375+ # 0384

In the English courts does not a claim for fraud require the claimant to prove actual reliance on the untrue statement, and also that it was reasonable for him to have relied on the statement? In the States at least, a claimant who knows an untrue statement was untrue, has no cause of action for fraud or misrepresentation. Also, an untrue statement that is so far-fetched that no one reasonable person would rely on it, negates the cause of action. Considering that this thread was up to Post #1166 at the time of the Goodwood auction, I think the new owner would have a hard time to prove that he did not know that a representation of the absence of disputes over the title to #0384 would be untrue. It would be equally difficult to prove that it was reasonable for him to proceed as if this representation was not untrue.

 

Good points but,

1: The auction listing didn't alert potential buyers to any ongoing litigation or disputes regarding the car, in fact the opposite. The disputes where in porgress before, during and after the car was being sold. Auction house is 100% in the gun for non disclosure, misleading by omission. UK courts take a dim view of this and apply high standards to auction house behaviour.

2: The buyer can readily establish that the auction house / vendors were aware of the dispute at time of auction

3: Not every potential buyer reads the internet / is aware of Ferrarichat, or even speaks english for that matter, so to assume they "knew" is impossible to prove and unreasonable to assume.

IMHO arrogance and stupidiy even trying to defend a case you can't win, not to mention bad publicity. Doubly so when the aggrieved party easily has the resources to run the case to conclusion and isn't intimidated by lengthy litigation

Regardeless of the outcome, a byproduct of the case will be the microscopic examination of Bonhams participation and business practises in this saga, and that could have implications beyond their car auction business.

 

These are not insults cheesey ! Cheesey is my very own cartoon character, much like a my own tweety bird.

I’m at Goodwood, and my crocodile shoes are ready for the event. Seems everyone’s talking to me as if I’m an insider on this, I even got a message from Zanotti – what a charming gentleman, a class act. Tell me he owns a Pizza chain in Italy.

Of course, my favorite cartoon character is Ocean Joe, who is without turning into without doubt the "Wile E. Coyote — super genius".

How OJ asked for such a strategically masterminded arbitration in his home State of Florida , is yet another visionary miracle. Now, it’s ordered by the Court. That is great news for Captain OJ . No further worries in Ohio where Ocean Joe, according to Judge Martin , said ‘’ He Doesn’t come off very well’’.

The Acme Explosives for Coyote OJ is the UPL investigation which , I imagine is some type of vendetta for being squeaky clean, a do-goodie, truth seeker and that ‘’last boy scout’’ , our Ocean Joe.

I called the office investigating the UPL complaint in Florida yesterday . The investigation against Ocean has now been referred to the Judicial Circuit Committee for prosecution. It’s understood that other victims came forward with information that ole Ocean Joe has been ‘’Up to it’’ for some time in the State of Florida, even operating in Strip Malls offering illegal legal advice for cash.

OJ’s deep ocean sailing skills can only be compared to Captain Edward J. Smith, skipper of the Titanic. Iceberg straight ahead !
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Max/Chris:

Wasn't the arbitration having the venue in Florida a part of the original agreement with OJ that you/Gardner made? If that is true then sniping about it now is a bit late.

 

Oh Jeff ! Poor Jeffy. You win the cheeseburger for the week. (Hold the mayo!)

I can imagine your frustration as the President of the Ferrari Ohio Chapter, driving a Prune Wedgie and Knowing the entire 375 Plus story and failing to GO GET the freaking car FOR YOURSELF . The deal of the century was under your red ‘’Gin blossom ’’ nose and you missed it. This must prompt your wife to prepare your post, as they reek of frustrations, plus they are out of date much like stale bread.

Does she tells you ‘’ Chris snatched that car from under your nose, Jeffy Wedgie Honey ’’.

No wonder you’ve sided with the losers in this deal Jeff , the OJ posse is the club of ‘’Kings’’. You certainly have more in common with them. But, you are ahead : You have the ‘’Wedge Factor’’ for sure.

