Also I kindly request that if any one, Mike, L-power, anyone has the case # or a copy of the report OR anything that will help me go after this car it would be greatly appreciated...no need for me to run down the same tracks some one else has already been on...Thanks.
For cying out loud, it makes no difference what the status of the lien or title was at the time of sale. The only issue is that the car is now subject to a colorable claim. The title does not matter. And Roy, now that attorneys are involved at your behest, I would be careful making any offers of settelment on an open forum. Now that the sharks smell blood, this thing may become more complicated than it really is, or should have been in the first place.
No I dont want anything to appear to be hidden here...we all want to get to the bottom of this, if nothing else we can all learn from it.. the last 4 on the vin is # 0 6 9 1 so if you have any documents in regards to this vin PLEASE scan and post here ASAP...I want this all to be above board and clear as hell...Thanks
Roy, I did not post the whole vin# for privacy to the victums here! We can not talk about the financing and the full vin# in public...By you asking me to expose them bring liablity me to me, and is not in the best irntrest of you or this topic. You have the same tools I do use them...but I will not post my information public...just to say..the lender did report a lien on file...before the car was sold...you would have no idea though as the title was stil orginal owners and dealer reasigment had been used... What I posted is a the way issues like this happen...still in genrals..do not make my post your story...You have facts that i do not...I was simply showing how by NOT registrying cars in your dealership name, this could happen...
Fair enough, I do not wish you to get in any trouble if you feel that will happen to you...but at least e-mail what info you have...I dont think its fair to make such claims and then just use I dont want to get in trouble claim.. correct me if I am wrong, but as you have said in your post, a search in your state in your method would reveal this, correct? So what is private about it? Is it not publice info from a goverment source you have? I would think anyone can get the info you are eluding to correct? Or is it some secret squirle stuff only you can get? Thanks
Speaking of dealer ethics, I'd like your commentary on this matter. Let's say a factory dealer advertises a used car as having had the "major" service done. Moreover, their policy is to never sell used cars that have had paintwork. Buyer purchases "dream" car knowing both these facts and based, in part at least, on them. Buyer drives car for, say, 9 months and decides to trade up to a newer, better and more expensive model. At this time, dealer tells buyer that the car needs a major service, has had paintwork and thus they'll have to wholesale the car out as they do not sell used cars that have had any paintwork. Gives a trade-in value of approximately 50% of what the car would have been had the car had the major and no paintwork. Buyer isn't in a position to "eat the loss" (and purchased this car over others, in fact, because it was mostly depreciated and wouldn't suffer a huge loss in value). Buyer keeps car, has major service done and time passes (let's say 2 years). Buyer decides to sell car but must find someone to broker it who isn't afraid of selling a car with paintwork. Car sells at a significant loss due in large part to paintwork. What should/can the dealer do to make it right for Buyer? CW
The buyer should have had a PPI performed...that would have uncovered the problems. Why wouldn't a buyer request copies of the major service as well? Since we're speaking hypothetically...so the buyer didn't perform an ounce of due diligence and 2 years later, according to your example, it's the dealers responsibility? Let's stay on topic though...
+1 on both! I want to make clear, that in the transaction of dealer reasigmnet of title to a out-of-state buyer is 100% legal and by the book in WA state and would have been a diffrent matter if it was in-state title! So in that matter Roy made no mistakes..there was no need for attorney, Cats Exotics did nothing wrong, Nothing to defend themselves against...Just call the buyer tell the issue, get the car back and fight the people Cats Exotics got the car from...We still have to rember on the topic at hand that the PO was between the buyer and seller!
I have no issue breaking this out and making this a separate thread. Happy to. Will do so. I will post my reply to your questions/comments. Sorry to go off topic, but 41 pages on one topic is ... a lot. CW
What is this law school 101? Now you are getting into fraud in the inducment. Quite frankly I do not think the dealer would legally have to do anything. If buyer,after finding out the car was not as represented, then waits two years, the statute of limitations probably expired. It begins at the time the car was found not to conform with the representations from the dealer. In this case, the buyer found it was not what he thought it was, then by keeping the car waived any rights he may have had. Statutes vary state to state.
True. Legally, I believe there is no recourse as the SoL lapsed. My question really pertains more to the ethics of the matter. Reputation is hard to establish, and, once established, should be protected. A dealer who sold a car that was not as represented very clearly stepped over an ethical and legal line at the time of the sale. Should this information come out, it would be damaging to the dealer's reputation. However, I have posted this in the General forum. So, we can move the discussion there. CW
Damn.............. Once this all gets worked out I think the first post should be replaced with a post detailing all the facts............. or just a new thread. It's hard to keep straight the guesswork and the substance.
Why do some of you people find it necessary to "quote" a big long post when you are just adding a "+1" or a "smiley face"? It's silly.
On the contrary, Roy, this post has earned my respect and restored my faith in your business. I would again consider you first if I was buying an exotic. Thank you for this post--it was big of you and I think it's more than fair. Well done.
As far the filing date on the police report and the coincidence of it being right around the time of Josh's purchase, in another theory, maybe the car wasn't techinically 'stolen' while it was sitting on any dealer's lot. Maybe it only was 'stolen' when it was finally sold to someone. Meaning in other words, the leasing company was trying to track down the car. They tracked it as far as to Roy. Roy says "Nope I don't got it, I sold it to someone, and I aint' sayin who". Private detective says "Well okay then if you don't got it, when did you sell it?". Roy "I sold it on 12/20/07 and it's gone now". Detective figures it took couple days for the person the get the car, so goes to LVPD and files the police report, listing stolen date of "12/22/07" based on his conversation with Roy. A guess....
I was joking of course about that rephrase and I agree 100%. Even if he bought it with 1000, 5 gallon barrels of pennies, he still bought the car as a paying customer who thought he was getting a no nonsense car. What he got instead was "sue me". I don't know Roy but i think he has done a lot of damage to his reputation for how he handles business procedures when something goes bad instead of posting his rant's on an open forum. You don't see celebrities posting on TMZ to b***itch back at the pap's do you.
Instead of just posting a huge BUYER BEWARE "you are on your own" sign on your front business sign, I'd suggest that you offer each of your customers the autocheck or carfax clear title insurance (what are the limits, like $60k or $100k??) to protect some substantial portion of their purchase for what would amount to you to somewhere between a mere $15 to $50. It might not hurt your image to show the specific steps that you are taking to protect your customers in the future, too...because I can't imagine that you just want to tell your buyers that they are on their own if your deals aren't as represented in good faith. Surely no one wants to be known as the "Roy that sells cars that get you pulled over, handcuffed, and your vehicle confiscated by the police."
