HELP PPI Report For 355 Spider I was Looking at Buying.

You do your due diligence before you make an offer. Once you make an offer, you go thru with it. If insufficient evidence is available, you either pass or "take a chance".

 

huh? most if not all people i know make offers with conditions that must be meet. i've not meet anyone who did a home inspection before making an offer, it's usually the other way around. what if your offer is rejected after an inspection? you've just wasted money on due diligence.

 

So anyone who wants to bid should have a PPI done before they know if they won the auction? Don't think that would work. Is a buyer going to talk a dealer or a private seller and say I might want to buy this car, and then have a PPI done before he knows if the his offer would accept? Don't think so. I suspect you would, and I know I would, want a signed deal first. With Ebay it's different. You have to win the auction before you can move forward. The seller knows nothing is binding. You even posted: Not allowed, "Stating in the listing that bidding could result in a binding obligation to complete the purchase". So the seller knows going in that the buyer may, and has the right to, renege. Has noting to do with honor or commitment. It's a business transaction. You don't do the honorable thing and spend $36k when you fine out things aren't what you hoped they would be. And you don't spend $500 on a PPI hoping you will win the auction. The seller might not even agree to that in the first place. Can you image 3 or 4 serious bidders wanting to have a PPI done before the auction ended, maybe by different shops? And it may not be possible to even schedule a PPI before the end date.

That's the one thing I see here all the time, absence of logic.

 

It's simple. If you have terms and conditions, especially as it applies to PPIs, you ask the seller to agree to them. If the seller doesn't agree, then you don't bid!

 

Again, you aren't seeing the logical path. 1) Buyer won the auction. 2) Buyer must have asked for a PRE PURCHASE INSPECTION, emphasis on "PRE". 3) Seller must have agreed (or there would not have been one). 4) Buyer reneged based on PPI result. 5)Seller express sour grapes because the sale falls through.

And again, an ebay seller knows going in that the sale in not binding.

Anyway, it's neither my or your problem. It's between ebay, the bidders and the sellers. Our opinions don't make any difference. So relax, sit back, work on you car, and have a glass of Merlot.

 

I'm a little confused. So you have the seller agree to let you do your ppi before you bid? If he says sure, go right ahead, he still does not have any obligation to accept whatever bid you throw at him. What if you're dealing with multiple bidders? Why would the seller even agree if he doesn't know what the offer will be? Doesn't this give the seller a huge advantage and the buyer shoulders the full risk? How is this an advantage over the proven method of:

1. give offer with conditions of passing ppi, history, etc.
2. seller agrees with refundable deposit.
3. continue on from there.

 

Buyer had PPI before he bid.

 

i always have a PPI done even after i win the bid..... AS IS doesn't mean AS IS as the seller is always making some sort of claims. you have to have a way to verify the auction merchandise.

i had no problem doing this with the three porsches i sold.

 

This place is out of control

 

I think there needs to be some common sense in the process. The OP won at $35K, reportedly. If true, then common sense says this car is not going to be the garage queen he seems to want. So ordering a PPI at that point is sort of a check to see what needs he is going to have to meet on his new car. At that price, using a PPI to back out is kind of silly to me. Short of finding out that the engine was trashed or it was a salvage title car or had been dragged through a flood and not represented as such. Go through with the sale. At $35K exactly what high expectations did the OP have that were not met?

I have bought 2 cars via eBay, one through a completed sale (Ferrari) and another on an after sale event (Porsche). One I got a PPI before sending the money, the other I didn't. Still went through with the transactions because I said I would.

Let's talk about the 348SS I bought without a prior PPI to the auction finish. At the price I didn't care too much what the PPI would show because I had already personally seen and driven the car. Even if I hadn't, it was caveat emptor. In fact, the car was offered in another state in a prior auction, but I neglected to bid because I could not see it and my "advisor" who did was not impressed. I can tell you that if I had bid and won, I would have gone through with the sale because that is how the system works. If you have no intention of completing the transaction, don't bid. Winning an auction is not a first right of refusal to complete the sale. You can back out for legit reasons, but in this case using the PPI to unravel the sale was not warranted, I believe because A) the PPI did not disclose anything that was concealed by the seller (as far as we know) and B) the price was so discounted that this alone covers a multitude of deficiencies that may arise.

Bottom line, unless the seller was hiding something material (fraud), or the PPI revealed something catastrophic the OP should have completed the transaction, I feel. Common sense says when you win an on-line auction of a $60K car for $35K you need to adjust your expectations. Unless you had the foresight to do your own due dilligence prior to the auction's close in which case you would have known what you bought.

Comparing this to a real estate transaction is ludicrous. Personal property does not sell with escrow periods nor require the numerous surveys and input from others, etc. for a transaction completion. You don't get to buy a car then take 30 days to figure out if it is as represented before you part with the money. Maybe you can get away with that on a yacht sale but that is not this.

 

Au contraries to your post Vince. Apparently in eBay land, real estate and autos are non binding , period. You can debate this and that as to how you feel a transaction should occur but bottom line. It is a non binding transaction. Vehicles means it had no validity. At call it is strictly a way for buyers to meet sellers and there is no contract. Simple. There is no debate.

We live in a world of legalese. It is a non binding transaction. The buyer is not bound to buy the car. All the rest if this is noise.

 

Kid is a tire kicker and we are still talking about him. He is driving his new Civic Si as we speak.

 

I'll up the ante on this conversation. When I (personally) buy an aircraft, I make a two part offer: 1) one price that includes a full inspection (and repairs of airworthy items) and is generally close to market value; and 2) another price that is significantly lower, but "as-is, where-is, all faults accepted" (keep in mind, we're talking about FAA mandated maintenance and inspections). Often, the seller doesn't want the deal to drag on or potentially spend tens of thousands of dollars maintaining an aircraft they don't want and takes the lower offer just to be done with it and move on. I expect to find issues with the aircraft and have NEVER gone back to the seller because I factored the risk into the price and accepted the liability. The side benefit of this is that I've gotten some incredible deals from sellers that, for whatever reason, need to sell quickly.

 

Seems to be what FChat is all about these days. Bashing/flaming/insulting. The place has really hit a low.