the engaging of sexual intercourse in this state as to an action brought under article 4 or article 6 of title 19, C.R.S., with respect to a child
who may have been conceived by that act of intercourse, as set forth in verified petition; or
(g) the entering into of an agreement pursuant to part 2 or 5 of article 22 of this title.
In Classic Auto Sales v. Schocket, 832 P.2d 233 (Colo. 1992) even if the signing of a contract occurred outside the geographical confines of the forum state, the statutory test of a claim arising out of the business transaction within the state may be met by proving that the defendant performed other “purposeful acts,” related to the contract, in the forum state, even though such acts were preliminary, or even subsequent, to the execution of the contract).
A number of people suggest that you address this as a public relations matter. I can respect that but Beverly Hills Porsche does not seem to care about their reputation. However, by requiring BHP to either appear in Colorado (or wherever you live) for litigation, or if you can get a judgment that you can then file in California, you might actually get the resolution that you seek. Good luck.
We now know that Beverly Hills Douche Bag Porsche doesn't care about appearances or doing the right thing, they care only about the bottom line. The suggestion above will cost them money AND be a pain in ****. Is this something you can pursue Lozzy?
07-17-2013, 01:16 PM
#364
Pro
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA & FL - '12 Carrera GTS
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I found this to be an interesting article about a Mercedes Benz used car purchaser who went viral on the Internet about his bad experience with a car dealership.
http://autos.aol.com/article/luxury-...6pLid%3D344876
http://autos.aol.com/article/luxury-...6pLid%3D344876
07-18-2013, 03:46 PM
#365
Sorry, was on the road (actually meeting with Ford Motors but not on this topic). No updates from this end, I think we have to give them 30 days to respond to the letter. It will be a slow process I'm afraid. They really don't seem to be too bothered about publicity so I'm not sure how much impact any of that will have. I am pursuing legal options and I will keep going until I prevail 
07-19-2013, 08:15 AM
#370
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually not bul1**** or horse**** either. it's marketing and while canned, they don't have to send the letter either.
Lozzy, I hope this all works out for you. I know how frustrating it is but hang in there!!
Lozzy, I hope this all works out for you. I know how frustrating it is but hang in there!!
07-19-2013, 10:48 AM
#371
Three Wheelin'
. . . Which has about as much value as the pre-sorted 3rd class re-fi offer. Maybe it's marketing but when you drop 100k for a stinking car a follow up call from your sales guy would have more value than a canned letter. Time was that they'd send me a COA as a thank you but I guess PCNA/PAG is out to squeeze every penny out of the product. Really, if they want to "market", just raise the price of the car by $100 and a "free" COA and that may have more of an impact than some silly letter.
07-19-2013, 03:01 PM
#372
Thinking outside da' bun...
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
If PCNA tried to send you a COA, they would have to send you six of them before they got it right.
07-19-2013, 04:30 PM
#374
