Ferrari of San Antonio sold me a damaged CPO car, lied to me, refuses to make it right.

In the words of the OP the reason for starting this thread is, "If anyone here is considering the purchase of a car from Ferrari of San Antonio, run for the hills and never, ever do business with this dealership".

I have to say if that dealer had the car I wanted at the price I wanted, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to buy it.

Some have mentioned because of what they read here they would never buy from this dealer, Then I guess they would never buy from any car dealer, I can't prove this, but I would venture to say that there is not one car dealer in the US that has not lied or deceived a buyer, Nor is there not one car dealer that hasn't had multiple customers who have felt they have been cheated.

I have bought cars long distance and the odds are slim that from Massachusetts I'll buy a car in San Antonio, but the OP's problems wouldn't deter me in the slightest. If I don't do my due diligence any dealer in the US is quite capable of cheating me.

 

exactly my point. Just too naive to assume otherwise whilst bearing the risk of potential further legal troubles for $1500. This is not about the principle, but rather some miscalculated risk taking and benefit return ratio, the same kind of mentality that led to buying a car from a dealer that has no prior relationship unseen, as well as ranting on internet.

 

Crooks aren't intelligent enough to rationalize this.

 

@dgoldenz94 - Your post definitely sounds like it was warranted, contrary to the “internet advice” that you have received. Some of the comments are almost comical. What does the 1st Amendment have to do with any of this? Libel/Slander? A Ferrari store being compared to a “typical” used car dealer. Lol.

Anyways, without rehashing everything already discussed, Texas has great consumer protection laws that cover this situation almost exactly. The Deceptive Trade Practices Act violation would make a great cause of action, and it looks like there is more than enough evidence here. A court can award treble damages and attorney’s fees. Some keywords: fraudulent inducement, purchase made based on reliance of the misrepresentations, knowingly and/or intentionally, misrepresentation about the particular quality of a good or service...

As it’s also been mentioned, $1,500 isn’t worth taking this to court. But I think your original goal of helping out your fellow car enthusiast has been achieved, and anyone buying from this dealer will be extra attentive with respect to their cars.

This is not legal advice.

 

Please read this case carefully and especially on the judge's ruling about a woman who left a scathing yelp review and the business sued for defamation or libel and won. Slander is not applicable here because this is not verbal act here on internet. You can learn a thing or two about why first amendment right is always a common defense in this kind of cases, yet it could fail to defend when the op uses words such as "lie" which implied criminal intent, similar to the defendant in the said case using the word "scam". The judge also quoted other cases in her judgement.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2015/2015-ny-slip-op-51349-u.html

Helping a fellow fchatter out takes many forms. A good example is your second half of the post listing those entities to file complaint on, but when you commented some of my comments as comical just because you are not sure about the laws may likely be counter effective to the goal you want to achieve for the op. You have to have some due diligence to the advice and opinion you give. Just writing a disclaimer that this is not a legal advice will not cut it on ethical ground.

 

I agree there are certain words people shouldnt use such as 'lie' and 'fraud.' Those do open you up to a lawsuit. Tell the story without making accusations like those

 

A few questions for the OP:

1. Did YOU request the car be offered with CPO or was it advertised as already being CPO’d? Because it’s not currently being marketed as a CPO car that I can see from the links provided.

2. Exactly what quality of 2013 Ferrari FF did you REALLY expect you were getting for $100k ?

3. Was there any level of buyers remorse when you saw the spec in person? Regardless of the condition...

4. Who paid to have the car transported from Las Vegas back to San Antonio? Or was is $1500 round trip cost?

5. Where did you get the idea that it was a good idea to threaten both Ferrari of San Antonio AND Ferrari North America with social media blasting...


...before actually speaking with Thomas Flemming. I mean, the cat is out of the bag, how many thousands of people have read your posts and ongoing discussions? Where is the incentive for any of the parties to give you want you want now? The damage has been done...


Were they were offering the car at $109,000 As-Is and you negotiated that they include the warranty...
knowing that paint and interior were not covered by the warranty anyways... they agreed ( rightly or wrongly ) to include it.

While I see that their current asking price is significantly higher than the sales price in this discussion , MAYBE it’s taking into account the amount spent to correct the paint repairs and have the leather refinished. I acknowledge that the businesses you approached in Las Vegas refused to do it, citing their inability or no desire to get involved, but from the photographs you sent everything can be addressed.

