46 replies to this topic

[orangeLJ]

I'm really not sure where to sit on this one.

The plaintiff must have had a VERY good lawyer for that to stick, as far as I can tell from the limited information in that story, they had no real indications that the car was a fake, not everyone can be an expert on the situation.

Is everyone meant to advertise their "rare" cars with a "maybe a fake" clause now?

[wot179]

There is likely more to this story than was reported in the paper.

Im just saying...

[TerrA LX]

What happens to the car now?

[orangeLJ]

Only the ones selling fakes , have to say that , genuine cars have no problems .

Thats a very narrow minded point of view.

What about the on going arguments in regards to re-shelled racecars?
What about those who have, in good faith, bought vehicles from certain high ranked members of torana clubs, that may be fakes, but they are completely unaware?

Are those people going to be helf liable for onsold vehicles down the track?

Its not a cut and dry issue and never will be.

Gets ever worse in the ford world where the ID is the sum of the parts, not a single identifying number.

I definitely agree that there is more to the story than the article claims, but still an interesting situation and one where the original owners are now out of pocket more than they made from the sale

[ls2lxhatch]

I guess the original owners now have the option of suing the people they bought the car from.

Someone rebodied the car, the problem will be proving who sold the car knowing it had been rebodied without telling the purchaser.

[lxsstorana]

I'm really not sure where to sit on this one ........

I agree with Chris on this one. Difficult to make a decision without more information about the car and the people who have been buying/selling it.

If you look at the basic facts as provided by the paper:

2006 - a couple buy the car for $18,000 and commence to restore it
2007 - same couple advertise the car for $143,000 and later sell it for $$90,000 (damn big reduction)
2009 - new buyer sells it for an undisclosed amount (but probably a higher amount) and the new buyer later discovers the car is not what it's supposed to be.

The car has now been through 4 sets of hands/ownership in 3 years when you count the seller before 2006, the couple who sold it in 2006, the couple who sold it it 2007 and the person who bought it in 2009.

Now who did the wrong thing? (and I don't know).

Could have been anyone of the people involved.

As for the car it would remain with the current owner however, each former owner is entitled to sue the previous owner if they believe the item was 'not as described' - 'not geniune' etc.

Like they say, shit flows downhill.

[orangeLJ]

Expand the net to cover car clubs who provide "authenticity checks" and you have a massive minefield.

Say a fake is so well done that it fools an "expert" from say the XU-1 Club of NSW.

Are they then liable for their advice? regardless of any disclaimers the club or the individual make, their advice is obviously going to hold a certain level of influence over the purchase decision and could be the enticement for an individual to buy a well conceived fraud?

I think it sets a dangerous precedent for all of us really.....


Anyone want to buy an XU-1 4 door? lol

[ls2lxhatch]

The experts should legally cover their arses. The lawers should be chasing the person who made the fake, not the person that could not spot the fake.

I think this court case would make anyone selling or even sold a collectable car nervous unless they had owed the car from new.

Edited by ls2lxhatch, 12 June 2012 - 02:33 PM.

[orangeLJ]

Thats exactly my line of thought Andy.

How would anyone be able to clearly identify at which stage in a cars life it was rebirthed and between which set of owners.

just a massive clusterf-uck!

[A9X]

Watch a shitload of top end cars sell with a disclaimer.....

[lxsstorana]

Short but sweet and they've been doing it for ages.

Note: Shannons advise that all potential buyers research all vehicles before purchase to authenticate originality.

Plenty of other mobs do the same thing and say things like 'all care taken but no responsibility'.

[orangeLJ]

I dont think its as easy as putting a disclaimer in though, there are a heap of things that companies and individuals cannot legally exclude or indemnify themselves from (like warranties and guarantees in the car industry)

So if the court finds that Shannons did indeed provide some form of reassurance that the car is legitimate, then they could well be found liable for the same things (would just need a bloody good lawyer to go up against suncorp metway... lol)

Pull some strings with your old occupation and find out the real story for us Mick

[xu2308]

The Judge says they dident know that it wasent a GT, but makes the Couple Liable for damages, seems rough if they dident know, should he be looking at who made it the pretend GT, Just Saying.
I thought the prices on Replica XW-XY GT's were around the $90,000 mark any way and the real deal ones were much higher in price, or is it the GT high price days are well over lol

Edited by xu2308, 12 June 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[Tyre biter]

Here is the Court's ruling for those up for a read; http://archive.sclql...1/QDC11-294.pdf

Interestingly, the sellers weren't considered totally genuine by the Court; "I think the plaintiff's evidence is more consistent with the objective and documentary facts than the evidence of the defendants". Though in fairness the defendant's (sellers) disputed the Court's view as to their dishonesty.

