493 replies to this topic

[WhiteA9XS]

nicko61

so are the members who brought cars off these pricks telling anyone or keeping quiet so they can get there money back later on if cops dont visit them soon, i would think that would make them as guilty of fraud also.

 

i find this comment a bit harsh man,,, so its the lady's fault she was raped because she never yelled for help when she had a knife to her throat,,,

 

crabba67

Well said Nick................

 

you know a lot more than your telling the members here,, your quick on the phone to people to run accusations,,, so try been open here.

 

cheers gong

i am talking about being quiet and selling at a later date with fingers crossed that no one can tell they are reselling a dodgy car to try and recoup their money,i dont think im being harsh,its a continuation of the original fraud on the next unwitting person by someone who would stronly suspect they have a car brought off criminals,

   

I,m with John on this one nicko , why should the second owner of a rebirth car be subject to fraud , i think the person who should be accountable for the crime is the person who actually does the numbers job and does the restamping and changing the tags .

[StephenSLR]

why should the second owner of a rebirth car be subject to fraud, i think the person who should be accountable for the crime is the person who actually does the numbers job and does the restamping and changing the tags .

 

Absolutely!

 

If an innocent person buys a fake and is unaware it's a fake; they aren't guilty, they're the ones that will lose out in the end, spending far more than what their car was worth.

 

s

[yel327]

That isn't the case in reality. If you were to innocently advertise the fake or rebody as genuine you are liable to a case of false advertising. I believe this is what happened with that GT case in recent times. The dodgy person was the first party, the guy who bought it off him thought it was real. He spent money and sold it as genuine. Final guy sued the middle bloke and he was found guilty and had to pay up as he advertised the car as something it wasn't even though he didn't know.

The problem wouldn't have happened if the middle bloke advertised it as a Falcon with ID photos and let the buyers figure it out, but as far as he was concerned it was the real thing so he said it was a GT.

[StephenSLR]

I believe this is what happened with that GT case in recent times.

 

Not entirely true, it was when the buyer tried to sell the car, the prospective buyer found it was a fake.

The buyer then sued the couple.

The couple bought it for $18,000, restored it, then sold it for $143,000.

 

http://blog.hemmings...d-falcon-xw-gt/

 

I recall at the time most on forums were accusing the couple of rebirthing it, saying you'd know full well that you can't buy the real deal for just $18k.

Just like the case above, it would get traced back to whoever you bought it from.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 01 October 2014 - 02:18 PM.

[yel327]

Yes, that is exactly what I stated. Middle owner gets screwed for false advertising. Original Fraudster isn't the one in Civil Court. He may be facing Criminal charges, but the innocent owner who later onsells the car may be in hot water financially. Yes the purchase vs sale price looks fishy in that case but the precedent now exists. If you unknowingly bought a faked XU1 for $50k, spend $10k on it and sell it 5 years later for $100k as the real deal you might think you are an innocent party but in reality you may not be in the eyes of the law. The only way I can see you would be innocent is stick it on Ebay as a "Torana" with a start price and say nothing. This is what i'd be doing if I wasn't 10"% certain of what I had.

[StephenSLR]

Yes, that is exactly what I stated. Middle owner gets screwed for false advertising.

 

Middle owner didn't get screwed for false advertising.

Middle owner sued couple (original fraudsters) for $108k and won back his money.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 01 October 2014 - 03:18 PM.

[yel327]

The middle owners are the ones that got sued and lost. The Judge cleared them of fraud, but they were found guilty of false advertising. They were coming up to a Statute of Limitations timeframe to sue the person who looks like was responsible for the rebody. It is all spelled out in the link you posted, and is as I stated.

Edited by yel327, 01 October 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[StephenSLR]

The middle owners are the ones that got sued and lost. The Judge cleared them of fraud, but they were found guilty of false advertising. They were coming up to a Statute of Limitations timeframe to sue the person who looks like was responsible for the rebody. It is all spelled out in the link you posted, and is as I stated.

 

The couple are the ones doing the fraud, not the person they bought from. They appealed the ruling to make themselves look good but when they realised they'd get busted they quickly withdrew their appeal.

 

They could've sued the previous owner and had a month to do it but decided not to, it would've added more charges to their list when it's proven beyond doubt they rebirthed the car.

