493 replies to this topic

[yel327]

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 ???

That is exactly what I meant and we've been discussing. You wouldn't be guilty of a criminal offence but by the precedent set by this case you may be liable for damages in civil court as you have misrepresented the car (although unknowingly). Hence why I said you'd have to advertise a car as a "Falcon" and let the buyers decide what it is simply to cover yourself, unless you were absolutely sure it eas all sweet.

[StephenSLR]

You wouldn't be guilty of a criminal offence but by the precedent set by this case

 

In this case however, they bought it for $18k and then advertised it for $143k.

Each case is judged on its own merit and circumstances; it could be that the judge couldn't prove that the De Rome's created a fake but from the buy and sell price it's pretty obvious; they made a killing so rightly should pay the buyer back.

 

It would be interesting to see what the result would've been if the car was bought/sold at roughly the same price or even at a loss. My guess is it would be chased back to where the forgery occured and the forger being sued. Yes, too bad if they are deceased, bankrupt, etc.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 02 October 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[yel327]

I agree, but imagine if you'd bought a "repaired" car in the 90's, it was common for cars to be repaired in the 80's by reshelling them. In the early 90's the top shelf cars (GTS327/350, A9X, XU1, L34) were all basically $10k or therabouts. If you'd bought a reshelled one and looked after it then sold it in the last 5 years or so for $100k as the genuine article, which you believed it was then you are essentially in the exact same position as the De Romes. As far as I am aware (although no expert so someone please clarify) the finding by law is absolute not grey, so the ruling is based upon the De Romes not knowing the car was a reshell.

Edited by yel327, 02 October 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[StephenSLR]

$10k or therabouts. If you'd bought a reshelled one and looked after it then sold it in the last 5 years or so for $100k as the genuine article,

 

The judge did get them to repay the difference between market value and fake price, so if you did the same you still don't lose everything. Yes you'd be out for court costs, expenses (if judge sees fit) and time wasted is still a stuff around.

 

s

[StephenSLR]

The lesson is to be sure you're buying the real deal, the last buyer did just that and caught them out.

 

s

[REDA9X]

Well said Joe. I used to  look at a lot of cars for people, if I knew the car was right I would always say in my opinion  it was correct.  When I knew t was wrong, I'd clearly state it was wrong to the person, and record the details, that way if it popped up again I knew. I know of one inparticular that was on Paramatta road in the early 90's and was a reshell. That car popped up so many times it wasn't funny over the years. The last guy who spoke to me about it set about modifying the car to make it look more correct, but I have it and a couple of others the owners have modified after I looked at them on record. Personally I hope I never see those cars pop up for sale.

The trouble is that if a list of fitments and identification marks is easily obtainable it can work both ways, yes it would provide potential buyers an easy and quick way to identify cars but expert forgers  would have a ready made menu to work from to ensure a fake car meets all the required standards listed. The other problem is that if a so called expert verifies a particular car is genuine and makes an inadvertent  mistake nominating a very good forgery as genuine he is liable to be accused of giving false information and be sued.

 

I have been approached several times by Insurance Companies to verify particular cars especially ex race Toranas. But I refuse to get involved as the insured value for a genuine ex race car is so much higher than a standard car and if you happen to verify a car that later turns out to be a forgery you have big problems on your hands.

[yel327]

The judge did get them to repay the difference between market value and fake price, so if you did the same you still don't lose everything. Yes you'd be out for court costs, expenses (if judge sees fit) and time wasted is still a stuff around.

s

That's right, you'd be in the same position as in that court case, probably out of pocket for $100k. But you'd have no-one to sue because the statute of limitation period had passed and the car was reshelled as aegitimate repair method from the 70's/80's.

[StephenSLR]

probably out of pocket for $100k.

 

It's not a full $100k though. They bought it for $18k and advertised the car the following year for $143k. so most of what they paid back was their fraud profit, money that wasn't rightfully in their pocket.

 

If they didn't create the forgery and the difference wasn't so vast, perhaps the judge may not have awarded so much but we won't know that for sure until a case of those conditions is heard.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 02 October 2014 - 11:30 AM.

[Statler]

Buys car for $18k, does full bare metal resto, sells for $143K.

 

At which point doesn't he see the welded in chassis #?

 

Judges aren't stupid! 

[yel327]

No they aren't, but the court wouldn't have recorded the fact that it accepted that the De Romes didn't know the car was a rebody if it thought otherwise.

[yel327]

It's not a full $100k though. They bought it for $18k and advertised the car the following year for $143k. so most of what they paid back was their fraud profit, money that wasn't rightfully in their pocket.

If they didn't create the forgery and the difference wasn't so vast, perhaps the judge may not have awarded so much but we won't know that for sure until a case of those conditions is heard.

s

They didn't get judged as if they committed the fraud. It clearly states the judgement was based upon them not knowing the car wasn't the real thing. In the precedent set it is irrelevant what we think happened, only what the judgement was based upon. So the scenario I described is identical in that respect and could easily happen. Hence my original statement stands: you may be totally clueless but in the eyes of the law you are not innocent in such a civil case.

