Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

buying a car

Started by _LXSS350_ , Jun 11 2012 08:43 PM

Prev

Please log in to reply

46 replies to this topic

#26 TerrA LX

Fulcrum Fixture

Members
14,241 posts

Location:Sid 'n' knee
Joined: 31-May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:23 PM

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

I think the point here not whether you think it was genuine or not but whether you advertised and presented it as genuine.
Lesson learnt is if you are not sure then don't make the remark.

Back to top

#27 orangeLJ

Yes, yes I do post alot!

Members
10,261 posts

Joined: 02-May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:50 PM

"might be a genuine XU-1, but might not be, I've had it for 5 years but who knows what was done before hand"

doesn't really bode well for a sales pitch though lol

Back to top

#28 _LXSS350_

Guests

Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:35 PM

Most interesting case. To me it leaves more questions than answers.

I really don't have a firm opinion about the guilt or otherwise on the defendants (need far more info). However imo the lesson to be learnt is ..... if you are involved in any court action (where significant amounts are at risk) you must get a good solicitor to represent you. The price for the lack of knowledge about how the system works can leave you stranded. No doubt in my mind our court system favours the party with the most money and not necessarily the innocent party.

As collectors dealing with 30year+ old cars, its obvious that so much can (and has happened) and a buyer has to do due diligence and homework before parting with the inflated $$$ asked for a collectable. So after all that .... the question has to be asked did the seller/s knowingly misrepresent it to fraudulently gain or where they like the buyer not part of the deception? In my opinion it is up to the court to prove you deceptively misrepresented the vehicle for a financial gain. If you cant (beyond a reasonable doubt) prove that you where involved ..... what exactly are you guilty of? (besides being tricked) Surely the person/s who changed it is the guilty party and ultimately responsible? Reading the transcript it would seem the court has not been interested in who changed the car? If you are guilty of changing the car in an attempt to gain then surely it also becomes a criminal matter not just a civil matter?

Is our court system heading the way of the USA where nothing makes common sense?

Now that being said it doesn't mean in this case that the defendants didn't know what it was (or was not).

Edited by LXSS350, 13 June 2012 - 04:35 PM.

Back to top

#29 _Quagmire_

Guests

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:40 PM

see that's the problem with our cars "growing up"
because they are now worth so much nowadays they appeal to a different demographic
one that prefers $$$ to the joy of owning and driving....
you would never of heard of this even 10 years ago.....unless it was a e type jag,mg
or something just as plain and boring
i read somewhere the classic car scene went through the same scenarios years ago
with almost the same results
and lawyers always like the sound of their own voice...

Back to top

#30 Statler

Heckler Extraordinaire

Administrators
6,304 posts

Name:Col
Location:Mackay Qld. Whitsundays for all you back packers!
Joined: 20-May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:57 PM

Was the car bare metal painted?
Was the engine bay done at that time?
Would the person painting it have noticed a welded in engine number?
Who owned the car at that time?

Back to top

#31 TerrA LX

Fulcrum Fixture

Members
14,241 posts

Location:Sid 'n' knee
Joined: 31-May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:00 PM

One would think if you bought a car cheap and rebuilt it from the ground up then you would have a pretty good idea if it was the real deal.

Back to top

#32 _threeblindmice_

Guests

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:18 PM

+1

Back to top

#33 xu2308

Grail Hunter

Members
4,704 posts

Name:AL
Location:Belconnen ACT
Car:SMP LJ GTR V8 Prototype-Confirmed By HHS and Ex GMH XW7 Engineers
Joined: 09-April 09

Posted 14 June 2012 - 02:31 PM

The late Howard Marsden the Ford Racing Program Boss when the XW and XY and XA Phase 4's were new, all ways said later on there are more GT's around than we Built back in the day, looks like here is one of them Howard

Back to top

#34 _Big T_

Guests

Posted 18 June 2012 - 10:02 PM

All I see here is yet another plus for owning a UC. This will never be an issue for me

Back to top

#35 lakeside

Lotsa Posts!