 

s

[yel327]

Just found more on it. The 3rd party (Sammut) did sell it, so those i'm calling the middle party are the 2nd party.
Here it is clear the decision against the 2nd party acknowledges they didn't know it was fake (even if they did know the Court accepted they didn't):

http://m.couriermail...1c935a3ccd13fa2

I get what you mean, but the legal finding was that even if they didn't know the car was a rebody they are still liable for damages.

Edited by yel327, 01 October 2014 - 03:35 PM.

[yel327]

Double post

Edited by yel327, 01 October 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[StephenSLR]

The original owner sold it to the couple, (De Romes).  The De Romes claim they didn't know it was a fake; this is what I find suspicious and many don't believe this claim.

 

Just like the new owner chased it back to Sammut who chased it back to the De Romes; the De Romes should've sued the original owner but they didn't because it would've got them in more hot water than they are in.

 

Ergo, if you buy a fraud you can have it chased back and the previous owner who commited the fraud will be sued.

 

As they say; buyer beware and the lesson in this one is; fraudsters beware.

 

s

[yel327]

Agree with all that. But the even bigger lesson and the scary one (which comes back to my original point) is that it is now clearly precedented in Civil court that if you sell a car as something which it isn't regardless of if you know or not then you can be sued for damages. Moral is Buyer AND SELLER beware! This case means that if I ever sell one of my HK GTS's, since I have not owned them since new they'll be advertised solely as a HK Monaro with photos.

[StephenSLR]

I get what you mean, but the legal finding was that even if they didn't know the car was a rebody they are still liable for damages.

 

True but they refunded the difference between the market value car of the car and the inflated GT value including Mr. Sammuts expenses.  If they felt they were hard done by the previous owner then they could've sued the previous owner for extra damages.

 

Yes if you are innocent it's a major stuff around having to go through the legal system.

 

s

[yel327]

True, but the original owner could just as well claim bankruptcy and you'd get nothing from them but you'd have to pay out close to $100000 (in this case). Chances are if this were to occur, and you were the innocent middle party the fact you could afford to buy a $100000 car means you most likely have the assets to sell to pay up. But the lowlife scumbag that ripped you off probably wouldn't have a cracker to their name.

 

Hence back to the original point, if you were worried about your car's provenance you shouldn't try to sell it, not as what you think it is anyway. Even if you aren't worried about its provenance you should still think about it before advertising it.

 

Edit - Sorry Joe, your post slipped in between the one I was replying to. I totally agree with you too, people ask me to verify Sandmans all the time. If I can tell from the ID plates it was one I tell them the ID plates were off a Sandman, not that the car is one.

Edited by yel327, 01 October 2014 - 05:16 PM.

[IMORAL]

Agree with all that. But the even bigger lesson and the scary one (which comes back to my original point) is that it is now clearly precedented in Civil court that if you sell a car as something which it isn't regardless of if you know or not then you can be sued for damages. Moral is Buyer AND SELLER beware! This case means that if I ever sell one of my HK GTS's, since I have not owned them since new they'll be advertised solely as a HK Monaro with photos.

Care to part with one of those HK's?

[wot179]

Especially seeing as its only just a Monaro...  

[yel327]

I just parted with one silver mink GTS, it was sold by word of mouth even though it wasn't for sale, but money talks. So i've only got 4 left now, and only 3 are HK's.

[IMORAL]

Any silver minks left

[Ice]

I just parted with one silver mink GTS, it was sold by word of mouth even though it wasn't for sale, but money talks. So i've only got 4 left now, and only 3 are HK's.

Only 4 left gee my heart bleeds for ya Byron

[yel327]

Two to restore (one nearly done, one for retirement), one for rust repair sections for the retirement car and the last (not HK) my mate and I will do something with one day.

[IMORAL]

I sold my HT last December and have regretted it since. Have an engine here that I was going to put in it.
Looking for something half done that I can finish. Long story short I should have kept my bloody car!

[StephenSLR]

Q.  What would be the outcome, if someone had unwittingly bought one of these "Fake Cars" and then unwittingly sold it to another person as the "Genuine Thing" before the offence was reported and made public ???

 

It's exactly what happened here.

 

http://blog.hemmings...d-falcon-xw-gt/

 

http://m.couriermail...1c935a3ccd13fa2

 

s