Dealer Gives 911 GT3 RS 4.0 to Wrong Guy, Judge Awards 50k to Right Guy
01-20-2016, 09:36 PM
#1
Dealer Gives 911 GT3 RS 4.0 to Wrong Guy, Judge Awards 50k to Right Guy
Chalk one up for the little guy. Well, the little guy who can afford a $190,000 Porsche.
Read the rest on the Rennlist homepage. >>
01-20-2016, 09:50 PM
#2
Rennlist Member
Chalk one up for the little guy. Well, the little guy who can afford a $190,000 Porsche.
Read the rest on the Rennlist homepage. >>
01-21-2016, 01:37 AM
#5
Rennlist Member
"A Porsche enthusiast scorned"
I don't see any sources in the source article so I assume this was recently awarded for an incident that occurred in 2011. He fought for almost 5 years. Not mentioned is that the dealer group also foots the plaintiff's legal bill to the tune of £50k as well. Woops.
I don't see any sources in the source article so I assume this was recently awarded for an incident that occurred in 2011. He fought for almost 5 years. Not mentioned is that the dealer group also foots the plaintiff's legal bill to the tune of £50k as well. Woops.
01-21-2016, 08:41 AM
#6
4th Gear
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
01-21-2016, 10:48 AM
#8
Rennlist Member
The famous GT3 RS4. Looks like the deposit holder was a car dealer, so he probably was looking to cash out anyway. But $75K is not the current premium over MSRP.
01-21-2016, 11:07 AM
#9
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by JG 996T
The famous GT3 RS4. Looks like the deposit holder was a car dealer, so he probably was looking to cash out anyway. But $75K is not the current premium over MSRP.
01-21-2016, 01:05 PM
#10
Three Wheelin'
Fair is fair...hope the Sales Manager was fired and anyone else involved in this 'don't worry buddy, I'll get you that RS4 even though you did not order one' scam.
01-21-2016, 01:45 PM
#11
So Porsche policy is to sell only to bona fide enthusiasts, never to profiteers, and the salesman was wrong to have taken a deposit in the first place. So then when a genuine enthusiast comes along later and learns the only reason he's not getting "his" car is because of this stinkin' rotten business man he threatens to inform Porsche if the stealership doesn't make good. So the stealership "caves", in other words is forced against their will to do the right thing, and hopes the flipper doesn't find out. Because when it comes to buying the most coveted Porsches, connections and clout matter.
Tells you a lot about "the law" that this is considered "news" and a "precedent" when we all know it is Situation Normal in the real world.
Tells you a lot about "the law" that this is considered "news" and a "precedent" when we all know it is Situation Normal in the real world.
01-21-2016, 03:03 PM
#12
Three Wheelin'
Hard to really draw a parallel as English Contract Law is different. Funny though that the Appellate decision was quite a B-slap to the lower court judge!
Intestingly, Back in 2011 there were individuals who were buying up cars at MSRP, sight unseen, and shipping them off to China. (This was part of the reason there was such a Cayenne shortage at that time.). So PAG, through PCNA, etc., required dealers to ascertain at the time of sale/order that the automobile was not being purchased by an individual or company, in bulk, either for resale in that market or another market other than the one it was intended for. The intent though was to preclude trans-shipment in a manner that under-cut PAGs profit structure in each market. A Porsche dealership would follow the protocol set forth by PAG, determine that the purchase to to an individual was for personal use, and take an order deposit/sell the car. To claim, as in this case, that PAG only permits a dealer to sell to an enthusiast, and reneg on an agreement because, after the fact, you believe the purchaser to be a re-seller, is a dubioius claim - particularly in this case without any evidence that this was true. This PAG policy seems to have been missed by the plaintif's counsel and investigation thereof would possibly have weakened the defense case further.
