^
(4-Large)

I think you are misinterpreting the above quote and going off on an unintended tangent.

Many of here are more than curious , since we have all been exposed (and tempted?) to Canepa's wares.

Most of us, I think, as jury members, if asked would await all the details before rendering a final opinion.

However, most of us (again I think) if we were on a Grand Jury would return an indictment...it seems like this is more than a ham sandwich!

 

Excellent ... I would be honored to hold the title of Rennlist Archivist ...

 

And now for something completely different....



-Lee

 

When the smoke clears, sell me the car for 40k, I'll gut it and turn it into a track *****.

 

Even if the entire history had been known and disclosed, the car probably would have sold in the 70s (my guess based on the rumors in this thread). It seems ridiculous that a person or firm with any reputation value at all would try to eke out 25k when their reputation is at stake.

I don't know any of the parties here, and have not read all of this carefully, but it seems hard to believe anything other than:

1) the dealer probably buried its head in the sand a bit and took an approach akin to "don't ask, don't tell" in order to avoid having to offer the car as salvaged.

2) The dealer probably knew that there were issues but decided not to investigate so that he wouldn't have to disclose them.

3) Most buyers who don't do full PPIs in advance or run carfaxes probably also do not do them after the fact. So the dealer probably rightly assumed that either the facts would be revealed before the trade or never revealed. He was probably surprised that a buyer who did so little advance work would ever come back with a complaint.

4) The dealer probaby would be (or would have been) willing to take it back at full price, but the buyer has now put it in a public forum and might be able to threaten more than a full-price suit. So the dealer, while willing to pay back everything, may not be willing to pay more and might expect to get assurance that there is not more to come. And the dealer may feel that the buyer is acting in bad faith by putting this in a public forum without having enough time to investigate and settle up without destroying the dealer's business.

I think both parties should cancel the trade and return the car and money. The car should be relisted with full disclosure and an explanation for why the information was not known or revealed earlier. If the dealer did that, he'd salvage some of his reputation and only be down 25k. And that is not really down at all given that he certainly paid less than 100k and he also made a terrible mistake by either buying a car without investigating it or by selling a car that he had investigated without full disclosure.

 

Untill the story ends I have two questions, mind you I have no idea who Canepa or NYC123 are:
1- How many here will buy from Canepa?
2- How many here will believe what NYC123 writes?
To me it looks like there R no winner in the story. ( xcpt maybe the lawyers)

 

From another California Dealer, that is sure to add a wrinkle.

"....... is subject to advertising disclosure laws for California residents only. If you reside outside of California the laws regarding automobile sales may differ significantly."

I wonder what this means, and if it is a way to circumvent "full disclosure"?

 

The current title doesnt carry a salvage branding so its going to be hard to prove that the dealer knew it had a salvage history before they sold you the car. unless you can prove that they knew ahead of time, you probably wont have recourse.

They most likely knew that it had been in an accident before, but i'm not sure how you can prove that. As a used car dealer myself, these things are pretty easy to spot especially if it is as major of an accident as you have described

 

CARFAX: Can only trust a report that comes back with damage. If insurance is not involved CARFAX will not show the repair. Can not trust a clean report.

 

[QUOTE=malmasri;6952626]Untill the story ends I have two questions, mind you I have no idea who Canepa or NYC123 are:
1- How many here will buy from Canepa?

If it was a “must have car” for me I would buy it from the Devil himself. I would just be extra diligent in my homework and make certain I knew what I was getting!! I have learned through the years to take responsibility for my actions. But I’m a driver not a collector. I always expect that a Porsche will be worth much less by the time I'm done having my way with it!

 

Even a report with damage may not show other damage not
covered by insurance.

 

In this case he says that the carfax does show it. So apparently he did not run a carfax before buying. If he had, all of this would have been avoided. My point is that the seller might have been thinking "The Carfax shows it, if some buyer comes and pays me 100k and doesn't even run a carfax, then who I am to say 'no'? And if he doesn't even run a carfax before buying, then there's no chance he will run one after buing."

This story would be a lot less annoying of the carfax did not show anything. The fact that it apparenlty does show something means that the seller either did not run one or ran one and then mispresented the car, and the buyer did not run one. If it was not on the carfax, the primary annoyance would be that the carfax service is flawed.

 

How can scratches on the hood and fenders result in a salvage title? Those must have been some scratches to result in the totaling of a 2 year old car that sold for ~$115K.

 

Did you read post #81? This is the story so far.