President of the Ferrari Club in Ohio and you MISSED the 375 Plus deal to guy born South of the Mason-Dixon line, whistling Dixie while you sulk with cotton balls in your ears. Good Going Mr. Kennedy !

 

Michael, I had a great weekend at Goodwood and I am pleased to report that Bonhams are still standing and had a great weekend too, breaking more auction records.

Word on the street

The car is in London. The parts are in London. The money is in London. The new Owner wants to take his car home. Bonhams carried out their instruction (albeit not all the parties were in agreement) and are protected by the terms of the auction. The problem is that the new home is in "Ohio" and OJ still holds an OMV document that needs to be cancelled.

OJ claims the new owner is suing Swaters and Gardner in London when in reality his only contractural relationship is with Bonhams but understandably he is looking to Bonhams to sort the OMV problem out.

Bill has most helpfully highlighted, this is likely to run and run. It would be interesting to understand what the process is to cancel a OMV.

Conspiracy theory. In all the world, is it a coincidence that the car is coming back to Ohio ??

 

What number ?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Kim
I've mentioned all this previously, the status of the car was confirmed by the young lady from Bonhams a while back. Car in the UK, winning bidder has not taken delivery, funds in escrow.

But OJ has not claimed that the winning bidder is suing Swaters / Gardner, he has only stated that the winning bidder is taking action against Bonhams (which , as you pointed out, is where the contractual relationship exists - between the winning bidder and auction house). Also, I don't believe the winning bidder the "owner" if the auction house has not fulfilled all their requirements under the sale.

So my guess is that the auction house is sweating on the speedy outcome of the various legal matters and arbitration in the US, because if that doesn't result in a title soon, the momentum that is building in the UK for the winning bidder to get his money back will overtake US events. (I'm acknowledging Bill's comments in relation to speed )

The Ohio link is an interesting coincidence.
As the saga continues I'm beginning to think that the car might be cursed, it seems that anyone who had the car pass through their hands or has had a close association with it has ended up with some kind of (legal) trouble* with it....Shades of King Tut?

(*except lawyers of course, they're happy as they continue to rake in their fees)

 

Oh yes he has !!!

Cursed indeed or the spirt of Karl Kleve lives on !

 

Max/Chris:

As you hurl your boorish insults at least get your insults accurate. The President of the Ohio Chapter of the FCA is a different person. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of that Chapter.

Going back to the specific question I asked: Did the agreement you made with OJ specify Florida as the venue for arbitration?

 

I think that's simply a typo, the sentence only makes sense with "by" as in "are being sued by the buyer for", also backed up by the press release.

M

 

Yep, no fairytale ending to this story. No matter what happens now, I dont think it will end up as a win:win resolution.

 

We will have to disagree on this one as i believe the paragraph taken as a whole makes claim that the buyer is suing Bonhams, Swaters and Gardner and this is made clear in the penultimate sentence with a reference to "the three defendants"

K

 

Kim
Re -reading this paragrap I think you may be correct,

M

 

Max Vito,

Post your real identity or remain the coward that you are as take anonymous ad hominem pot shots at anyone at odds with your self-centered world view. Ask yourself why you think it relevant to say you wore crocodile shoes -- why the focus on creating an appearance of an identity rather than the confident reliance on the substance of one's identity? Also, why must you always try to tear down someone else -- that is typically a sign of severe insecurity. So I ask you why do you do that? Pause. Breathe. Then give us all an honest answer, please.

You attempt to rewrite the history of the Ferrari 375 Plus lawsuit as if it were a "deal of the century" that anyone could do -- that is not true. It is already established as fact, consistent with Clark's testimony, Lawson's testimony, Ford's testimony, and consistent with contemporaneous 2010 emails, that the "deal" was no mere purchase of parts that anyone could do. The truth is that Lawson (heiress) had been sued, her Ferrari parts encumbered by the lawsuit, notarized alleged 1999 settlement documents presented, and it did not look good - Lawson needed help far beyond that of an attorney.

