The only thing missing in this thread is the original "costumer", sitting with a laptop at Ipanema beach, chiming in. Wow. btw, the website of the Las Vegas car dealer looks cheesy at the very best. I wonder how anyone can voluntarily conduct business with them after seeing dark blue text on black background.
The 1989 geocities script really took me back, matches the cars they have for sale on Ebay. They show nothing for sale that is worth anything near $100k from what I found.
I suppose I have learned a few tidbits regarding law. The statement was more in the context of lack of change in the thread since the first post. The same things have been reiterated, over and over again, since page 5. We all know that neither Roy or Josh is the victim, and we all recognize the difference in opinions of whether Roy should do what some identify as outstanding customer service (an obligation for any successful business) and cut the check, and others feel that Josh should take Roy up on his offer and attack from the legal stand point. At the end of the day when the dust settles, we're just going to have to see how it plays out.
A little update for all I just had a very nice conversation with the Lawyer Josh has retained here in Seattle. Of course we are coperating with her to or fullest extent. She is in agreement with me that the first step is to RE-SECURE the car back for JOSH as the TITLE is held by him (his lawyer now), she is working on a order for that to occur. She has also agreed that of course I could not just "write" Josh a check and is complete agreement the legal channels have to be followed. She is also in agreement that it is the "leasing" company that has the ultimate blame and claim against, HOWEVER as I have been saying, as she agrees, we must follow proper legal protcall. I am glad this is now moving in the right direction.
This misses the point. Nothing about this transaction will be settled by who did something right versus who did something wrong. It will be settled by applicable law. Not being a lawyer, I won't begin to guess. I don't know if in Illinois you'd have to sue the selling dealer to force his insurance company to settle the claim (which is really not the buyer's problem in the first place), and I sure as hell don't have a clue about Washington. Just because one has done their due dilligence doesn't mean they are exempt from risk. It strikes me that there is endless drama in this relatively small Lamborghini forum, and much of it revolves around Mr. Cats. However, his business model targets online sales in general and this site (perhaps among others, I don't know) in particular, so one would expect that problems would be aired out here, also. Doesn't mean they are any more or less prevalent. And, FWIW, a quick return of $2500 on a $100,000 capital outlay in this business climate is not necessarily a bad investment. If that was in a month that's an annualized return of 30%. But whatever the return is, it's the business Mr. Cats has chosen. How much money he made on the transaction is irrelevant. Just my .02
I'd actually like to chime in for a second or two on this...after all of the experts, mud slinging, opinions, finger pointing and everything in between, I think there are some interesting facts that people are overlooking. First, to get something straight before I go on my own rant...this is MY opinion, I've read the posts on both forums, the jabs at both sides, the opinions, etc...but let's start with this all happened on Sunday night....Josh gets an attorney finally, on THURSDAY, after some 15,000 views of this story, over 1,000 of those views telling him to lawyer up...I don't know, maybe it's me, but something tells me I would've lawyered up on Monday morning...but we'll skip this detail, for now. Second, Josh was told to get his lawyer in front of a judge to stop the car from leaving Cali...why would this get recommended? Simple, because this is, and always has been, a CIVIL matter. If Josh would've listened to the advice he was given, the car most likely would have been released back to him...and the leasing company would have to take Josh to court on a civil level and PROVE ownership. Why, because Josh has the most recently processed and legal title in hand. The police and legal system would view that as being the most accurate document, and any dispute over that would have to be resolved between the parties, in Civil court. Now this is where all of those opinionated lawyers jump in here and start screaming "Poor customer service...BS...you should do the right thing...write the kid a check...and everything in between"...well, where I live in Oregon...and in case you missed that, WHERE I LIVE, that's EXACTLY how the police view it. I did repo's for over 10 years, this sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME...and no matter what, the police say the same thing time and time again...CIVIL MATTER. Take the car, and you could be charged with theft as according to THE MOST RECENT DMV records, no lein holder, car is legally titled and licensed to the current person in possession, in this case Josh. From here, Josh can elect to negotiate with the leasing company...because now Josh has damages stemming from the leasing company actions. Roy offered to help him everywhere he could, but gets lynched because he's not writing a check to the kid Johnny on the Spot...simple thing called Due Process. In fact, another point of interest is where we have an insurance agent explaining that the process must get started through the lawyers and a claim filed with the insurance agent to PROTECT the interests of Cats, the insurance company, AND Josh...but that didn't seem to be enough for the masses. Everyone seems to be an expert on the topic, yet no one seems to want to acknowldge the proper steps required to get this resolved. Roy hasn't come out and said I cannot help you...he's told the kid to get a lawyer and let's get the ball rolling...instead Josh posts for four days straight...even going so far as to ask what time he shoudl set his alarm clock for to call a lawyer...amuzing to some extent...but come on...where is the line drawn. There isn't a person on either forum that would open his checkbook and write the check simply for moral reasons. I saw that Napolis claims he would, generous gesture, but given that he has both the funds and the intellect to do something like this, I highly doubt that he would without going through the proper channels. No one is going to shell out over 100k because of an error at the beginning of this train wreck without having some recourse down the line. Let's look at that thought process for just a second...Kids car gets jacked and he spends precious time bashing Cats and Roy on 2 seperate internet forums for four days, then says "pay me my money"...is advised of the process but doesn't like that answer...so he continues his rant...hoping to put enough pressure on Roy that he'll just write the check...now, ANY semi intelligent business man knows, if he writes that check, he loses recourse with the next person down the line...why? Because no one writes checks like that simply because they felt bad...I can hear that one in court...LOL..."Um your honor, well I felt bad for the kid so I gave him his money back and now I would like the next guy in line to give me my money back because it's the right thing to do"...COME ON!!! Insurance company might write the check after it goes through their claims department...and then THEY will go to the next person in line, but it still has to follow the course. You don't go into rehab through the front door and tell them you want the certificate of completion 2 days in...you can't skip the steps....you have to go through the process, as painful as it is, you still need to go through the process. Josh says he's a cage figther...well you certainly don't throw punches from OUTSIDE the cage now do you. When the door opens, you don't run up to the promoter hoping they'll tell the guy IN the ring to just give the kid his title and belt...hell no...you get in there and you handle your business, and deal with the outcome. This whole thing is a mess of extraordinary levels....I like Josh, and to be honest, I hope this gets resolved in his favor...like Roy told him in the beginning, and after a conversation with Josh's lawyer today, it appears as though Roy was right...the lease company is at fault for most, if not all of this mess. And THAT's from JOSH's Lawyer...not some opinion. Hope this helps shed some light on the subject at hand.
