LOL it just keeps getting better and better. So a dispute between the principals of the leasing company came up and one tried to screw the other and customers are paying the price in repo'ed cars? Roy, maybe you and Josh ought to get together and sue the leasing company for damages! On second thought, probably best not to enter into any additional business relationships with Josh I still think it doesn't change Roy's position in terms of refunding the $$ which is a crap position to have to be in considering he did nothing wrong - but them's the breaks in the car sales business. I can see some people doing some time for white collar crime at this leasing company though!
That last Roys post, assuming accurate, (no reason why not) shut that case close. I learned a lot here: 1. Never buy a car from any leasing or similar company or belonged to a leasing company. 2. Always inquire why a deal is to good to be true. 3. Never buy a car from an unknown private party that was held less than 2 years unless there is a logical compeling evidence for the seller to do so (i.e: health). 4. Never jump the gun on anyone or post info without a clear analysis of the facts. The final owner completly mishandled the situation in my opinion. 5. When the police show at your door for anything that is a surprise to you, always call a attorney at once that very minute. This should pretty much help avoid these kind of situations. The story clearly faults on internal fighting at the leasing conpany. I am actually surprised that a judge issued an inpound order. I am assuming that judge was not fully disclosed all facts and info were withheld from the court. this could not be good. That now probably puts additional liability on the leasing company for payments to all subsequent parties negatively affected by this. The leasing company should be financially accountable for this whole mess. In fact I hope the court put them out of business, no one benefits from companies like that hanging around.
I believe that Roy said that his insurance company looked into it and decided that he had done nothing that would warrant an insurance payout. This is when Roy told Josh to Lawyer up and sue him. What it harkens back to is the fact that if Roy had written the check to Josh the insurance company would have NEVER paid him back as they were left out of the negotiations.
Mike, I would argue that once the principle from the leasing company and the original customer came to an agreement about the price of the car and money and title were exchanged he bought the car. I would also argue that the only person that should be doing any refunding is the original leasing company as they need to give Josh his car back. If there is a legal squabble between the two owners of the company that is between the two of them, but the car belongs to Josh.
SO...at the end of the day, guess who gets screwed? ROY CATS' CUSTOMER. Roy is absolved, his customer loses their car in a snakepit of costly litigation, Roy's lawyers tell him he has no reason to care and laughs all the way to the bank. Good Job, Roy, you're a Model American Businessman.
If he had gone and retained counsel the first thing Monday morning the car would be in his garage right now.
I don't believe this is true and it is certainly not a requirement of such policies. Even if the insurance co. took such a stance, Roy could easily sue them. This is the coverage they are supposed to provide. The insurance co., if so inclined, could then go after the leasing co. to recover their loss.
I know this is many, many, many, many pages later, but figured I'd reply to you. When I asked how you hadn't learned anything, I was completely joking. Hence the use of . There's so much info, and laws that can counteract/contradict one another it's mind blowing. I can't believe I'm still reading through all of this, but I'm intrigued. Just means when it comes time for me to buy my first exotic, I need to be very very cautious of every apsect.
The U.C.C. is part of the common Law? First off, I nominate this as the thread of the month. My first reaction to 360spider was to want to smack him. Actually, it's a lasting impression. Never have I witnessed someone play the role of victim so completely and without ambiguity of any sort. I would love to see an accurate timeline of this entire story. Many believe the courts to be concerned with justice. Of course, they are not. They deal in procedure and that is what will be scrutinized should this end up in court. It is easy for one to take the view that the dealer should make the buyer whole. I'd feel the same way as the buyer; possibly as the dealer, as well. As an investigator, I'd want to assure myself that the buyer wasn't acting in concert with the party who originated the 'deviation from the norm' as a way of maximizing the yield from the fraud by extracting a refund from the dealer. Sounds improbable? The same scenario happened to my father years ago. My father buys a car and, almost immediately, sells it to another. The original owner steals the car from the new buyer and claims he never met my father. The new buyer wanted a refund from my father--until we discovered his hidden connection to the original owner. Pure Hollywood, right? The timeline interests me as I would like to know at what moment the car was officially reported as stolen. Was it prior to or after the fact of the buyer's purchase from the dealer? On another tack, the motor vehicle department(s) is/are a party to these transactions and while one might graciously extend them immunity, they bear as much responsibility as licensor as does a dealer (who, we assume, had no intention to defraud and acted according to procedure). No laws exist to protect one from fraud and injury. They only exist in order that an injured party can seek damages after the fact. In my experience, one must be aggressive and ruthless in this pursuit. I once had a gold Rolex stolen from me at gunpoint. It ended up at Rolex Service Center Japan, who had been in possession of the watch for approximately a year knowing it was stolen (I had faxed them a copy of the police report). They finally admitted to having the watch but refused to return it to me. After trying a gentlemanly approach for about a month and getting no result, I went into attack-dog mode and the watch was expedited to Los Angeles and personally delivered to me by a responsible party from Rolex, Beverly Hills with a security guard in tow. The bottom line is to observe the doctrine of caveat emptor and possess a readiness to do the necessary--in the appropriate venue--to rectify the situation. No points for 'woe is me' posts on F-chat.
Good point! Considering how quickly and frequently some of these cars change hands this situation seems to be a predictable event.
No he didn't tell you that the car was stolen or no he didn't contact you? I guess the question is - did Roy contact you 3 days before the car was taken and was part of that conversation him telling you that someone had called him inquiring about the whereabouts of the car? Roy may not have told you someone was saying it's stolen or about to be repo'ed - he may not have known what their intent was - but did Roy tell you that someone was looking for the car and claiming an ownership interest in it?
Damn dude you make some of the funniest photoshops. That one had my on the floor rolling around, I almost died with that last one.
IMHO it comes down to whether or not a car that was sold by Roy Cats, that is pulled over by the Police, on a Writ issued by a Judge for a cloud on it's Title, causing the driver of that car to be handcuffed, detained, and having the aforementioned car confiscated is "fit for ordinary driving purposes" under Washington State Law: "Implied Warranty of Merchantability Every vehicle sold in Washington by a dealer has an "implied" warranty that the vehicle will be fit for ordinary driving purposes. "
Apparently my posts are worth a hell of a lot (to you) for you to respond to them in such an emotional manner. If you say they're worthless then IGNORE to them. Simple as that! You get way too emotional when responding and you seem to make it personal when it comes to my posts. You need to stop attacking and get yourself a life!! What a buffoon!!! The attack on my brother (especially without knowing the circumstances that had transpired) just makes you look like a GOD in this forum! I bet you needed a Zantac after posting that huh!
That's how my net worth has jumped to $0.02. I don't have a life...since you say so. And because I get so emotional, you have reduced me to tears. Now run along and give advice to someone who actually asks for it.