Clark already had a contract with Lawson, Clark knew Gardner, and Clark knew that Gardner had also needed help beyond that of an attorney in Gardner's recent Cointreau lawsuit in Angers, France. Clark knew that Ford had provided that unique help to Gardner. Clark and Lawson knew she was also in need of a unique skill set to play the looming, risky, and expensive "375 Plus" game on multiple game tables, thus the Gardner recommendation to Clark, and the Clark recommendation to Lawson, that Lawson consider Ford. The Clarks interviewed Ford, and they approved. Next, the Lawson's interviewed Ford, and they approved. Agreements were reached on February 25, 2010 whereby Ford acquired a 70% interest from Lawson - the Ford-Lawson Sale and Option Agreements. The rest is history, so stop trying to rewrite it.

Contemporaneous 2010 documents confirm this history. Ford offered Gardner a chance to finance the "375 Plus" game. Gardner would not commit as Ford's financier because Gardner was unable to assess the legal pros and cons by himself. On March 2, 2010 Ford emails Gardner, "I told my [Ford's] dad about this and he is ready to wire me some money. I want you [Gardner] to decide if you are in, and then back up that decision by telling me you have wired the $ . . . I have waited DAYS for you [Gardner] to climb aboard . . . the game is on. Get on the field. . ." [GARDNER137] Ford explains the risky nature of the "375 Plus" game as a combination crap shoot and chess game. In Ford's March 18, 2010 email to Gardner, Ford states, "This is the first of many chess moves. Crap shoot #1 . . . Of course, it’s a dice roll." [GARDNER152] It took Ford until January 31, 2011 to reach an agreement with Gardner. The "375 Plus" game was no mere "purchase."

So, Max, your attempt to rewrite this Ferrari 375 Plus lawsuit as a mere purchase "deal" that anyone could do, or miss doing, will fail because such is not true, no matter what shoes you wear.

Joe


*

 

Max/Chris,

You have repeatedly made assertions that the case of OJ practicing without a law license is somehow relevant to the 0384 proceedings. Can you explain how this is so supremely relevant? In litigation an "expert witness" is not an attorney but at least one side believes that they have relevant information. How is that so different in this situation? I am hapy to listen to your explanation.

I too have crocodile shoes, and no I do not mean the plastic Crocs. I too have met Jon S.; not at some party but by him opening his collection for a personal tour. I also believe that there is a rule of law and it applies in the proceedings; one's wealth does not outstrip the ability to be right. As a close friend that is a quite successful attorney said: If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have rightness on your side, pound rightness. If you have neither then just pound the table. You sir (as in "my right honorable colleague" the British Parliament equivalent of "you twit"), appear to be pounding the table instead of using or backing up either law or rightness.

Jeff

 

another defining moment to the Max Vito persona... the wearing of Crocs, the rubber kind, as the other are not attainable by those of his ilk... Max Vito and his other representations demonstrate the traits of a megalomanic... or as politely stated "...all hat and no cattle..."

 

This has been explained in earlier posts. A complaint has been filed (UPL) and if it is proved that Ford was acting as Gardners attorney then any benefit he derived while acting in this capacity would accrue to Gardner.

The unanswered puzzle. A court order in part on the Gardner v Ford case was issued on the 22nd August and we know that OJ was unsuccessful in getting the case dismissed. What we still don't know is what part of the case was upheld, or why OJ returned documents to Gardner. Equally, we now know that the Gardner/Ford profit sharing agreement is going to arbitration but why arbitrate on an agreement at the same time as claiming there is no agreement by virtue of a client/attorney relationship ?

OJ claims the attorney question has been settled but the selective evidence disclosed so far is far from conclusive

 

My contention is that Max has not sufficiently shown that OJ was specifically retained as an attorney in this matter by Gardner. That they had a business relationship, in my mind, does not de facto make it an attorney/client relationship. To me that there were (apparently) always other attorneys involved in the process is proof, more likely than not, that OJ was not being used as the Gardner attorney.