I have yet to find an ad for any item for sale whether seller stated I’m selling a worn out beat up falling apart “XYZ item “ and I’m willing to take $xyz for it
They then include the best photographs of their XYZ item and throw it into the marketplace to see if there’s any interested buyers.

Should a franchised Ferrari dealership present a Ferrari without mandating an in person inspection? I don’t think so , but that’s just my opinion. I also go into any long-distance purchases as buyer beware... again my opinion / choice.

i’m glad you got the bulk of your money back and as many others have stated, $1500 is an inexpensive lesson in the Ferrari world.

 

the CPO has to have value and mean something. We are speaking of the interior because that is what was visible, and the owner could have observed it had they done an inspection, but what about the mechanics? If the CPO checklist was wrong about the interior do you think the rest was accurate? Highly doubtful. My guess is there are many more problems not visible.

the dealer should have their ability to brand a car as CPO suspended or revoked.

 

"some due diligence to the advice and opinion you give"? I am a licensed Texas attorney that has handles dozens of DTPA and Breach of Contract cases representing both dealerships and buyers, and I am very well versed in Texas consumer protection laws. I also handle defamation cases. Therefore, to answer your statement, I have done my due diligence and am confident in my assessments.

"You can learn a thing or two about why first amendment right is always a common defense in this kind of cases..." Again, I stand by my original statement, and based on your response, it is even more applicable. Please do your research and at least do a simple search on the First Amendment, what it is about and what it covers. 99 times out of 100, when someone brings the term "1st Amendment" into a conversation with me, they have no idea what it actually encompasses, but a quick hint is to look at governmental agency or authority.

The case referenced is a NY case, so even though I have opinions, I will not comment on that case because the laws are different in each state. But as a general rule, you sir, should understand what you are reading regarding case law and how it relates to the outcome. I can tell you that you misinterpreted why the court made the ruling it did. Notice that the business did lose the defamation case.

The reason I put "This is not legal advice" is because I am required to as a Texas attorney, and for my protection in case someone decides to use my advice on their own case. It also lets people know that I do not represent anyone with regard to this situation.

Again, my purpose here is not to attack or question others on this forum, I am only here because of my love of Ferrari and cars, which I am sure is mutual for everyone here. A licensed Ferrari dealership should be held to a high standard commensurate to the cars they sell, they should not be reduced to a buyer beware standard of a tote-the-note dealership.

I absolutely think that a buyer should do their due diligence when making any purchase, but it sounds like the OP did what was prudent at the time he made the purchase. In hindsight, of course he could have done additional things to avoid this, but he relied on the Ferrari dealership to operate at the high standard that they claim. A licensed Ferrari dealership presents itself as a high-end product and they need to conduct business as such. You cannot claim to be an expert on all things Ferrari and then sell someone a substandard car that has visible repairs and damage. If they said nothing at all regarding condition, then that would be a different situation.

@dgoldenz94 - Again, your post was very helpful, in that at the very least, someone on here that is considering this car will exercise more caution when dealing with this car or dealership. You are absolutely correct, a Ferrari dealership will be held to a higher standard when it comes to details about the condition of this car.

 

I get that the buyer should have been more careful, and I think he would agree. If this car were sold as primo (which I think its fair is implied by being CPO) on Bring a Trailer or something and arrived in this condition, a reasonable person would not be happy. For the love of god, why wouldnt the dealer spend some money reconditioning this car? What this cars condition tells me is the dealer didnt give a damn. Its been a bit since I was in the car biz, but even a Ford dealer does paint touchups and tries to remove interior stains, etc before they resell. What a mess all around.

 

This is the exerpt of the judge ruling and the plaintiff won. Why did you omit this part and only mentioned that the corporation part lost the defamation? Particularly the op mentioned the GM and the sales by name.

"Plaintiff Gardiner has established that he has suffered damages as a result from the per se defamatory statements posted by defendant Fanelli on-line. He is entitled to a judgment of $1,000.00 with interest from the date of judgment costs and disbursements."

Regarding your statement of 99% of those who use first amendment have no idea what they talking about, this is what the judge said about it in this case, "The defendant argues that she has a first amendment right to give her opinion of the plaintiffs. Courts are cognizant of the need to balance that cherished freedom of expression against the right of persons not to suffer damages as a result of defamatory comments.