Essentially this is a purely legal decision based on consumer protections and that of commerce generally. The Court said: "...the plaintiff is entitled to succeed. It was either a sale by description or if it was not a sale by description there was an essential term of the contract that the vehicle be a genuine 1969 GT XW Ford Falcon motor vehicle".

Seems the defendant's are likely to go bankrupt now and the purchaser won't see his money.

I'd suggest the finding is saying that if you purport something to be something (poor wording I know) then it had better be or you will be found liable for the same.

Cheers, TB

[xu2308]

interesting read the court case

[Statler]

interesting read the court case

+1

[orangeLJ]

Very interesting transcript of the final summation!

The last bit kind of makes the defendants look like toothless bogans, but you can feel for their situation, not knowing where or who to turn to for advice when you are stuck with a 100k + bill to pay.

the thing that gets me though, the plaintiff (guy that bought the car) has been happy with his purchase for the past 5? years? He has had enjoyment from owning the thing and obviously never battered an eyelid at the cars authenticity (even though he bought it from two unknowns, off the back of his own expertise)

He goes to sell it, finds a drama and decides to go postal on them. Seems like a chased up investment type (bought the car to make money off) that had a big bank roll and a great lawyer. The defendants repped themselves (poor decision there I would think)

The ramifications are realisticall pretty insignificant for most, but it will make me think twice about when we sell anything in the future.

We have a genuine LC GTR in the shed, had a hard hit in the front (bought from a forum member in Canberra)

It's going to get repaired eventually and will show some significant front welding around the inner guard area.

Under scrutiny like in that case ("experts" and Xrays) it could also appear to be illegitimate when truth be told, its 100% legit. (we have lots of pictures though, so in that case, there is proof)

[Tyre biter]

I hear you, though I have to say that whilst we might make assumptions as to why the buyer bought the car, it shouldn't actually matter.

And if the sellers are to be believed, I agree it is a tough and seemingly inequitable decision towards them, however so it was with the buyer. Imagine buying something, conducting due diligence and relying on things said to you by the seller (in good faith or otherwise), whereby only through a subsequent forensic evaluation could you discern the car was a fraud. Despite 'caveat emptor' coming into play, the system needs to possess a means to remedy the situation, and this liability needs to directed to the seller whom made representations as to the items genuineness if not the person who committed the act/s to betray the provenance of the thing.

It's like that poor lobster fisherman (Palmer I think his name was) from WA who lost a matter and his arse, in the High Court for (IMO) a vexatious prosecution on the part of a WA authority but nevertheless the decision was upheld because the law has to be observed in order that it operates for all, and affords protections as it should. And yes, I readily accept that it often operates in ways contrary to this sentiment, but I have to say, in this matter I think the law was administered as it needed to be though I am troubled by the damages sought and subsequently awarded.

I think the lesson to take away is a seller is equally required to conduct due diligence if they are to purport that an item being sold is what they say it is, can do what they claim it can, or possesses traits they say it does, and this is where I think taking steps with photos, research, diary entries and the like as discussed by orangelj is very good advice - maybe even get a proper bill of sale drafted by a qualified person - I would hope this sort of conduct would mitigate a civil action if things went awry.

Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 13 June 2012 - 12:26 PM.

[orangeLJ]

If we were to look at it in another situation-

I buy an artwork at a garage sale that the owner tells me was painted by Van Gogh for $10,000.

I know a little bit about art, enough to identify that for all intensive purposes it is his work (signatures, dates, styles etc)

I sell it on to someone who knows its true value for $100,000.

They hang it in their house for 5 years before deciding to move it on to another art fanatic.

That art fanatic does a meticulous check of the painting even as far as having the brush strokes analysed and concludes that it is actually an excellent fake and worth $5000 only.

With only an amateurs knowledge of artwork, I could not have known that the painting was a fake (due to how well it was done) and sold it as a Van Gogh, because, to the best of my knowledge, it was.


In my eyes, I wouldn't have done anything deceptive nor realistically unexpected?

I know ignorance is no excuse for breaking any law or failing in obligations, BUT there has to be a sensibility level involved.

Like you say, if "only through a subsequent forensic evaluation could you discern the car was a fraud" how were the initial purchasers supposed to tell? Should we start Xraying every car before onselling to ensure its authenticity as even a base model? where is the line drawn?

its just such an eye opener to the flaws in the system

[lxsstorana]

The legal system (criminal law) has many flaws in it.

The civil litigation area is even more tricky. Quite often the side with the highest paid and best legal team win.

Doesn't inspire much confidence in the system. Best not to get involved in legal issues if you can help it.