dealer sold me salvaged turbo no disclosure
09-22-2009, 04:53 PM
#46
Rennlist Member
The question about a car fax still has not been answered ?????? especially with such low mileage old car? my fear is that you are going to waste your money and time in court and someone will say just like you did not know it was a salvage niether did the dealer so you may get some money back when he gets some money back from the one that knew and rebuilt the car.that of course after paying the sharks of course..Sorry for your misfortune.
09-22-2009, 05:11 PM
#47
Rennlist Member
It's a good lesson to all that used car dealers are, well, used car dealers. They may or may not know the history of a car, and may or may not disclose everything they know, so an independent expert PPI is the only way to have peace of mind.
And, personally, I would have waited to bring all of this up in public forums. Once reputations are smeared, there is little motivation to settle amicably.
Best of luck...
09-22-2009, 08:51 PM
#48
Does CARFAX keeps a record of when a VIN was run? Say about the time this dealer bought the vehicle? Will CARFAX disclose such matter? If not, someone needs to start a business CARFAX on CARFAX...
09-22-2009, 08:57 PM
#49
salvage 993 tt
In terms of did the dealer know for sure or not like I said earlier there are facts I have that I am not posting on this site just yet. But I highly doubt I am wasting my time with what I know and have on him
09-22-2009, 10:18 PM
#50
If you can prove the dealer knew the car had a salvaged titled and did not disclose as such, I too think you have a case. A winning case IMO. Which is why I wonder if CARFAX will or can disclose if this dealer did or did not run a CARFAX on this vehicle when it was bought. Because I just looked up California DMV and it too states the seller is require to do so in this state.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures...cts/ffvr33.htm
"Sellers, including dealerships, are legally required to disclose the vehicle’s salvage title and history, but the law is difficult to enforce, especially when cars come in from another state."
Apparently this is a very common problem/fraud on these title washing scams. Otherwise, DMV wouldn't states "the law is difficult to enforce." Unfortunately I do not know of an attorney specializing in this field other than the fact finding one should not be too difficult in this state. My only recommendation to you is to act fast as I am sure you are aware of how fast and how many auto dealerships are closing everyday...
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures...cts/ffvr33.htm
"Sellers, including dealerships, are legally required to disclose the vehicle’s salvage title and history, but the law is difficult to enforce, especially when cars come in from another state."
Apparently this is a very common problem/fraud on these title washing scams. Otherwise, DMV wouldn't states "the law is difficult to enforce." Unfortunately I do not know of an attorney specializing in this field other than the fact finding one should not be too difficult in this state. My only recommendation to you is to act fast as I am sure you are aware of how fast and how many auto dealerships are closing everyday...
09-23-2009, 10:09 PM
#51
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterey County
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear...Please don't believe everything you read in that thread. There is a very good reason we decided not to run that letter (though not one I am willing to disclose publically). While it's been a long time, I believe there are misrepresentations and/or biased interpretations of the truth in some of the accusations as they pertain to Excellence. There are some good points, as well. As to the comments on Canepa within, consider that bias/personal interest may be at work.
As to the OP in this thread, I am very sorry to hear of your trouble. Like everyone else here, I hope you can come to a satisfactory resolution, and quickly. In fairness to the business you've posted about (as you do not directly link it yourself, though it appears others have made the obvious link), I suspect there are two sides to the story. And there are questions as to who knew what, when. That said, it sure doesn't look good — for any of the parties involved.
Again, I hope this will be resolved. But I also hope it doesn't devolve into a web witch hunt with all the usual "expert" comments from people who don't have a real lay of the land.
Not that that's ever happened before...
pete
09-24-2009, 12:43 PM
#52
Rennlist Member
I dont know what the laws are in CA, but here in BC as a dealer I am required by law to stand behind what I sell. Whether or not I know some material fact about a vehicle is absolutely a moot point as the law states that I SHOULD know it. I would be very surprised to hear that in CA, not knowing the car was in an accident, is a defence to a legally binding purchase agreement stating the condition of the vehicle is original paint, everywhere. In BC, if I declare a car "no accidents" and down the road it is exposed that is not the case, I am absolutely required to take the car back and provide a full refund - whether I committed fraud by knowingly misrepresenting the car or just simply not knowing does not make a difference. This is not the case in CA?
-Mark
-Mark
09-24-2009, 01:50 PM
#53
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best thing to do here is establish knowledge on the sellers part through notice given by the prior owner. Once you have knowledge established, file a complaint with the licensing board.
09-24-2009, 03:27 PM
#54
Race Director
I dont know what the laws are in CA, but here in BC as a dealer I am required by law to stand behind what I sell. Whether or not I know some material fact about a vehicle is absolutely a moot point as the law states that I SHOULD know it. I would be very surprised to hear that in CA, not knowing the car was in an accident, is a defence to a legally binding purchase agreement stating the condition of the vehicle is original paint, everywhere. In BC, if I declare a car "no accidents" and down the road it is exposed that is not the case, I am absolutely required to take the car back and provide a full refund - whether I committed fraud by knowingly misrepresenting the car or just simply not knowing does not make a difference. This is not the case in CA?
-Mark
-Mark
As a car dealer the business owes one a reasonable degree of skill and experience and care in presenting, showing, selling a used vehicle.
One is not after all buying a car from one's local grocery store.
For the car dealer to claim ignorance of the car's condition or claim it never bothered to verify/confirm the car's condition won't I think fly.
Sincerely,
Macster.
09-24-2009, 08:54 PM
#56
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterey County
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-24-2009, 11:59 PM
#57
Three Wheelin'
We can debate the merits and content of the law, but the reality is that without an amicable settlement outside the legal system, litigation will take time and money, and frequently both of each depending on the depth of pockets and determination of the parties. In the last analysis it can be difficult to identify a "winner" after the litigation dust settles.
09-25-2009, 12:17 AM
#58
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
09-25-2009, 05:33 PM
#60
Rennlist Member
My (rather long!) response has been posted there. I feel discussion of that matter should remain in that thread, as it is wholly separate from this matter.
I neither endorse nor seek to aid Canepa Design — or the OP. Nor do I wish to make any comment on the issue within this thread. I do, however, think that some of the comments and conclusions here are troubling since only one side of the story has been presented. It's a good thing our legal system doesn't depend on web forums! And, with real legal action a strong possibility, I suspect the full extent of either side will not be presented here.
There is no question that I would be upset were I on either side of this dispute. But reading about it here (as well as in at least two more RL forums) increasingly makes me feel like some kind of a vulture.
I neither endorse nor seek to aid Canepa Design — or the OP. Nor do I wish to make any comment on the issue within this thread. I do, however, think that some of the comments and conclusions here are troubling since only one side of the story has been presented. It's a good thing our legal system doesn't depend on web forums! And, with real legal action a strong possibility, I suspect the full extent of either side will not be presented here.
There is no question that I would be upset were I on either side of this dispute. But reading about it here (as well as in at least two more RL forums) increasingly makes me feel like some kind of a vulture.