Members
2,703 posts

Name:Col
Location:melb
Car:LC SBC
Joined: 07-November 05

Posted 19 June 2012 - 12:46 AM

Doing nothing wrong you would have nothing to worry about, great for the buyer. Everyone should be over the moon about this. May make some cars more affordable and wrecks worth spare parts.

Buy a shell with tags, build it up out of parts, sell it as an original and may cost you big time. This may throw a spanner in the works with a owner or 2 on this forum.

Back to top

#36 REDA9X

Removed

Inactive
0 posts

Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 19 June 2012 - 09:11 PM

This story has a lot more than meets the eye. Just think though, you go to buy a car you check it out first before you hand over the cash. Two options arise after this. You're doing something one day and discover later the cars a fake, or you enjoy a genuine car.
What is it the new owner has suddenly discovered after a short ownership, whilst the previous owner had the car for years and never realised?
Buyer beware, but seller beware too if you're claiming something is genuine, know your stuff.

Back to top

#37 _LXSS350_

Guests

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:32 PM

IMO if you advertised, represented and sold a car as a GT and it wasn't you have committed FRAUD. Now as far as I am aware Fraud is a criminal matter and not a civil matter?

Back to top

#38 orangeLJ

Yes, yes I do post alot!

Members
10,261 posts

Joined: 02-May 06

Posted 21 June 2012 - 11:05 PM

Thats an interesting point actually, obviously there was no evidence to substantiate a criminal charge. There doesnt appear to be any indicatin that they knew they were doing the wrng thing, however it appears the court has held them liable, regardless of their ignorance

Back to top

#39 _LXSS350_

Guests

Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:28 AM

Having been in the market for collectable cars, its clear that the buyer profiles have changed over the years. From my experience many owners have very limited (in depth) knowledge about their collectable. Of course you meet one or two owners who are a walking encyclopaedia, but the vast majority have limited knowledge and purchased as an investment and based off known common validation methods (tags,condition,paperwork,authenticity docs etc). I find it puzzling that in a clear case of Fraud the law (court) would prosecute the lack of knowledge and totally ignore the serious charge of who committed Fraud.

Now if the defendants didn't commit Fraud then surely they have the same case of a civil suit against previous owner/s.

Back to top

#40 enderwigginau

Admin Wrangler

Moderators
2,000,527 posts

Name:Grant
Location:Brisneyland
Car:76 LX Sedan, 4 seater
Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 12 July 2012 - 07:11 PM

I would suggest there is alot more to this.......
An XW was purchased for $18k........in 2006 that's still just an XW, not a GT price.......so did they think they were getting a bargain??......and if they thought they were getting an $18k GT, why didn't they go over it with a fine tooth comb?

If someone offered up a possible A9X for the price of an SS5000, why not buy it.......if you're right, you've made a tidy profit.......if you're wrong, you sell it for what you bought it for and break even........but if the seller states that it IS an A9X then it better be..........

I guess most people will note that they decided not to try and chase who they bought the car off...........I guess the opinion of the court is that they were unable to prove they bought it as a GT and could not prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that they believed it was a GT.......

Back to top

#41 Tyre biter

Forum Fixture

Members
982 posts

Name:Craig
Location:Canberra
Car:Should have gone with Palais...
Joined: 08-December 10

Posted 12 July 2012 - 07:27 PM

...I find it puzzling that in a clear case of Fraud the law (court) would prosecute the lack of knowledge and totally ignore the serious charge of who committed Fraud.

Now if the defendants didn't commit Fraud then surely they have the same case of a civil suit against previous owner/s.

This was a civil tort brought by the buyer (outside of the criminal system) and so the Court was not interested in who committed the fraud because, I'd suggest, this was not prosecuted by the buyer because he could not establish the same. What he could establish was the seller sold something to him as at GT however these claims (as it turned out) were a misrepresentation of the item.

