Pre purchase inspection help

When I bought my 360 a month ago I did not do a PPI. The car had a PPI done a week earlier by another interested person and I spoke to the mechanic who did the PPI, he was reluctant to give me any information on what he found since someone else paid for it (I expected that and I respected that). But when I asked if I should send the car back for a second PPI, he just said it would be a waste of my money. I took that to mean the car was good to go and bought it. The owner had already told me about a bad motor mount and slight oil leak around valve covers that had been discovered.

It was so low on coolant I overheated on my way out of town...oops he missed that low coolant.

The other issues in my other thread right now about passing smog would not have been discovered by that PPI anyway since it was in another state but I really question the value of a PPI if he can miss low coolant, what else can be missed. To be fair, all I really wanted was compression and leak-down anyway due to the high mileage of the car, so I did a post-purchase inspection and its good to go.

 

A business owner has the right to define their business. It's their business afterall, and if they have determined that certain services cannot justify the risks involved then it makes total sense to not offer the service. It's just risk avoidance: Which is the correct and honest thing to do if you want to stay in business.

I fail to see where the question of "loyalty" even comes into the picture.

 

I did once, but when it became evident as to what he was I told him to get new counsel. I don't represent people like that, and usually end up suing them, because of their behavior they tend to attract suits.

Art

 

Dave:

What I'm saying is that most of us tend to go back to those that helped us. For someone to take the attitude you've taken, without any discussion on the part of the person who needs the assistance is what I'm complaining about. It indicates to me that you have a certain attitude that frankly I don't wish to deal with.

When I said I was careful about the cases that I take, it didn't mean I didn't take certain classes of cases, rather I verified the facts before taking on the work. Your blanket refusal to consider doing this type of work, when it's an entrance into he arena so to speak, tells me that I'd rather not deal with you.

Art

 

Art,

Clearly you don't know Dave and clearly you didn't read my post. You are jumping to conclusions and they are not necessarily correct. I believe that reflects more on your attitude than it does on Dave's.

 

With respect, aren't you making the same blanket refusal to engage Dave in his other services? Just because he doesn't do PPIs (which alot of experienced mechanics choose not to do these days) doesn't make Dave a poor Ferrari mechanic. Seems like it's the same thing from a different point of view.

 

Glad to hear you don't help dickheads anymore.

You did 25 years ago.

 

litigious "inclined to dispute or disagree; argumentative".

Suprisingly from a Lawyer

 

I think you haven't read Daves comments. He said "rarely" not never. He also points out PPIs are typically requested by people who live far away that are looking at a local car, thus no ongoing business. Dave is very generous with his time and knowledge. I'm guessing, but for good customers Dave would likely be a source of guidance in a purchase. I presume you live no where near Dave's business, you'd know more about him if you did, so the point is moot.

 

Now children, play nice. Let us not presume what is on Mr. Helms' mind.

 

There is a difference between our two attitudes on the subject, a good thing, its what makes the world go around. I choose not to pass judgement on you because of what you have stated and do appreciate your view point. I consider your attitude to be somewhat confusing in that "I can do what I want but I will judge you poorly if you dont do what I want". That stated, I also well appreciate the fact that it is near impossible to accurately convey a thought in printed words on the Net. It would be very narrow minded for anyone to think they understand another's view point from a few printed words.

In your rush to make judgements you also missed the fact that I stated that we 'collectively' needed to find a solution to the problem so this has an upside for everyone involved. Anyone that doesn't understand risk mitigation in today's world clearly has a narrow and unrealistic understanding of business.

Frankly my biggest concern in the whole topic is the inevitable insulting of a local Ferrari owner. This being a passion driven market, it is not only likely that an owner will feel insulted by my findings.... it is near a foregone conclusion. I have lost friends by doing PPI's that insulted a local owner, I have been offered bribes to skew results of PPI's to make a car report show better (odd... it was a lawyer in that case), and I have been stiffed on payment of this service by Dealerships, Shops and some pretty big name folks.

For the exact same reasons stated above I decline invitations to judge cars at shows..... I consider everyone of my clients to be friends, folks I would enjoy having a casual dinner with. For the opportunity to wear a Sports Coat and stand in front of a crowd as "A Judge"... my job then is to find flaws in friends cars.... Yah, NO again. I respect those that can do it but that just doesn't sit well with me. Some things are more important to me that a few extra dollars or looking important.

 

I can count 2 in the month of April, 2 so far in May.....some in N. America, some in Europe.... When I am consulting on this type of thing, I control all the variables and I have my lists of requirements that all agree to prior to them happening. A whole different animal than a PPI.

 

I completely agree with Dave's position and question anybody's motives that do not.

 

I am reposting a link to a well known article written by Michael Sheehan and published in Sports Car Market in 2009, which illustrates the problem:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/columns-blogs/mike-sheehan-speaks/2377-pre-purchase-ferrari-inspection-becomes-182k-lawsuit

He concludes: "By the way, virtually no authorized Ferrari dealers will perform pre-purchase inspections any longer. Blame the lawyers."

 

From Michael Sheehan article . This was the block in question and link of the article

http://www.ferraris-online.com/pages/article.php?reqart=SCM_200911_SS
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Good on you to try and clarify Dave's point to those that question it. I certainly agree with your comments and enjoy dealing with Dave and his family very much.

