275 NART Spyder lawsuit

Sad that.

 

That F1 was offered for far less including estimated cost for DOT conversion earlier this year. Looks like it may have been good to have steered clear of it after all.

 

I am the owner of the cars involved in this thread.

In mid-2009, I accepted a trade of Ferrari 275GTB 6C (08046) and McLaren F1 (013) against my 275 GTB/S NART Spyder (11057). A very specific part of the sale contract was an agreement that I would receive a right of first refusal to repurchase the NART (11057). The trade was organized through a well-known California dealer -- Andy Cohen.

I delivered the NART Spyder as required by my contract. However, I did not receive the promised right of first refusal or the two trades.

When it became clear that the right of first refusal would not be available in the form required by the sales contract, I demanded that the transaction be unwound, my NART Spyder be returned to me, the buyer be fully reimbursed and the deal be cancelled altogether. I then learned that the NART had already been delivered to its buyer, he had already paid duty and taxes on the car and the car was not recoverable.

When I spoke to the buyer directly, he insisted that he had dealt with a John Gillespie and not Mr. Cohen, that he had never seen or agreed to the right of first refusal language in the contract, that he was not prepared to honor that term of that contract and that he was not prepared to unwind the transaction.

Despite having already received a receipt and bill of sale for both the 275 GTB and the McLaren from Andy Cohen -- acknowledging that I had fully paid for both cars -- Mr. Cohen and his partner, Mr. Gillespie, threatened to refuse to turn the two two trade cars over to me unless I agreed to waive the right of first refusal. I refused. I ultimately had to file suit in California to secure possession of the cars. Pursuant to a California Court order, I have gotten both title to and possession of both cars.

The 275 GTB has now been resold to its prior owner and is now back in good hands. The McLaren has been imported in my name and is in a free trade zone in Baltimore, Maryland. I have also secured a "show & display" waiver for the McLaren based on my proven ownership of the vehicle. If, as has been reported to me, Mr. Gillespie is still claiming a continuing ownership interest in this car or any right to present it for sale, he is liar.

The McLaren involved is s/n 013. It is not the car that suffered serious damage in the heavily reported fire referred to on this site. That car is a different vehicle and is the subject of an article in this month's Sports Car Market Magazine.

My car (013) has had only one untoward incident in its short life, virtually all of which was spent in a museum in Japan. While the car was briefly in Europe in 2007, the catalytic converters overheated in traffic. The cats were badly damaged and the heat caused paint blistering and damage to the engine cover. The car was returned to the McLaren factory where the catalytic converters were replaced, the rear body work repainted and all the mechanical aspects of the car fully checked out by the McLaren factory's mechanics.

The lawsuit has continued. I am seeking to recover the value of the promised, but never delivered right of first refusal; the damages I sustained as a result of the year it took me to get possession of the two trade cars; the value of certain accessories and parts the sellers had promised to deliver with the cars but never provided; the failure of the sellers to live up to their contractual obligation to pay the import duty and conversion costs to make the McLaren fully US road legal; and damages for misrepresentations made in the contract including as to the accident history of the 275 GTB (08046) and the service history of the McLaren (013).

 

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Carl, who apparently got caught up in some loose promises from the people representing the buyers.

I wonder, though, why, when the dollar amounts involved are so substantial, that a transaction such as this is not handled in the same way as a real estate closing where all authorities, assignments, titles, any legal rights of first refusal etc. are presented and verified with lawyers present from all sides, to make sure that the goods and any money are exchanged in exactly the way represented?

It seems that there was too much trust and too much reliance on oral representations to ensure that there would not be some sort of dispute, which is what has happened.

A shame, really.

 

The 275 GTB 6C which you've now since sold back to its former owner is Serial No. 08067 (i.e. the "highest" official non-Dino Ferrari serial no. ending with an EVEN digit during the pre-1973 era is 0896).

#08046 actually corresponds to a 1974 246 GTS Dino, etc.

 

Ironically, Mr. Carl himself is a lawyer by training.

 

a very very very good one at that

 

Dealing with seven digit cars and making seven digits are two entirely different things.

In Andy's defense, he means well.