 

I agree but conversely the same is true. The Court will decide in due course but it is difficult to form an opinion without the facts and a full copy of the Court transcript would be a great start

K

 

UPL stands alone, absolutely nothing to do with merits of any case before the court... you are making assertions that the outcome of any UPL may accrue to some benefactor ( Gardner )... UPL is about consumer protection, not with any case involved... recourse of any complainant is directly to whom is UPL, not the case represented... UPL is outside the prevue of any case being litigated and is at the peril of the client in making choices as to whom they choose to represent them.

 

Thank you for the explanation although I am surprised that the Ohio court would not take into account the findings of an independent UPL when determining the action between Gardner and Ford.

 

Gardner's attorney filed a 41 page long complaint with a 5-inch thick transcript with exhibits as evidence. I would post the whole complaint were it germaine to deciding issues about the Ferrari 375 Plus #0384AM, but it is not. Suffice to say Gardner's attorney's letter listed "Tab A - Tab L" with each tab being an exhibit of an alleged instance of me being Gardner's attorney, spanning many transcations I had with Gardner over many years, and inlcuding an allegation relative to my business with others who had nothing to do with Gardner.

Below is the from the Florida Bar website to give you an idea of how serious such a claim is, the authority the Florida Supreme Court has delegated, and how an unauthorized practice of law ("UPL") claim is handled, with criminal implications as a possible outcome.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Before I start...WOW!! 100 pages, makes me shake my head in wonder?

Ocean Joe I love it when you ‘’Love talk’’ with me. It’s hilarious when you ask someone to reveal themselves here. And to not be a coward ? Coming from a guy who didn’t show up at the Swaters settlement or at the auction of ‘’his’’ Ferrari ? You are the KING of clowns buddy.

I am so glad that I can expose you by letting you explain your own fraud here on the F-Chat. Overstressed? Beans on toast for a 375 plus owner? Poor boy, wailing?

If you would answer the questions posted here, you would have even less respect. Your entire role in the 375 plus makes no sense, even to your London Post Office solicitors. It’s all just a fraud, a big money fraud.

Still, no one here can determine for a good reason what you did in this deal. Hence, you explain by ‘’ sound bites’’. You delete all logic and cut and paste 1/100th of the story. You twist the truth with pandering. When you are trapped, in the SUPER MAX VITO pasta maker, you squeeze out further lies on your own nothingness, your own Zero worth in ‘’ exposing Mr. Swaters’’ to a fraud that you painted and got caught in the middle of.

No one can follow you on this thread with their limited hand feed of your story, most facts you delete for everyone here.

The fraud you speak of, you lead in a country that accepts lawyers like you to operate as crooks, then go before babbling public servants that have a hard-on for anything European. You cozied up to that Lawson girl, because without her and her wacko life , you can not stand alone. You haven’t got it Mr. Fraud. No money, No creditability, No job, No law license and just an MG on blocks, in your ‘’fraud -on-the-run’’ son’s name . When this is over, and you are 1000% busted, no one will ever hear about you again. They didn’t before this thread, and won’t after your gone.

1. You didn’t even get a deposition out of the plaintiff in the Lawson case 2. You were held in contempt several times 3. You put up zero money in the deal and zero contribution 4. You didn’t show up at any settlement meeting 5. You failed to do anything to stop the Bus that finally ran you over. 6. You were called out as a major Fraud in a transaction you clearly stole from your client – rendering nothing in return except manipulation and trickery, your only skill set.

Plus, you continue to mis-lead this audience by avoiding and evading all questions asked of you.

I’ve been so busy with the girls at Goodwood, that I haven’t had time to post all the latest ‘’dirt’’ on you. So, pop some pop corn Mr. Fraud. Your story is always the same, for a no-show conman with a frozen Ohio document that will land you in jail without any doubt. The Bird Man, Mr. Tweety himself, will land in Alcatraz.

I read a post here that summed you up perfectly : Losers remain losers. And we all know who that is.

The real crocodile shoes have kicked you so hard that you have one choice now - do the honorable thing Ocean Joe : Jump.