 

As much as I often want to make a blanket statement regarding the Lawyers today... I simply can not. Two of my very best friends are lawyers, a couple of the best people a person could wish as friends. I can no more blame the "lawyers" than folks can say All mechanics are cheats. Its tempting... but not accurate.

I know first hand what the frivolous lawsuits now cost MY customers. I know how much is factored into the labor rate equation... because I was forced to do it. I know how much insurance costs to guard against this nonsense. If the car owners knew these costs... they would all go Ballistic! In this case it is easier for me to simply say NO, something I rarely do. The system MUST change and we must find a way to do some type of PPI's... they are a very valuable service only fools will do now. I still conduct business on a handshake, when I can no longer do that... I quit. PPI's are not the only valuable service cut because of the potential liability... there are a great many others. Potential legal action is not the only reason that PPI's were dropped, reputation destruction by nameless persons, many of whom dont know what end of the car is dangerous, on the Net, is equally damning.

My personal opinion of the legal system was formed only a few years ago. While trying to break a lien I held on a car, I was asked, FACE to FACE, "You may be completely right in your position and standing BUT, I get paid very well to do this to you... how long can you afford to defend against it?" That lawyer was somewhat shocked by my reply and has not, nor will they ever forget my name.... that is what the system has come to. Justice? My.... ear! I lost another lien 3 months ago (that makes 228K lost in 8 yrs now) when a lawyer perjured himself in court and I am now taking him in front of the Board or Bar Overseers. I think folks can make a WAG of what I think about this topic.... sorry about that rant.

An entirely different topic, albeit somewhat related. This is a topic for a whole new thread, one that would have the potential to save all owners a GREAT deal of money, if a solution could ever be found.

 

This whole PPI topic is about trust and expectations. Where do some people get off expecting some golden guarantee from an inspection, also known as an educated assesment based upon the available facts uncovered during the process? Unless you completely tear down the car, there's zero chance of finding everything. Boggles the mind... Oh yes, I totally agree with you.

Anyays, I'll take your handshake any day -- as I'm sure will a lot of the "informed" people here.

 

While I would never presume to speak for Michael Sheehan, or anyone else for that matter, it is my belief that he may have slightly missed the mark in saying "blame the lawyers."

Seems more apt to blame greedy, grasping clients with more money than sense, and a legal system ill-equipped to successfully handle cases of this type.

I've not researched the issue, but I wonder if any PPI lawsuits have actually gone to trial, and what the result was?

It is one thing for a lawyer to wave his sword and talk like a pirate; its another thing entirely for him to capture and reflag a Spanish galleon.

Without having gone to trial, there can be no legal precedent, in which case, as FDR said: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts ..."

 

^^^ah.....you don't have to win a lawsuit to be a nuisance. The mere filing of a suit requires hiring a lawyer to defend yourself, emotional distress, self doubts, time away from more productive activities etc. Lawyers know this and extrort settlements because the cost of defending suits is so high often insurance companies will just settle the case.

Our civil legal system is broken and is a disgrace.

 

The subject is not slip and fall cases: it is PPI claims.

Can you say with certainty that you know of actual cases wherein greedy plaintiff's lawyers extorted cash settlements from beleaguered insurance companies who were defending PPI claims?

Or is it an Urban Myth?

Please, just facts, not hysteria.

 

He was just making a generalized comment toward filing a suit. Little scattered but his point was made. What facts did he really need he was not commenting on anyones issue at hand from this topic. Wheres the hysteria in his comments? Maybe yours perhaps!


Fact: Fear of doing PPI for consumers and the onset of litigation.

Hysteria: A Lawyer on board that doesnt understand Daves postion or the automotive arena.

 

My point: unless or until it can be clearly shown that garages have been sued, and lost these suits after a trial, then there is no legal precedent for garages to fear being held liable for a PPI.

The well known case Sheehan wrote about: I wonder how that one wound up?

Was it settled, dropped, or did it go to trial?

What result?

I'd really like to know the definitive answer to this legal question.

The "hysteria" I speak of is the wide-felt belief that PPIs should not be done, for fear of legal liability.

WHAT liability, exactly?

If as it may be there have never been any successful verdicts in a PPI case that went to trial, then the techs running scared are involved in a form of Tulip Mania.

Oh sure, arrogant car owners will pair up with arrogant lawyers and file arrogant lawsuits, but unless or until somebody has the cajones (and the insurance company) to stand up to them, they will continue to milk the fear.

 

Business decisions arent made from heroic moments of inspritation. You make a decision on price and time cost of conflict. Money and wealth creates targets for Lawyers .Case studies your looking for are often settled behind closed doors .

Do we really need the general public to have another home run lawsuit to pursue for the next decade?

Clean it up, settle the claim keep it quiet from the general public. Make money put some of your future earnings for your next lawsuit or become wealthy enough to have a Lawyer sit on your company payroll to be used at your discretion.

Where do you think the business owner will gravitate towards? Superman or Businessman?

 

I am ONLY trying to discern whether, in fact, ANY shop has in fact ever been held liable in court for a faulty PPI.

Heck, have any even, in fact, ever paid out money to settle a PPI claim?

I do not know.

I understand and do not fault techs for eschewing PPIs these days: as always, they make a business judgment, and find that PPIs fail the cost / benefit analysis.