Do not buy this car!!!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4536671880&category=6212

I bought it 7 months ago and the VIN number on the car DID NOT MATCH THE TITLE! It was unregisterable. I drove from birmingham, al to buffalo, ny to retrieve the car and put $1100 deposit on it. We had to ship it back because it was thought to be stolen. The interior was not as described, it was mucked up and gummy, I mean to the point were everywhere you touched you would get that black goo all over your clothes...it was ridiculous (very poorly taken cared for). The door locks on the outside did not work. I incurred about $1500 worth of travel expenses that were never re-embursed. In fact, these crooks still wont give me my deposit back after trying to sell me an unregisterable car. Their names are Jim and Joe and the are true crooks in every sense of the word. AC did not work unlike described. CD player did not work. exhaust sounded terrible, not like a Ferrari at all ( I dont know what the heck was done with it).

 

if the vin on the car did not match the title, did you cross reference the 3 major public vin's (steering column, sticker in door jam, stamped number on frame in engine compartment) If all three matched w/o looking like they were tampered with that should be the correct vin. It is not unheard of for DMV to make mistakes on titles. If your local DMV ran the vin from the car and the vin on the title they would have no doubt as to it's being stolen or not they also would know if either vin was a real vin

 

Can you report your story with the car to eBay? Maybe eBay will pull the auction if the car isn't legit.

 

Why didn't you hammer him with negative feedback. "VIN did not match car" feedback will end him/them as sellers. You should be able to hit him again to keep it fresh.

 

The interior just looks horrid. The door panels appear to be coated with COATS of Armor-All.

 

Wow!! I was considering looking into that car!!

Thank the Lord I am looking at Ferraris instead of Hondas. This "small community" thing with Ferraris will probably keep a few of us out of the wringer!!!

Thanks again!!

 

Ebay will do nothing in my experience, they have not even resonded to fraud complaints I have filed for minor items I paid for and the vendor did not ship. I am unable to express how disappointing Ebay is if you ever need any help. Try to avoid.

 

I suggest advising every bidder about this fraud if E-Bay doesn't want to take care of it. Did you buy the car via E-Bay?

 

I did buy the car via Ebay. I did not post negative because I was trying to get my deposit back and did not want to post negative before that. I am thinking about buying the car and posting negative feedback on the current auction to let everyone know that this car is not the one to buy...Yes, the digits were off in 2 seperate places...It was not the normal VIN mistake that Ferraris tend to have...I do remember the VIN doesnt even make sense for the year it is...I have the original bill of sale if anyone wants validation. These guys still have my deposit and my travel expenses and have the nerve to try to resell this car. It goes even worse then that with them (if I posted the whole story on the net, they probably would never sell a car again). These two guys are the shadiest, slickest con artists I have ever dealt with out of every car that I have ever bought. I still boils my blood that I got took for $2500 bucks from them. I paid the deposit via paypal and it has been a long process trying to get it back.

 

Tell your story in the form of questions so they show up on the front page of the auction. Do that for every item they ever try to sell on EBay.

Sparetireless is correct the EBay police are worthless.

 

Notify the NY attorney general's office. NY has strong consumer protection laws, including award of punitive damages for certain breach of contract cases. Forget about playing nice with them. Make a lot of noise now and conisder filing a small claims suit. You might be able to get personal jurisdiction over the seller in your jurisdiction which would make it a real pain in the a$$ for the seller to travel and fight the suit.


An remember, unless you have done a insepection in person or had a reputtable PPI done on the vehicle, NEVER buy an Fcar on e-bay or any other internet auction.

 

1. Post a (VERY!!) negative feedback.
2. E-mail all bidders, for which ever item, with your warning & your story.
3. Go by the legal channels to get your money back.

I noticed that on this twit's E-Bay profile, there was some negative feedback, with nasty commentary.

 

Good suggestion, but getting the question posted at the bottom of the ad is up to the sole discretion of the seller. The question first goes to the seller, and then they have the ability to decide if they want the question - along with their response - to be added to the listing. In this case, then, it won't do much good.

Since the sellers were dumb enough to make this a public auction, the suggestion of notifying individual bidders via email is a good one.

 

Aaron, can you post the VIN that was on the title...?