Intestingly, Back in 2011 there were individuals who were buying up cars at MSRP, sight unseen, and shipping them off to China. (This was part of the reason there was such a Cayenne shortage at that time.). So PAG, through PCNA, etc., required dealers to ascertain at the time of sale/order that the automobile was not being purchased by an individual or company, in bulk, either for resale in that market or another market other than the one it was intended for. The intent though was to preclude trans-shipment in a manner that under-cut PAGs profit structure in each market. A Porsche dealership would follow the protocol set forth by PAG, determine that the purchase to to an individual was for personal use, and take an order deposit/sell the car. To claim, as in this case, that PAG only permits a dealer to sell to an enthusiast, and reneg on an agreement because, after the fact, you believe the purchaser to be a re-seller, is a dubioius claim - particularly in this case without any evidence that this was true. This PAG policy seems to have been missed by the plaintif's counsel and investigation thereof would possibly have weakened the defense case further.
01-21-2016, 04:39 PM
#13
Rennlist Member
Hard to really draw a parallel as English Contract Law is different. Funny though that the Appellate decision was quite a B-slap to the lower court judge!
Intestingly, Back in 2011 there were individuals who were buying up cars at MSRP, sight unseen, and shipping them off to China. (This was part of the reason there was such a Cayenne shortage at that time.). So PAG, through PCNA, etc., required dealers to ascertain at the time of sale/order that the automobile was not being purchased by an individual or company, in bulk, either for resale in that market or another market other than the one it was intended for. The intent though was to preclude trans-shipment in a manner that under-cut PAGs profit structure in each market. A Porsche dealership would follow the protocol set forth by PAG, determine that the purchase to to an individual was for personal use, and take an order deposit/sell the car. To claim, as in this case, that PAG only permits a dealer to sell to an enthusiast, and reneg on an agreement because, after the fact, you believe the purchaser to be a re-seller, is a dubioius claim - particularly in this case without any evidence that this was true. This PAG policy seems to have been missed by the plaintif's counsel and investigation thereof would possibly have weakened the defense case further.
Intestingly, Back in 2011 there were individuals who were buying up cars at MSRP, sight unseen, and shipping them off to China. (This was part of the reason there was such a Cayenne shortage at that time.). So PAG, through PCNA, etc., required dealers to ascertain at the time of sale/order that the automobile was not being purchased by an individual or company, in bulk, either for resale in that market or another market other than the one it was intended for. The intent though was to preclude trans-shipment in a manner that under-cut PAGs profit structure in each market. A Porsche dealership would follow the protocol set forth by PAG, determine that the purchase to to an individual was for personal use, and take an order deposit/sell the car. To claim, as in this case, that PAG only permits a dealer to sell to an enthusiast, and reneg on an agreement because, after the fact, you believe the purchaser to be a re-seller, is a dubioius claim - particularly in this case without any evidence that this was true. This PAG policy seems to have been missed by the plaintif's counsel and investigation thereof would possibly have weakened the defense case further.
Sounds like the dealer needed to include some clause that the buyer would not resell the car within X days after purchasing or would face x amount of fees or something of that nature. Then they could wipe their hands when he comes back and sues them if they can prove that he intended to resell the car.
01-21-2016, 06:54 PM
#14
Three Wheelin'
How do you validate who is a 'true' enthusiast vs. a greedy 'reseller'?
I hope Porsche never goes down the Ferrari route where they only want to sell certain models based on a stupid qualification. For that elitist reason alone, even if I ever could, I would NEVER buy a Ferrari.
The question is about fairness with no pre-judgement. If a person got to the dealership first and put money down, that is considered an 'agreement' between two parties and the agreement must be honoured...no 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
I hope Porsche never goes down the Ferrari route where they only want to sell certain models based on a stupid qualification. For that elitist reason alone, even if I ever could, I would NEVER buy a Ferrari.
The question is about fairness with no pre-judgement. If a person got to the dealership first and put money down, that is considered an 'agreement' between two parties and the agreement must be honoured...no 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'.
