Well another issie has arose with Ferrari of Ontario. This time they have chosen to hold a car and not return it. A good client of mine was looking at a 94 512TR. The car is at a dealer that I do a ton of work for. The dealer purchased the car from the original owner. They did all their normal investigation before going ahead a buying the car. They checked for accidents, leans, basicly anything that would raise any kind of red flag. The car had always been serviced at FoO so my client wanted to have the car looked over by the dealer and to have any oustanding recalls done while the car was in their hands. It turns out that supposady there is an out standing bill owned on the car for $8800. The dealer I do the work for contacted the previous owner and he has know such knowledge of any outstanding bill and has all the records to back up his claim. Ferrari of Ontario (Remo) won't allow the car to leave the dealer until the so called bill is paid. My question is..Now that the car has changed hands and the car has never had a lean put against it how the heck can they hold the car? Should they have not gone after the previous owner to collect the money? And now that the car has been sold free a clear of any leans, the new owner of the car should not be held accountable for the previous owners problems. My thoughts are that the Ferrari dealer should have put the lean on the car or filed suit against the previous owner. But the previous owner of the car has no record of an outstanding bill for any work performed on the car. All his records indicate that all bills were paid. He is as dumbfounded as the rest of us. They went up there today with the cops and Remo still refused to return the car. So now they are going up tomorrow with a bailif to get the car. If Remo does not release it he will be charged with theft and will be arrested. The 355 issue still has not been resloved
Sounds interesting. The guy has no right to hold on to the car. He could have made it up for all anyone knows. Call the T.O. Star or Globe(or local news camera crew) when you go down again with the bailiff and make a big stink. It's the only way to stop the hijinks. Let us know how it all works out.
Boy...I guess you guys in Canada have some goofy laws Do they still take away radar detectors... when people from Michigan cross the boarder to go gambling in Windsor? Good luck with your friends case. (the TV crew idea sound like a fun thing to try) Can you get pupblic records in Canada? I remember a friend of mine wouldn't buy a car from the Ferrari shop in St Pete Florida because they had way too many pending law suits filed against them.
Yep I think the word of mouth will eventually sink this useless company. So for Gods sake, please guys on this board do NOT take your car there under any circumstances. Even if you break down right outside its doors. There must be alternatives ... Pete
About the F355... You said FoO told you it was a misprint and Ferrari does not have to cover the manifolds. Did you get in touch with Ferrari of Quebec? What do they have to say?
Ethics of OMVIC, MVDA, Standard Business Practise, etc... Unless Remo put a garage lien against the car when the work was done, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Don't just call the police, call OMVIC as well.
The car was checked and cleared for leans. If the car did have a lean on it then it would have been taken care of before the new owner purchased it. I have found out some VERY interesting info about Ferrari of Ont. It explains alot as to why Remo is able to get away with waht he does. I won't be posting it here though becuase I don't want to get into trouble. But it is very enlightening stuff. Heand his partner also had a big part in Brian Jessel Ferrari closeing it's doors. He is not a very respected person in the Ferrari world.
I have never heard of anyone that is happy with FoO, whether with sales or service. Who keeps using them. There are lots of alternatives out in TO, why support these asses. Dollar vote folks, that'll teach 'em!
I am trained in Dutch / European law, so Canadian law is not really my thing, but from what I know, the dealer has a right to hold on to the car as long as there are outstanding bills. If owner A has parked the car at the dealer in order to do some work on it, and sold it while the car was still at the dealer to party B, party B can never have obtained ownership because owner A never delivered the car to B. The car was at the dealer the whole time, and delivery can only take place when owner A gives party B fysical entrance to the car (by handing over the keys for instance). As long as that gesture doesn't take place, the car can be sold but will not have changed ownership. As far as the dealer is concerned (or the rest of the world for that matter) owner A maintains it's ownership and as long as owner A doens't take care of the bills, the dealer can hold on to the car. Demanding the dealer hands the car over to party B would be the same as demanding that the dealer delivers the car in representation of owner A. The dealer won't do that as long as they have claims on owner A. Again, this is Dutch law, but perhaps Canadian law isn't all the different.
I might have misunderstood you, but I think you have the scenario wrong. In this case, owner A (apparantly) has an outstanding bill from a while back. At the time, the dealership allowed owner A to pick up the car and take it home. Since then, some time has passed and owner A sold it to owner B. Owner B later returned to car back to the dealership to have it checked for outstanding recall work. When the car returned to the dealership (under the ownership of B), the dealership held B's car because of something (again, apparantly) owner A had outstanding. I don't think the dealership has any right to hold the car. I'm not a lawyer, but come on!