In order to protect our prized First Amendment rights to free speech and press as well as debate on public issues, courts have insulated defendants from liability for stating opinions that another person was "immoral" and "unethical" (citations omitted) and for "lying, deceiving, [and] making false promises" (citations omitted).

[Rafkofsky v Washington Post, 39 Misc 3d 1226(A) (2013)]

Analyzing the three posts by the defendant, the court must decide whether they are "pure opinions" which are not actionable by the plaintiffs, or "mixed opinions" which are."

Did you know the op also had shared how excited he had been since he received the said car back in June? You do understand that the counsel of the GM, sales and the dealership easily could have brought a case with their own legal department in house and if they were to bring a lawsuit for whatever reason, the op only choice is to defend himself in court why his opinions are not mixed opinions, and that will cost him significantly more when his attorney realizes the vehicle is a Ferrari. I am sure you agree as a practicing attorney, to bring a lawsuit in US does not require merit to begin with, and it is defendant burden to fight it. For $1500 and from the perspective of the OP sticking his neck out to educate and warn us about San Antonio is not worth any of the risk. If op were your kid, you as an attorney, would you still condone his ranting here online?

This again comes down to who has deeper pocket and who is more pissed about what is at stake. The reputation of the dealership, its GM and sales definitely worth more than $1500.

The reason I go this far is because I notice there are simply too many individuals from the younger generation underestimating the repercussions of writing whatever they want on internet. He will likely appreciate the lessons we give here rather than in "real" life.

 

well, that's right you are 35 years old in your profile and that you are also in sales.

 

I see. so that is what you are betting on. LOL. If you were given back the $1500 would you still post these stuff here? based on your other thread in the v12 section where you shared your excitement since June, it does not appear so. I will also stop here since you obviously don't need any suggestion. But regarding your statement of "Can't see the forest for the trees", why don't you email San Antonio and let the GM know what you have written here, you will soon find out what exactly a forest is.

 

of course I don't know. You said you are also in sales earlier when you said you know all the games. Isn't that true?

 

Demonstrably untrue.

 

fun thread...clearly a bee under Marcel's bonnet (I am left wondering if a barn-find 250GTO that was previously unknown would elicit this many posts from one of our most esteemed members)

A few thoughts:

1. The buyer should never rely upon the word of a car dealer about condition. NOT CONTROVERSIAL

2. A buyer should inspect any Ferrari they want to buy (via third party or themselves or via pictures/video/paperwork) . NOT CONTROVERSIAL

3. A CPO labeled and sold car *should meet some standards*. APPARENTLY CONTROVERSIAL.

4. This Buyer avoided a very expensive lesson all for the cost of some frustration, some time and $1500. I'D CALL THAT A WIN OR AT LEAST A DRAW

5. That car is a piece of ****. HOPEFULLY NOT CONTROVERSIAL

 

The point I am making here is simple. It is now more clear that you have calculated the chance of the dealership would sue you based on what you wrote here. You were not as naïve as I assumed you were. I genuinely wanted you to stop posting for the potential unnecessary legal troubles. Also, if the GM made no mention of not paying you back the transportation cost when they have paid for everything else including the transportation cost to bring the car back to TX, then how can you say he lied to you?

Again, would you post all these stuff if you were given $1500 back in the gecko? The way it looks, it does not appear so. Overall, you want sympathy, you got some from some people. You want people to be warned, somebody now is. But when you implied the $1500 has no bearing in your decision and your post was not part of emotion driven revenge, I do not believe it, and even more so now.

The dealership actually not only repurchased the car back for your lack of self-imposed responsibilities to check the car prior to sale, they even paid for the shipping and arrangement out of state for you. Again, you would have spent $1500 for the travel and lodging if you were to check out the car. The only reason you are crying is because you want the cake and eat it too, and because it is a Ferrari, blah blah blah. Somebody said it already, and you are not hearing it. Ferrari dealership is a car dealership. A used car dealership is a used car dealership staff by car salesman. Ferrari or not. News for you, welcome to the Ferrari world. Actually I am sure you already know that too since you know "all the game in sales"

Stop crying. This is my point, and I think you can stop now acting as all victimized. You have enjoyed the car thoroughly as documented in the other thread of yours in the V12 section.

 

Exactly. The OP (or anybody else) shouldn't have to go through this.