 

On my Bill Of Sale...it has the VIN ZFFFA36AOK0082292...on the current auction it says ZFFFA36A8K0088292....BTW...If anyone is an attorney, I would love to ask them a couple of questions of possible recourse. They used to list their address in Hamburg, NY....now its in Orchard Park....I bet the reason they are doing free shipping is because the want someone to buy the car sight unseen, so that when that person gets the key and sticks the key in and wonders why it doesnt unlock the doors, they dont have to face that in person. The only way to unlock the doors on that car is with the remote....and if you pull too hard on that inside lever...that little plastic piece pops out everytime...thats crap...

 

I can't even read the ad, it's grey text on white for me.

 

Did you ever find out about the title/VIN discrepancy? You mention that the car was "thought to be stolen". Did you get a police report or something?

A bad title is obviously a deal-breaker, and your deposit money should be refunded. But, in contract law, you generally have to give the other party a "reasonable" time to cure "defects" (e.g., seller asks for 24 hrs to obtain the actual slip, because it is in a safe deposit box, etc. . .)

Sounds like the sellers here were, in fact, unable to "cure" the title defect. However, if the buyer were to act unreasonable, by not allowing the seller to cure (e.g., by refusing to pay based primarily upon the condition of the vehicle or something unrelated to the title problem), then the BUYER may actually be breaching the contract. . .

In other words, if there was only a delay in getting the proper title, and the buyer used that as a pretext to back out of the contract because the car was in such bad condition, then the BUYER is breaching the contract, not the seller (even though the buyer could still ask for a reimbursement of excess costs).

Suggestion: if you are trying to get your deposit back, then DON'T discuss anything besides the BAD TITLE. Every time you bring up something "bad" about the car besides the BAD TITLE, it makes it seem like you are trying to back out of the contract because you got a "bad deal", not because the seller didn't follow through as promised.

If everything you say is true, then these guys are "crooks" because they sold something that they didn't own, NOT because they misrepresented the condition of the vehicle. Indeed, they may not be "crooks" at all if they were not aware of the title problems. That, of course, doesn't excuse their duty to return your deposit, as they could not perform their duties under the contract as promised.

Start with a demand letter that ONLY deals with the BAD TITLE. Do NOT call these people crooks in the letter (use honey, remember), and document everything you've done so far. If you brought your story to an attorney, they would appreciate it if they didn't have to weed through a bunch of accusations that relate only to the condition of the vehicle, as this is commonly known to be the buyer's responsibility (caveat emptor, right?). Clean title, however, is expected, and a judge/jury would be on your side if you sued for damages (unless you acted like an a$$, know what I mean?).

(yes, I am an attorney, if you haven't guessed already from the length of this post. . .)

GOOD LUCK. . .!

 

FWIW, in this photo (http://members.aol.com/lma5479/34815.jpg) the door plate looks like a restamp: the numbers are jumping up and down!

If the papers have VIN ZFFFA36A0K0082292 (note A-zero-K instead A-O-K)
and the door plate has ZFFFA36A8K0082292 (looks like the vin has been restamped and the check digit "8" does not match anymore!).

I have 829xx manufactured in August 1989. Therefore I would assume the original win must have been ZFFFA36A8K0080xxx or ZFFFA36A8K0081xxx (13th digit "8" does not look like a restamp, but the 14th "2" does: so it probably was either 80xxx or 81xxx).

Do you have record of what was stamped to steering column? How about window codes? Assembly sequence number? Engine number?

Best wishes, Kare

 

I had the same problem. I waited a bit and the white background changed to black (it was white while the page loaded up).

 

I just have the bill of sale from it anymore...After the VIN discrepancy, I still was going to buy the car even though it was mis-reprensented. I was just going to work through and replace those parts myself and fix other things. I gave him a month to fix the title. When I got fed up with him and bought the car I currently own. I never heard from him again after that. All of my calls and emails went unanswered.

 

The first one I can tell you is a bad vin right off the bat O (letter O )is not used in a vin only 0 (zero). Now on some titles a 8 could be mistaken for a 0 it depends on how good one's eyesight is and how many times the title has been folded (I've seen some title's in pretty bad shape) the last 4 numbers were possible a typo on your bill of sale since the car is a 1989 the last 5 88292 is more likely than 82292 mine is a 91 model and my last 5 are 89181 so over 2 years 7K cars down the line sounds right for the time period and period in time

 

These facts weigh strongly in your favor. . .

Here is a long and rambling exercise in contract law, take it with a grain of salt, etc.

