Because Roy has done nothing wrong. Roy reads the letter and goes; "Well now, that title was clean and clear when I bought the car, something isn't right here. Better lawyer up and tell Josh to do the same. Nice letter though." Why people are so insistent that Roy should just pay Josh I'll never know. There isn't a business in the world that would do that. Perhaps if Josh had held his tongue and let Roy help him, instead of punching Roy in the f**king balls repeatedly, then this wouldn't have been the flustercluck it is now. There's a bunch of maybes and coulda-beens in this. But this is now. Josh has had his path littered with advice from know-it-alls, know-nothings, mushmouthing Roy Haters and genuine people who know what they are actually talking about, and he's got to figure out who to listen to... and from the sounds of things he hasn't learned a friggin' thing. I hope he's gotten a good lawyer, and that he gets what makes him whole, be that the car back or his money. I also hope there is something more than karmic payment for saying some of the things he's said to and about Roy. He's called Roy a liar. He's made statements about Roy that, if untrue (and Roy seems to say they are), are very damaging to Roy's character and business. This isn't Roy Cats Haters LLC telling the bad half of a true "Roy made a mistake, let's laugh at him" story and Roy finishing it with the "How Roy Made It Right" chapter in a vitriolic thread for our disgust and amusement. This is potentially someone lying through their teeth with the express intent of damaging Roy. If this is the case then I hope that the end of that case involves someone thinking "damn, I never thought my anus could be this stretched out and painful, I won't be able to sit in my Gallardo for a few months!"
woah woah woah a second. try reading whats been posted, not what you think has been. i simply said "i dont see why the OP needs to sue" i never said Roy should simply pay up immediately - though after looking at the facts i do feel he probably should. whats the reason ppl go to a licenced dealer to buy a car??? is it so that they have some form of recourse should things go wrong and isnt that why licenced dealers exist - otherwise everyone would simply go and buy privately. anyways enough of that - i want to know why my suggested letter wouldnt be enough for Roy (or his insurance co) to get the ball rolling and why ppl seem to think that bringing a set of 3rd parties who charge massive fees is a good idea. basically why does it need to be a legal letter as opposed to simply a letter from the OP stating whats happened - surely bringing lawyers into it simply lengthens the process, adds a whole extra layer of ppl involved and ramps up the costs massively. bottom line here is that this isnt a matter of right and wrong, its a matter of responsibility. Roy didnt actually do anything wrong, but according to what various legal members have said he is responsible to his customer.
Relax Hoss, the second part was aimed more at the general discussion than it was at your 'letter'. That's why I said "people" and not "you". Roy is doing what he is supposed to do. He's protecting himself and his business by letting his lawyer and insurance company handle the issue.Anyone who knows that they aren't at fault in a case like this, and admits they themselves aren't legally savvy enough to argue such a case, would do the exact same thing. Josh has recourse, and that recourse is bringing the case into court to get it settled. If he wins, and he will, he will be reimbursed his legal fees. I have no doubts that if Josh has an intelligent lawyer he will be out of pocket exactly $0.00.
No, it just simply states that he no longer has any contact info. I find it very amusing to debate with you about things particular to this thread but the insinuating statement about my brother being a bad lawyer is definitely uncalled for. It is very disrespectful to me and his family for you to even comment on a particular situation that you have no knowledge about. In the future, I suggest that you stop making things too personal and leave any unnecessary "negative branding" of my brother out the door (so to speak)! Now, if you insist that what it is you feel and think should be, then I suggest taking your $0.02 back to the bank!!!
Yeah, that would really fly with the cops. They wouldn't have any reason to throw your ass in jail. Officer #1: "Well, seeing that the automobile in question is not within the vicinity, we should just go back to the station and eat some more doughnuts!" Were so sorry for bothering you sir, have a good night!"
And maybe + $XX,XXX.XX if he does the right thing. Larry Parker would think of a few different ways to make the leasing company and maybe even the judge to compensate him for the stress!
Exactly. If he was indeed notified that the car was possibly being looked for, then the smart thing to do is put it somewhere that it will not be found. Then when asked about it's whereabouts, you simply say "why do you want to know?" and if they push more you ask if this is a criminal investigation (they say no, it's not) then you say "do you have a warrant?" and when they say "no" you say "have a nice day - goodbye"
That would've been nice but in this case, the judge issued a warrant to seize the car! They weren't just "simply looking for the Gallardo". Im not sure of what the exact legal wording is for this situation, plus I think "lying" to the authorities wouldn't be a good thing in this particular case.
OK GUYS ITS GETTING LATE... Before I call it a night I wanted to know... WHAT TIME SHOULD I SET MY ALARM FOR??? .
Roy hads a Private investigator call him and ask who bought the car that is it. Roy protecting his customers privacy did not give the PI the info. Roy immediately called Josh and told him a PI is look for the car for some reason. Then they found out why when the car was taken.
ooh id love to be a fly on the wall for that phone call. "hi josh its roy cats, that gallardo i sold you for $150k well it turns out someone else might own it so you'd better hide it" ok this josh guy seems to be a bit of an idiot - but that doesnt make him less of a victim here. ask yourselves ppl how would you feel if you'd forked out $150k (thats a made up figure b4 anyone asks) for a car from a licenced dealer and then 3 months later you get handcuffed in the street and your cars taken away. i dunno about you, but id be shouting as loud and as hard and as much as i possibly could. theres a chain here - and in that chain Roy Cats is it seems (unfortunately through no fault of his own) responsible for any loss incurred by Josh.
