lamborghini reported stolen after i bought it

This Roy should wake up and smell the coffee. He should pay he´s client back and go for the next dealer asap. In Europe he would be toast if this happened, simply because he is a dealer 360 a consumer.

 

Hey

The issue isn't whether or not Roy did proper due diligence and sold 360 the car believing it had clear title. I'm sure he did.

The car turned out to have a problem with the title that was enough to get a judge in LV to issue a writ that caused the Police to seize it from 360 who I also feel bought it in good faith from Roy believing there was nothing that could cause this to happen.

Both Roy and 360 seem to be victims of the guy who took off.

The difference is that Roy is a Dealer and 360 is a customer. Read the Lawyer Fou's posts. In his opinion and mine the law is quite clear about a dealer's obligations upon being informed that a car they sold had a cloud on it's title that caused it to be seized by the Police. IMO 360 informed Roy. IMO that is sufficient notice to enable Roy to notify his insurance co. that a car he sold, through no fault of his own, after following proper procedures, was seized for having a cloud on it's title. IMO the idea that 360 would have to sue Roy before Roy's insurance co. can become involved is not correct. I also believe whether or not Roy has insurance that would cover Roy in this case is irrelevant to a Dealer's Obligations to a Customer as outlined by Lawyer Fou and Adam. If these laws are different in WA and Dealer's don't have these Obligations please point this out as if they are then Roy's advice to sue him may in fact be 360's only recourse.

As for your question about the LV dealer I think before you buy a car from anyone you should carefully check them out and deceide for yourself if you should buy a car from them.

That's all I saying. Some obviously feel I'm wrong about my perception of this situation and that's fine.

Regards

 

Vegas dealer has not been named, so far as I know.

Roy should have cut the check long ago. It's unconscionable to leave your customer twisting in the wind like this. And on top of that, Roy has taken cheap shots like casting aspersions on his ability to pay. Incredible! Wonder if Roy treated him the same way when showed up to buy the Lambo. If I was 360, I would be suing for lawyers' fees, diminished value, any damage from the towing, pain and suffering over the whole detention and handcuffing and subsequent ordeal, and the inability to enjoy goods for which payment has been tendered in good fath as well.

Roy has not only lost 360's future business. There are at least 4 other deals that Mr. Cats will not be doing because of this.

It's not that the car turned out to be stolen--after all, Roy did his due diligence and there was no way he could have known. It's how he has treated the customer since. Asking someone to sue you to recover money that is rightfully his is retarded. Cut the check and go after your money on your own nickel and time. It's not 360's problem what Roy's insurance company requires of Roy.

 

Hey Nap...

Not arguing with your position.. simply asking...

WHO IS THE VEGAS DEALER???!!!! ANYONE KNOW????

 

Vegas dealer has not been named.

 

Best decision tree I've ever seen!

 

In Post 38 Roy identifies them as Viva Las Vegas Motorcars.

 

Thx Nap!

Never heard of them...

 

Viva Las Vegas?

Those would have been my first alarm bells going off

 

Josh,

If you have one ounce of common sense, you will not take this offer. I'm sure that Roy means well, but there's a huge conflict of interest that will bring nothing but trouble to everyone involved if you take money from Roy (aside from a refund of the purchase price).

I sincerely hope that you'll do the wise thing here.

 

Thanks, had missed that.

 

Jim, you strike me as a man of great integrity and knowledge; yet, when it comes to Roy, you represent yourself in an apparent slanted fashion. This is not the first time that you've had unkind words for Roy. Your previous posts on Roy issues have always been on the negative side.

The picture you paint is quite simplistic, albeit naive. In your view, buyer got a bad deal and therefore, the seller must pay. In theory, I agree; in reality, it's not that simple. First of all, I think that everyone agrees that Roy did nothing wrong. He did what any dealer would have done. You expect him to cough up over $100,000 for a deal that he made a couple of thousand dollars on? That is quite an onus to put on anybody.

Let's assume instead that this deal related to real estate. If a buyer bought a property that, subsequently turned sour due to an improper title, would you expect the broker to refund the buyer? Obviously, there is title insurance, that the buyer pays for and would cover that loss. But let's assume that the title company is now defunct; would any real estate broker just refund money to the buyer? You know darn well that it would go through litigation and the courts. That is simply the process. This is conceptually the same.

For anyone to suggest that Roy refund the buyer is short sighted. Would YOU refund someone $100,000 after YOU did nothing wrong??

 

Yes, in these circumstances, I would. Then I would take it up with my insurance company and the party that sold the car to me (Viva Las Vegas). Since I acted in good faith, if I had decent insurance it would cover my loss.

Edit: Just voicing my opinion here, not speaking for Napolis.

 

It all seemed very confusing until I saw the rabbit with a pancake on it head. It really makes sense for me now thanks.