The Law School Answer, 101 (where you throw everything into the pot and basically ignore "transaction" costs, time it would take to assert your rights, etc. . .):

WAS A CONTRACT FORMED?
E-bay is becoming a household word. People commonly buy and sell on e-bay, even high dollar items, using the e-bay "format". Under the format, sellers advertise their wares, buyers bid, and at the end of the auction, the winning bidder is supposed to follow through on the purchase. Is advertising on e-bay considered an "offer", where an acceptance of the offer would trigger a legally enforceable duty to follow through on the created K (contract)? A court would likely answer YES, advertising on e-bay constitutes an OFFER, acceptance of which forms a legally binding K.

ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER
When the high bidder wins the auction, is that an "acceptance" of the offer which creates a legally enforceable duty to follow through on the terms of the deal? A court would likely answer YES to this question as well. One argument that a K has NOT been formed would be a newer development in e-bay advertising, the "I reserve the right to privately sell this car before the end of the auction" statement. This statement would seem to undermine the K's that are formed on e-bay itself. However, this is not the case in the present situation (and would generally arise in a dispute between the high-bidder and the private, outside buyer of the car). A court would likely find that in this situation, a binding K, creating a duty to perform on either side, was formed when the buyer "won" the auction.

NOTE, however, that certain facts could undermine this conclusion: shill bidders / deadbeats / and non-communication between the buyer and seller BEFORE the auction has ended could give a court a reason to conclude that a K was NOT formed, particularly if there is a "customary business practice" that buyers and sellers actually personally discuss the K terms prior to the auction ending for these specific high dollar purchases.

As an example, if buyers were to commonly "bid" on cars they never had the intention of actually purchasing, until they found one they liked, then a court MAY conclude that there was not "meeting of the minds", and e-bay sellers should adjust their expectations accordingly.

In the present case, the facts tend to indicate that a binding, legally enforceable K was created, whether at the time of the winning bid or afterwards during the e-mail interchange to secure the purchase. In any event, the payment of the down payment and the significant travelling taken on the part of the buyer shows that both parties had the intent to enter into a binding K, and in fact did so. A court would likely agree.

Continued in next post. . . .

 

Hey, it's only bandwidth. . .

CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT: BREACH?
A court would most likely use a general "model" of how Americans purchase used cars to determine whether a breach has occurred. Whether a judge would bother investigating how FERRARIs are bought and sold, is an open question that would require good reasons on either side.

CONDITION OF THE VEHICLE
For most used car transactions between private buyers and sellers, it is caveat emptor, period. A judge would likely begin any discussion of the K with this primary assumption, that the BUYER must show that the problems in the transaction were MAJOR enough for the judge to say that the SELLER breached.

In general, the language commonly used by sellers will protect them against accusations of mispresentation. Saying that the interior is "spotless" is so vague that a judge would do nothing more than scold a seller who used these kinds of hyperbole. However, if the buyer could show that the standard "caveat emptor" rules are adjusted because it is a high-dollar ferrari, then the judge might listen. Here may be some examples: there is a common understanding between ferrari owners what certain "sales terms" mean (re-dyed leather is uncommon elsewhere, 30k service has specific meaning, etc). The distance the buyer had to travel may create a greater duty on the seller to accurately represent the condition of the vehicle (a very common e-bay issue, and, I would guess, a novel issue that courts have not bothered to establish a rule of law for yet, although I doubt they would want to go in this direction).

A court would most likely find that, absent blatant fraud in the representation of the vehicle (like false promises of service records, etc), the poor condition of the vehicle is a non-issue (it does not constitute a breach on the part of the seller).

TITLE PROBLEMS: BREACH?
The facts as known to me are this: the vin # and the number on the title do not match (they are not completely different to clearly indicate wholesale fraud or forgery, but, nonetheless they are different). The buyer gave the seller a month to "cure" this defect. The seller never cured the defect, and the buyer returned possession of the vehicle to the seller.

MAJOR or MINOR BREACH?
If the car was simply unregisterable, then this is a major breach. The buyer gave the seller a month to "cure" the breach. This would generally be considered a reasonable period of time. If the seller was unable to cure in this timeframe, the buyer would generally have a cause of action (a right to sue) for breach of the K. Since the buyer would have no reason to sue for specific performance (to force the seller to "follow through" on the K), the buyer's cause of action would be for damages.

MEASURING THE DAMAGES
If the buyer were to purchase another similar ferrari, but at a higher price, then the buyer could conceivably sue for the "benefit of the bargain" that the buyer obtained in the first transaction but that the seller was unable to give. In other words, the buyer bargained for a replaceable car at a specific price. The market is such that a fact-finder could determine a "reasonable price or profit" from the bargain that the buyer had bargained for. However, the flip side of this argument is that this car was "special", and therefore specific performance is the only way for the buyer to get the benefit of the bargain.