The point that some are trying to get to (and I am not sure we're there yet) is that I am having a hard time believing a suit must be started to get the ball rolling. What we have heard is that licensed bonded car dealers are required to reimburse a client according to law, if it comes out that they sold a vehicle with a defective title. Nobody seems to dispute that. It *appears* that Roy is, in effect, saying "Yes, fine, but I refuse to do that. If you want that to happen, you have to sue me and then my insurance will step in". So it's not that Roy *can't* do anything, it's that he won't unless the insurance is the one paying. Now, we can discuss the morality and ethics of that until the cows come home and it's all opinion so it doesn't matter. But it appears the legalities of it (as told by 2 car dealers and at least 2 lawyers) is that Roy is legally bound to return the money. Not "after he gets sued", not "if the insurace pays up", but rather "when he finds out that he sold a bum car". I am not sure if Roy has consulted with a lawyer... it appears most here are 100% sure Josh will get his money back, but it sucks that the issue apparently has to be forced to make that happen. Its very strange to me that an insurance company will not investigate a claim without being sued - I've never heard of that before. I also would expect any lawyer of Roy's or his insurance company to advise him to wait to be served. There's always the chance Josh won't sue or can't afford to. Thats purely a business decision but still a pretty crappy ethical place to be and a pretty crap situation to hand to your customer who paid in good faith. All IMO of course. I would be very interested to hear the reasoning of anyone who does not think Roy is legally obliged to pay the entire amount back to Josh? Not based on who knew what or who did what - I am talking about a legally supported argument.
I think you are right. I do not believe the insurance will refuse to investigate without being sued first. I would also think (and I am no lawyer so I may be wrong) that if Roy is legally obligated to pay Josh and he refuses to do so (which is what he's saying - the whole "you need to sue me" is another way of saying "no I will not pay unless forced to"), then Roy may be opening himself up to additional liability. I hope Roy is talking to a lawyer too. Not to avoid troubles, but to the end of him and Josh both coming out of this as whole as possible and transferring as much of the hurt to the boneheads at the leasing company.
There's only one problem with that. THE TITLE IS CLEAR AND CLEAN. It has not been declared defective by anyone. The leasing company is making a claim of such, but nothing has been proven. The Nevada judge saw enough merit in the claim to have the car secured and held, pending a hearing on the claim of interest by the leasing company. But as it stands right now, from what we've been told in this thread, THE TITLE IS CLEAR AND CLEAN and in the possession of Josh and his lawyer.
Under what law do you feel that an officer has the right to arrest you for not disclosing the location of the car? Under what authority do you feel the officer has the right or ability to compel you to disclose where the car is located? The writ is not an order to get the car by any and all means necessary, it is just a civil order that grants the leasing company or their representative the authority to sieze the property (i.e. it makes it not theft). The cops were not there to prosecute the writ as they were to ensure the private party who had the authority under the writ was not hindered. After all, if someone shows up at your door claiming to own your car that you have receipt and title for, you're not going to comply. There was no criminal investigation taking place and the officers have no authority (IMO) to compel the person to produce the car.
Where's Josh??? I would like to hear him state, for the record, if he was told about potential problems with the car PRIOR to it being impounded. I'm not disputing Roy's version, but I'd like to hear Josh answer for himself.
The title may be clear and clean but it is in dispute, which is why the car is not in Josh's posession. The title is therefore defective - i.e. it is not clean as in undisputed, it has issues. Issues that were not knowable to Josh or Roy but have since arisen, and Roy would not have been able to sell the car had these issues been known beforehand. Now that they have come to light, I believe Roy is legally obligated to refund the money paid by Josh. I am not saying the car has a stolen title or anything of the like, but if there is anything in place now that was not in place when the car was sold, and that mechanism that is in place now would prevent the sale of the car as it occurred before, then the title most certainly is defective. And based on that, it is. Roy could not and would not have sold it with it's current status, therefore I believe he is obligated to refund the money paid if that is what Josh wants. He could probably also force a hearing or sue the leasing company and recover the car plus his costs, but I believe it would be Josh's call as to which path he wanted to go down.
Because of a claim made by the leasing company. In two other cases end buyers got their cars back after a hearing. That could have been Josh too if he'd been Johnny-On-The-Spot. Josh's lawyer is working right now to have the car returned to Josh on the basis that Josh holds a clear and clean title. Bottom line is Roy isn't going to issue a refund for a defective title that hasn't been declared defective.
Now that I think about this more, I'm completely baffled. If Roy had warned Josh about the problems with the car prior to its impoundment, why wouldn't Roy disclose that information to everyone at the very beginning of this whole mess? That's a HUGE piece of information that changes the dynamic of the entire story and puts Roy in much more favorable light. I think there are still quite a few missing pieces to this puzzle...
