Interesting Bugatti lawsuit I stumbled across . . .

Interesting, I love it when issues are not as obvious as it seems they should be.
Thanks for posting.

 

Reading this the only thought that keeps coming back in my head is the different ways the world and American's title their cars by year. For some reason, Americans insist on driving cars built(or titled?) a year that hasn't hit us yet. Even at the end of 2012 (or very early 2013) there where some claiming to own and drive a car build in the Future, a 2014 458 for example. Quite bizarre.

What irritates me is that the car was build in 2008 (surely making it a 2008 car) and was delivered (to the dealer) in 2008. Again making it a 2008 car. Yet Barry is so upset that his car would be titled 2008 (even though it would be no different in any shape way or form, if it had in fact been build in 2009), that he feels the need that 1 digit difference on his title deed warrants a settlement of 6 million dollar. That's a Veyron, a Veyron Super Sport AND a Veyron Gran Sport, in compensation.

Quite childish.

 

Wow, that last paragraph is loaded with one heck of an implied accusation against VW/Bugatti:

So, I hate to ask the obvious, but is the author of the article basically saying that Bugatti's parent company VW (which happens to be a German company) is treating Mr. Zekelman badly because he is Jewish? (I don't personally know if Mr. Zekelman is Jewish or not, but just following where the article is going with it).

 

First world problems at it's finest.

@Bas Jaski - BZ paid for a 2009 car. He should receive a 2009 car.

 

But here's where the confusion kicks in (for me, as a European anyhow):


Some cars are being titled as a 2014 car as early as late 2012. If Mr Zekeman wanted a true 2009 model, surely he should've asked it to be build in 2009 as well?

Otherwise, he could've simply waited a couple of weeks and register it in 2009, since he claimed the car was delivered end of 2008. That way, his car would be a '2009' car he so preciously wanted.

Also, when he transferred the 2nd stage of the monies, that's when the build would start. If you ask me he should've waited till Jan 1st 2009 .

And you're right. First world problems at it's finest.

 

I read the article when it came out and the original unedited one went way further. Too far. See the note how it was later edited by TTAC. The author Ronnie Schreiber was way over the top. The answer to your question posted is "yes".

 

Back then Veyrons were losing value on the 2nd hand market (they seem to have settled now) so buying a 2009 and getting a 2008 could potentially mean more devaluation if by chance he didn't like the car and wantes to sell.

 

Such BS, yeah he could have more depreciation due to the different mdoel years or some other issue but could it not also be that for whatever reason he may want to now get out of his purchase without cost and surely Bugatti will settle and possibly simply refund his money, taking the car back thus making him whole with no depreciation?.
Not to go off topic but this reminds of an article in SCM where a Enzo owner took his beloved steed into get a faulty item replaced and the car had done 980 odd miles. To check their repair was correct the mechanics test drove the car and upon collection the owner found the car had done 1005 miles and so wanted to sue, again no material loss of value had taken place.

I would have thought the value of Bugattis was in order
- rare model (such Nuit or Grand Sport)
- condition
- mileage
- service history
- Age

 

I agree.
I find that last paragraph an utter disgrace....And if I were the VW boss I'd be taking the publisher/author to task.

 

He wanted out because he didnt want a 2008, he wanted his 2009 that he was given build pictures of. What is BS is that Bugatti didnt honor the contract and sold his car to another person. Very poorly done by VW.

 

Just to be clear, there is no 2009 car. Per the article, the car Bugatti built for him, showed him pictures of, the car he refused, is a 2008MY unit.

I hope Bugatti makes him whole on this.

 

Bugatti had no problem taking his money for a '09 car ...

but choose to litigate instead ...

hmmm ...

 

I can kind of see where they were coming from. Such a 1 of 1 car would be worth 4-5 million after a few years. And all the other guys would be pissed for paying more up front for less special cars.

 

The facts of the case seem so clear that VW's refusal indicates that there are other factors in play.

 

Well since it has not a single different part from a 2008 model, except a piece of paper where the 8 crossed out and replaced by a 9...it'll make almost no difference in price compared to an identical 2008 model.

I agree he should've gotten his money back because he refused the model, and some compensation considering the time it took.

I still however believe that his refusal for the car is absolute bull**** considering the car would be 100% the same, minus a stupid little number on a piece of paper. It's pathetic.

 

Surely VW KNEW they were not going to produce "2009" Veyrons when the order was accepted...The entire deal should have stopped right there.

Jimmy

 

And that is why he is worth a couple $B. CEOs know what a contract is worth and an '08 is not an '09.

Luxury and exotic vehicles are not 'stock' orders, I this case it is stipulated the gentleman did order specific options. When the order is accepted the factory returns with a VIN and approx. production date. Then reports are posted at various stages of production ( bucked, painted, final assembly, shipped, in transit). A good salesman will keep his customer apprised of those developments. The reporter may have not known these facts. The article also states a 'non refundable deposit unless ordered vehicle not available' well the '09 was 'not available' and the '10 was a different car at a different price. Dealer took his deposit and then balance of payment. I would say they are at fault! But if dealer is insolvent he has no choice to file against the manufacturer. But as El Wayne has said odds are this is now settled and customer cannot divulge settlement.

 

Yes but im sure he wasnt told that when he got the pictures of his car being built. Either Bugatti knew all along there would be no 2009 and hoped the guy would say OK once he saw his car being built (stupid) or they decided that his 2009 car would in fact be a 2008 once the car was being built (also stupid).

 

If you read what I wrote I actually said that he should've been given his money back (including some reasonable compensations, 6 millions ****ing ridiculous).

My point remains simple. The car was absolutely not different from the 2008 model, no 2009s where made an the 2010 was not the car he ordered.

But then of course there's always the other point: Man walks into showroom of the most exclusive car in the world (ie the one to be seen in), orders a 2009 model, gets a 2008 (that is absolutely NOT different), sees it at the dealer but papers still state 2008. Maybe he knows nothing about cars and thinks it's not the latest greatest (that it's different spec).

I stand by my point that the guy is a tool. A very rich tool.

 

Don't underestimate this fact. Keep in mind how such purchases are financed, residual value, tax implications, etc. The difference could be hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of value nevermind the heartbreak. Regardless, this appears to be a simple contract issue and I am perplexed by VW's position on this matter. Talk about poor customer service... you'd think they were taking lessons from Ferrari on how to treat customers poorly!

 

There's something about this that we haven't heard yet.