NOTE: the above assumes that the car was, in fact, unregisterable (either it was a grey market car, the DMV said the title was fraudulent, the numbers matched another car, the DMV laughed in the buyer's face when he tried to register it, the title slip was out of date, CARFAX said the title belonged elsewhere, etc, etc, etc).

We should explore, however, whether the problems in the title were "de minimis" (too minor to be considered a major breach of the K). If, as it may be indicated by another post, the vin# problem was simply a transcription error, then a court would generally consider the title "problems" to be correctable. State law may put the onus on the seller alone (meaning that the buyer can't "bargain away" his right to a clean title). This may be likely, but it would only be a single fact in the equation, because the buyer may create an "estoppel" by accepting the bad title and not asserting any rights against it till ten years down the road, etc. . .

A court might ask whether the BUYER did everything a “reasonable” person would do in exploring the defect in the title. Generally a buyer would have NO duty to try to correct defects in title, but a court might be curious to see whether this was a merely an excuse to get out of a bad deal. If it were possible, say, to check the vin # ‘s on the rest of car, show the DMV this info, wait two weeks, and have the DMV issue a clean title (and this wasn’t that big of a hassle), then a court might not look too kindly on the buyer, even though it is the SELLER’s duty to provide clean title. Ay, the rub. . .

Bottom line (in the fake “law school” bar exam answer world): On these facts, a court would most likely find that a defect in title is a breach of the K, the buyer insisted that the defect be cured and that he be given clean title, the buyer gave the seller a reasonable period to cure, the seller was under a duty to cure and didn’t, and therefore the seller breached the K. The buyer has a cause of action to sue for “damages”, which would be a fact-specific determination (probably the deposit and reasonable travel expenses, if the seller were aware of the distance buyer was travelling to purchase the car, and no damages for the “benefit of the bargain” unless the buyer could show that this car was significantly discounted from the average price, but the poor condition of the vehicle would then be taken into account).

 

In REALITY, ignore most of my above posts (except to realize that you do not want to overstep in your negotiations with these guys). . .

Start with the assumption that this would never hit a courtroom (unless you really, really, wanted to force the issue, spend a lot of time and money and roll the dice on whether you would actually win). Next step is to measure your loss. If the car is as bad as it sounds, then maybe you got off cheap (how much would a PPI have cost you? What if you actually had to purchase the thing?). Not a pleasant thought, but hey, it's reality when you live 2k miles away from the guy.

Say you really wanted to pursue this issue. You would most likely have to travel to NY again to file in small claims court (no attorney would bother with a case this small). You would have to try to get all of your documentation in order (establish a timeline, write up memos/affidavits, etc that document all of all of the things you did to try to fix the title issue, etc). You would have to really, really hold your tongue about how crappy the car was. . .

I would suggest doing an internet search for the NY court system, as they might have downloadable forms for small claims. Fill out the forms, including the one that gives notice to the seller that you are suing. You might be able to do this without actually going to NY. Once you file (maybe by mail?), your opponent will likely get 30 days to respond (or promise appear in court, etc). You might be able to get away with not going to NY at this stage, too (you would likely have to send the seller notice by certified mail or professional process server, etc).

If the seller doesn't respond, the court may issue a default judgement (if what you ask for is under the small claims threshold and REASONABLE. . .). If this happens, you will need to go to the local sheriff, etc, to "enforce" the judgement and get the guy to pay (getting the judgement itself is only half the battle, etc).

If the seller responds, then you will likely have to go to NY (unless they let you argue telephonically). If you and the seller end up in court at the same time and you present your case, do NOT mention the poor condition of the car, unless you are prepared to honestly say that it made no difference to you, because this is the seller's best argument as to why you "backed out" of the deal. Recognize this and be prepared to deal with it up front. Making the other side out to be a criminal because they were vague in their vehicle description does you no good, in fact it would work directly against your best argument. . .

Hell, if you're bored one afternoon, you might be able to get through the first couple of steps in a single sitting. . . again,

GOOD LUCK. . .!

 

It's amazing how strong the Ferrari Chat community is, I think we used up all his bandwidth for the day. Could not see any of his pics. I actually looked into buying this car. Someone on Fchat actually pointed me to it.

It looked very rough in the Pics, but the price looked right considering the description.