So we get to play the guessing game?????? a) Remo has photos of the Mayor? b) Remo knows the guys from the Mob? c) Remo is a nice guy and this thread is a joke?
Mark..I really would like to post the info. The info i have is in regards to his partner. This info is in direct relation as to how he can carry on doing business in the manner in which he does. But because of the recent problems on the site in regarding the P4 thread I really don't feel comfortable doing so. Tom.
Remo's only recourse is to go after the owner (personally) of the car at the time bill was issued. If there is one thing that I've learned in my years in corporate finance is that...no lean=no recourse. All Remo is doing is trying to play hard ball (and by his own rules) by holding the car. And from what I can understand, it's all here-say. As for Remo getting arrested for theft...this I gotta see!!!
I don't know much about lien law in Canada, but in California, there is a lien against a vehicle as long as the shop has possession. It loses that lien, when it releases the car, except: 1. When fraud is committed, or 2. It records a lien. I think I'd need to know more facts, and Canadian law before I commented any further. Art
It has happend before I belive regarding an issue that was quite similar in nature. But I think some pushing and shoving was involved and no real charges were laid. As far as this being hear-say it is not. It is fact. I belevie they are unpset that the car was sold to a competeing dealer for used Ferrari's. Remo wanted the car to sell, because it is and absoulte gem of a car, didn't get it, now he is crying like a stuck pig.
Just call Don Corleone and have him straighten this out. I'm sure he can make Remo and offer he won't refuse
Yes he does. Fortunately, Luigi liked both me and my dad when we lived there. Never bought anything from him then (late 70's), but we were always welcomed.
Hey Tom, (It's John - the guy who bought the red 84 QV and traded in the old SL, remember me?). Just read your post. The law gives Remo a number of ways he can protect himself, by creating a lien on the car. The Repair and Storage Lien Act says a possessory lien will exist when FoO did the original work on the car, they may hold the car until paid. But (excerpt from the Act): "5. A lien under this Part is discharged and cannot be revived as an interest in the article if possession of the article that is subject to the lien is surrendered to, or lawfully comes into the possession of, the owner or any other person who is entitled to receive a notice under subsection 15(2). 1989, c. 17, s. 5." So... when Remo gave up the car, he lost his posessory lien, no second chances. He can still have a non-possessory lien under the Act, but he would have to register notice of it under the Personal Property Security Act (which, if the VIN number was checked with a used vehicle information package and nothing came up - he did not do). So... if he didn't register: "10. (1) A non-possessory lien is enforceable against third parties only if a claim for lien has been registered, and, where a person acquires a right against an article after a non-possessory lien arises, the right of the person has priority over the non-possessory lien of the lien claimant if a claim for lien was not registered before the person acquired the right." Your buyer is what they call a bona fide purchaser for value without notce, effectivly he did everything he could do to protect himself at law by searching the VIN number of the car, and Remo did absolutely none of the things he could do to protect himself at law, thus, your buyer should take clear of Remo's claim. Somebody's lawyer should write a demand letter threatening a suit for the tort of "conversion", essentially wrongfully appropriating someone else's property. Finally, a written complaint sent to the motor vehicle dealer's licencing branch of the Provincial goverment, copied to FoO, might also work wonders. If he really wanted to get mad, the buyer could sue FoO, go on an interim motion and get and order for possession, asking for costs against FoO. Sometimes, the presence of an obvious process server in the middle of your car dealership sales floor will work wonders.
Hi John!! Hows the car? I hope you are enjoying it! Thank you very much for the info. The dealer which now owns the car is going to sue Ferrari Of Ontario for loss of sale etc. They are also going after them for a couple of other issues that have arisen. The car is still at Ferrari of Ontario. As soon as they were conntacted by the lawyer, the changed their tune right away and started to appologize. The keep calling the dealer and the previous owner of the car(because he is now involved) to come and get the car. The car is going to be picked up monday by the lawyer and I guess court papers will be served at that time. This is an unfortunate situation for the parties involved. We have discussed matters like this with other former customers of Ferrari of Ontario. They all have some kind of story to tell about the antics that go on up there. Not one has ever been a good story. I'm sure he has the odd happy customer, but I have never met one.