You are right. The applicable law is all that matters. Your math is off. Roy wouldn't have laid out any capital if he didn't buy the car in advance, and he didn't. His only costs are whatever fixed costs he can amortize on this transaction. Roy basically earned $2500 (if that is really all he did earn) for a few phone calls, some paperwork, and a couple of online posts, maybe. It's basically $2500 (or whatever) for finding a buyer online and then using his money. Much, much more than 30% annualized.
So now I am wrong for making money? What should I just be doing this for free? Or do you think I make to much money? And FOR the record WE DO pay for the cars we buy in ADVANCE and then collect from our customers our their finance company AFTER the title is IN HAND and RE-ASIGNED to the buyer or his lending source. So I dont know where you think WE DID NOT pay in advance when we do...
Yes, that is correct..and I will also add that they have not returned mine, Kevins, our insurance company and our lawyers numerous phone calls to them in the last two days.
Nobody who is thinking Roy ought to pay the kid back thinks it should be done out of some moral standpoint, rather a business one. Cats, as a licensed dealer, has an obligation to sell vehicles with clean titles. This title was not clean. Nobody is suggesting Roy knew that (so the "but we didn't know!" retort is meaningless). If you guys don't understand that you have a responsibility to pay him back for what he paid, then that's an issue you would need to take up with your state licensing authority for car dealers. I've never really heard of an insurance company that will only pay after a legal judgement is entered, but if Roy says they have already denied paying a claim without a lawsuit - then... OK (but he ought to be looking at more business-friendly insurance companies then). It also sucks for Josh if he must compel a dealer to do something by force of law that they are legally obligated to do anyway by virtue of being a car dealer. Hopefully he will recoup those costs in addition to the $$'s for the car. IMO you guys aren't really accepting responsibility for the problem and your excuse is "but we checked it out and it was OK when we sold it". But the lawyers and car dealers who have posted their 2 cents have both said that's pretty much irrelevant and that's part of being a dealer. I tend to agree. Why should you pay? Because that's part of the risk you take as a car dealer. As Jim said, the issue is now out in the open and when these sorts of stories come up, people can make their own determination of whether they will do business with that dealer or that leasing company. And you are absolutely right that Josh has mismanaged this from the very beginning. I have a hard time believing he is legit in his actions - really, asking what time to wake up? Come on.
After 2 days of reading this thread,from 18hours of working till now...20th page! Just tell everyone what happens and if u do get your money or car back! EHHH and for the LAST time u JOSH took toooo long to go and get a lawyer.. U been posting eva sence u got home from that bad happening day!..I wish good luck to u Josh because I know how you feel but just follow everything up with your lawyer and it'll get going faster. ALSO,other than posting 24/7,dont you have work to do?? Right now you sound like you're a 17year old out on spring break or something! Sheesh,dont you have a business to run?? BTW...if Roy is asking you to get a lawyer over and over so you can sue him then do it!! also he's willing to dish out $10k to you!!! Whattttt!!!who does that type of deal?? AND you say hes shady?? Come onnnn...HE'S TRYING TO HELP YOU!! NOT AVOID YOU!!!! Best of luck
ONE very MAJOR statement you make is totaly in-correct!! The TITLE WAS and STILL IS CLEAR. There is no question about that at all..THIS IS A PERFECTLY CLEAR AND LEGAL TITLE...
Wait a minute, time out! Is this the same cry baby "Josh" from The Ultimate Fighter!? Or just another "cry baby" Josh that no one has heard of?
UPDATE OUR FRIEND "ROY CATS" HAS GONE AGAINST HIS WORD AND DENIED THE "RETAINER" OFFER TO ME. IT IS APPARENT, AND NOW EVIDENT, THAT ROY CATS, CAN NOT BE TRUSTED AS A BROKER, NEITHER AS A DECENT HUMAN BEING EITHER. I AM SADDENED BY THIS GUY , TRUELY AND DEEPLY. -JOSH thank god we have laws to protect people. My attorney is looking into the "consumer protection act" . That is all i have for right now. thank you
I am sure you did not buy this car before it was sold by you. So I don't think you risked any capital. Whether you then paid for it out of your checking account or IRA or from cashing in your gummy bear collection or the proceeds of Josh's payment to you is irrelevant. My point simply was that it was low effort, zero risk, with virtually no outlay for any substantial time. These are the parameters for calculating return on investment, and based on those parameters, it was a handsome profit. Somebody ventured a guess and his calculations were off, I just wanted to show that this was the way to calculate the true return. Nobody is saying you are wrong to make money and you know it. Nobody said that you should be doing it for free and you know it. . Nobody said that you make too much money and you know it. So what's with the whining? You looking for sympathy too?