On the second point, they do, but (at the time of the matter going to Court), had but one month left to bring that suit before the statute of limitations kicked in. All articles talk about an abrupt ending to the proceedings whereby the appeal brought by the seller was withdrawn at the last minute. Again, I'd suggest this indicates they are/were looking at pursuing the original seller and recovering their costs from this matter. Time will tell I guess as they'll have to prove the (original) seller also misrepresented the car as being something else - an $18k purchase price will be hurdle in them depicting they too were defrauded.

Cheers, TB

Back to top

#42 _niterida_

Guests

Posted 12 July 2012 - 08:22 PM

For all those wondering why no-one has been done for fraud, you must remember that fraud is a criminal matter and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Civil court basically has to decide which is the MOST LIKELY (for lack of a legal term) of the 2 sides. Remember OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but still found guilty of that same charge under civil proceedings and had to pay compensation for it.
And AFAIK it is not up to the courts to lay criminal charges. The Police, or DPP would have to review the case and decide if it was worth pursuing - which for this insignificant matter (in Police/DPP eyes) it probably isn't, especially as they would have to spend a great deal of time and effort to chase up previous owners and history to find when the 'fraud' occurred. And you guys know how hard that can be.

Now as has been stated, every purchaser/seller in the chain can go back to the person they bought it from and chase up the money through civil action as this person has done. If that happened then eventually they may uncover the fraudulant act and then if a claimant went to Police with that info then the Police would be duty bound to investigate the claims of fraud.

If I was the defendant in this case then my argument would be that the purchaser did his own due diligence and checked the authenticity of the car and found out that it WAS a GT. Therefore if it is found out later not to be a GT then it HIS fault since HE did the checks himself and HE determined it was a GT. If he simply bought it on the sellers advice and did no checks himself then I would agree with the courts decision.

I can see the car sales world coming to an impasse :
Seller claims a car to be XXX and wants $x00,000.
Buyer wants seller to guarantee that car is an XXX.
Seller wants buyer to do own research to determine car is an XXX
Neither want to do this in case car is later found to be a fake.
Sale falls through.
No genuine historic car is ever sold from this day forward !!

Or as has also been said, sellers put a disclaimer that the car may be a fake, in which case buyer will not buy it, or will offer really low money.
Whatever happesn it has certainly opened a can of worms - it maybe good or it may not......

And my heart bleeds (not) for the defendants who now have to pay back $107,000 and can't afford it. Well what did they do with the $90,000 they got that they didn't deserve ?

Back to top

#43 _GTSLOVER_

Guests

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:41 AM

Civil matters are decided upon the balance of probabilities. In this case upon the balance of probabilities the sellers were aware that the vehicle was not a genuine GT and the chassis had been tampered with in the mind of the magistrate

Edited by GTSLOVER, 13 July 2012 - 12:51 AM.

Back to top

#44 StephenSLR

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Members
6,714 posts

Name:Stephen
Location:Sydney
Car:1976 LX SL/R
Joined: 12-November 05

Posted 13 July 2012 - 11:40 AM

All I see here is yet another plus for owning a UC. This will never be an issue for me

Yeah, go out and buy a clone, fang it, show it, have fun with it, retro fit modern brakes, steering, etc. with no need to worry about ruining a classic. As long as you don't turn it into a fake, all's good.

s

Back to top

#45 StephenSLR

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Members
6,714 posts

Name:Stephen
Location:Sydney
Car:1976 LX SL/R
Joined: 12-November 05

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:15 PM

There's some great comments about this below the article:

Looks like a box/trunk with mags n spoilers.

---

all thats missing from a xy is the taxi sign on the roof

---

I think little kids are the ones that really know about cars. If they say you have a beautiful prinsesses car, you must have something nice.

But if they see your car and they start to cry.., you definitely have spend your 90K in the wrong way…

http://blog.hemmings...-gt/?refer=news

s

Back to top

#46 _hutch_

Guests

Posted 14 July 2012 - 04:12 PM

So what would happen if I convinced some one that their genuine xu1 Bathurst model was an SL and brought it for $5,000 instead of $50 ,000 ,would I then be guilty of fraud ??