I have had several significant transactions with him over the past few years and they all eventually worked out. Delays in title delivery are kinda common in this realm of car dealing. The broker hardly ever has the title and there needs to be some real diligent research before handing over hard money. Escrow accounts come in real handy when these kind of brokered deals are contemplated.

 

Ferrari serial numbers and Dino Serial numbers have no relation to each other. Or am I missing something ?

 

Welcome to Ferrari Chat, Mr. Carl. Sorry about your ordeal. Thanks for posting.

 

In my own inelegant way, I was just trying to point out that when Mr. Carl identified his 275 GTB 6C Alloy as #08046, he was mistaken.

In the context of mentioning that a 275 can't possibly have a Chassis No. ending with an EVEN digit (i.e. "6"), I was only further attempting to point out that the "08046" chassis no. mistakenly cited by Mr. Carl as belonging to his (now former) 275 GTB 6C Alloy, ACTUALLY in truth corresponds to a 1974 246 GTS....

 

In my own inelegant way, I was just trying to point out that when Mr. Carl identified his 275 GTB 6C Alloy as #08046, he was mistaken.

In the context of mentioning that a 275 can't possibly have a Chassis No. ending with an EVEN digit (i.e. "6"), I was only further attempting to point out that the "08046" chassis no. mistakenly cited by Mr. Carl as belonging to his (now former) 275 GTB 6C Alloy, ACTUALLY in truth corresponds to a 1974 246 GTS....

 

The last couple writers are correct. The serial number of the 275 GTB I sold back to its former owner was o8o67. I apologize for whatever confusion I may have caused.

Whoever said that there was too much trust involved in this transaction is partially correct. The legal documents were quite detailed and I believed everyone would act honorably and do what was legally required of them. I know the ultimate buyer of the NART very well. I did and still do trust him implicitly. What i missed was the amount of damage the brokers in the middle could do.

This was not a matter of vague documents or seller's remorse (as someone else has suggested). It was a matter of abuse and dishonesty. As a very simple example, the contract specifically called for the seller to pay for the costs of the importation, duty and conversion for the McLaren. The ultimate buyer of the NART says he paid the cash he was supposed to to pay to the brokers and it appears that this is true. However, the brokers did not use this money to pay for the importation, duty and conversion (a seven figure expense) as was required by the contract. One broker says he spent the funds he received elsewhere and no longer has the money to pay these expenses (at least he is being candid). The other is just stonewalling. In the banking world, taking money being held for one purpose and using it for another is often called embezzlement. I hope that, before this is all over, some law enforcement official notices that analogy.

As to the future of the McLaren, i am probably going to sell it. Although I have been solicited by several people to be exclusive agents for selling the car, I have not yet appointed anyone to represent the car for sale -- so beware of any broker who claims to have such a mandate. But, I have said to a couple of potential buyers that, if they wanted to make an offer, I would consider it.

I am not in the car business. it is passion and not a career for me. When hobbies start to cause more pain and stress than enjoyment, that is a problem. My experience with these two cars clearly falls into that category, so I am inclined to be rid of both these cars, leave the lawsuit to the lawyers and move on to something that is more pleasant.

 

Sorry to be off-topic, but congratulations on owning CSX2601 ! Great car.

 

Welcome to FerrariChat Mr. Carl and thank you for the explanation!

 

In the world of 7 figure cars can a seller insist on bonding
requirements from brokers to protect them
from ever having to go thru this ??

 

I'd like to second this welcome! Hopefully you will have some threads with a more positive topic.

 

2601 has been sold on about 2 years ago

 

Lives in Argentina now, in the P-C Collection.

 

To Whom It May Concern,

I do not know John Gillespie, but I've known and purchased/sold cars through Andy Cohen for 15 years. Andy is and has been nothing but honest and forthright with me and my friends, he is a good man. Without reading/hearing the other side of this story a clear picture cannot be rendered. As we all know, anyone can sue for ANY REASON fantasy or not.

Cheers

 

Wow.......thanks for joining us on the chat site.

 

Apparently he has some outstanding issues with Rob Lay, the owner/operator of this playground........maybe he can get "up to date" on that?

Just 'for appearances" sake.........

Welcome to the website, brudda.......

 

Here.........