 

Harry

Read Lawyer's Fou's post. It is my understanding that Roy is a Dealer and is governed by the Laws Lawyer Fou cited. Read Adam the car dealer's post's on what he believes a dealer's obligation's are even if it is not the fault of the Dealer. As I've said if Roy is a Dealer and the Laws that Lawyer Fou cited are correct I believe his obligations to 360 are clear and separate from any claim Roy may have against his insurance co. under "error's and omissions". This is what I think. If I'm wrong please show me that the laws cited by Lawyer Fou don't apply to Roy in this instance.

Earlier in this thread I said:

Roy

I think you have a lot of spirit and Love for Lambo's and that is a good thing.

I also think that inadvertently you are on the hook for the full purchase price, taxes etc. I may be wrong but that is what I think.

I think you should do the right thing and work with Josh to make him whole and go after the one's who sold you a car with defective title.

I agree that this has taken on a life of it's own and that isn't good or fair to anyone.

I'm not your enemy. I think your exuberance sometimes takes you down the wrong path but none of us should throw the first stone as we've all made mistakes.

Best

The answer to your last question is yes I would immediately refund money to someone I inadvertently sold something to with defective title and make a claim against my title/error and omission insurance who I assume would go against the entity that sold me something with defective title. As I said several times this is what I think Roy should do.

As an aside I also Truly beleive that any car dealer that I've dealt with would immediately do the same.

We really are plowing the same ground. Roy has stated what he will and will not do, 360 has retained a lawyer and this will sort it self out one fine day.

Best

 

If what the parties involved have previously posted are true:

Roy did do something wrong; he just did so unknowingly at the time. It's still wrong.

 

Are these the LV fellows?

http://www.vivalasvegasautos.com/

If they are, interesting reading. If not, I'm sorry to bring their name into this thread:


"All of our Independent Sales Associates are licensed and bonded to market and retail fine automobiles through our dealership organization. All associates independently invest their own capital into the products they market and net the results of their investments while Viva Las Vegas Autos maintains the integrity of the transaction as per Nevada Dealer retailing requirements and Code 462. This partnership of Dealer Principle with Independent Sales Associates has been very rewarding for both parties. This partnership makes it possible for self funded, enthusiastic, honest, responsible and self motivated individuals to make substantial incomes through automobile sales. All of our Independent Sales Associates consider themselves as entrepreneurs and self employed with the support mechanism of the dealership to keep them profitable and legal. Viva Las Vegas Autos supports and trains all associates, supplies all legal forms, documentation and title processing to keep the format of the transactions consistent and maintains the dealership location to allow onsite vehicle presentation and contracting."

 

I don't think so. There was a clear title.

What gets me is how the leasing company goes and gets the car, when they don't have a title to it. They gave it away!! Just my inexperienced view. I think Roy is right in that to get the ball rolling in the right way, a lawyer needs to file. That gets insurance companies involved, etc.....

 

This case invloves a dealer not a broker. Lets look at your scenario from a different perspective. Lets say that you bought your real estate from a developer ,not a real estate broker, then what? You would expect the developer to refund your payment.
Remember nobody here is saying that as of now Roy is obligated legally refund the money(although I think he is), we are saying it would be the proper business decision.

 

whoa, now that sounds reputable... so which one of these Independent Sales Associates sold the car o to Roy??

 

Ok ...

Anyone Know Whats Up With This?

Anyone?

Anyone?

 

He can't even answer your question. And not one single post from him has been the least bit informative.

Sounds like someone who attained/made a large sum of money quickly, and then bought a car.

You haven't learned anything?

There's been a lot of laws discussed, how could you not have learned anything?

 

Whatever happened to "due process"?

All these "expert" opinions and all we think we know is that allegedly a car was seized and impounded pursuant to some heretofore alleged claim by someone who claims an interest.

It's just a story (and a less interesting one every day that goes by).

Let the parties make their respective cases in open court.

 

The laws totally apply, this has never been in question. In quoting the UCC FOU has cited that Roy didn't have the right to sell the car to 360 in the first place and neither did VIVA nor did the person who sold the G to them to begin with who, by the way, is probably sunning himself on a beach somewhere while I am looking at melting snow in my parking lot.

What the UCC does NOT do is outline how this should be handled. That is to say it dosen't say the the seller should immediately pull out his check book and write a check to the harmed party. This is what the courts are for. According to the law 360 will get his monies back; I don't think that this was EVER in question. Also Roy will get his money back, this too was probably never in question.

Here is where I believe the BIG questions arise. Whose insurance company is going to be doing the reimbursing. This is where the courts need to step in. Everyone here is saying well Roy's insurance company should be paying...what if they don't? What if they don't because the proper protocols were not followed? Then what?

As we go back to the law these knots tend to get untied and they are generally untied by folks in Armani suits.

 

That's the problem where it is. There are so many parties involved, and parties in different states with different laws applying to them.