[StephenSLR]

 It clearly states the judgement was based upon them not knowing the car wasn't the real thing.  So the scenario I described is identical in that respect and could easily happen. Hence my original statement stands: you may be totally clueless but in the eyes of the law you are not innocent in such a civil case.

 

I'd say the deciding factor with regard to the amount they had to repay is the price differential between $18k and $143k.  We'd have to wait for a more legitimate case to see what compensation would then be paid.  Yes the precedent is set that the new buyer is compensated; by how much the buyer is compensated would always up to the judge on the day.

 

If the seller was genuine, the judge would advise the seller to sue the previous party; if that party was not present in the case at hand, which is a possibility if they were called in to present evidence.

 

s

[StephenSLR]

Keep in mind the car was on its 4th buyer and we're reading about the 3rd buyer, Mr. Sammut suing the De Romes.

 

If the fraud was committed earlier, we'd be reading about how the De Romes successfully sued the previous owner but they can't sue him because he sold them the car for only $18k, the market value of a non-GT; there's no fraud profit for them to claim.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 02 October 2014 - 01:33 PM.

[yel327]

I'd say the deciding factor with regard to the amount they had to repay is the price differential between $18k and $143k. We'd have to wait for a more legitimate case to see what compensation would then be paid. Yes the precedent is set that the new buyer is compensated; by how much the buyer is compensated would always up to the judge on the day.

If the seller was genuine, the judge would advise the seller to sue the previous party; if that party was not present in the case at hand, which is a possibility if they were called in to present evidence.

s

You've missed the point, there is no previous seller to go after in the scenario presented. Either by statute of limitations or the fact the car was legitimately rebodied in the past - lets say by a panel beater under instruction from an Insurance company or similar scenario. A HQ is easily done this way with no welding of chassis numbers etc.

What i'm getting at is there are perfectly reasonable and likely circumstances by which you or I could get stung by a very similar circumstance. Try this, lets say I have a complete HT GTS350 in my shed i've had since the early 90's. It needs a good resto, but with hard work I could achieve it for lets say $30k. As far as I am aware it is a proper GTS350 but it was modified in the 70's. I have no doubt this car is good, I know a lot about them to pick it.. Lets say a prior owner rebodied this car due to a building jumper landing on the roof and totalling the roof, but it was done very well and I am not aware of it. The body used is a 308 manual GTS body so it is essentially the same. So i've restored the car and decide to sell it as the muscle car boom is in full swing in 2007 and I can sell the car and pay off my mortgage. So I sell it for $125k.
Next buyer sells it on a few years later. Come 2012 and i'm in court getting sued as the final owner gets told at a Monaro event that the car has an Elizabeth body but Dandenong tags and chassis number. I had no idea, I go chasing and discover it was rebodied in the 70's by an insurance repair.
What happens next? Does the now set precedent apply?

[StephenSLR]

You've missed the point, there is no previous seller to go after in the scenario presented.

 

Yes there is, you must not be reading the same article. The previous seller sold it to them for 18k.

 

At the bottom of the article it states:

 

It’s believed the De Romes have less than a month to file civil suit against previous owners of the Falcon for misrepresenting it to them before the statute of limitations runs out.

 

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

 

They had a month to do it, they could've claimed all damages incurred to them as a result of being sold a fraud and probably would've won... but they didn't pursue it because they rebirthed it themselves.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 02 October 2014 - 03:03 PM.

[wot179]

Geeze, I didn't even know your name was in the mix, John.

 

Must be a lot of old biddys chatting over their fences I reckon..

[StephenSLR]

lets say I have a complete HT GTS350    As far as I am aware it is a proper GTS350

 

Come 2012 and i'm in court getting sued, I go chasing and discover it was rebodied in the 70's by an insurance repair.

 

What happens next?

 

You disclose to the judge you were lead to believe it was original but had discovered it was rebodied by the insurance repairer. You then sue the insurance repairer for damages. If you have proof they sold it as an 'original' you won't face criminal charges.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 02 October 2014 - 03:18 PM.

[yel327]

You disclose to the judge you were lead to believe it was original but had discovered it was rebodied by the insurance repairer. You then sue the insurance repairer for damages. If you have proof they sold it as an 'original' you won't face criminal charges.

s

Statute of limitations, so you can't sue. Plus you bought it as a Monaro, didn't know or care what it was in 1990.

[StephenSLR]

Statute of limitations, so you can't sue.

 

From the way it is written in the article, the De Romas have less than one month from the date they last faced the judge last to sue the previous owner.  I don't think it's one month after purchase otherwise Sammut wouldn't have been able to sue the De Romas.

 

 

Plus you bought it as a Monaro, didn't know or care what it was in 1990.

 

Then you sell it as a Monaro.  The buyer can't claim you tried to fraudulently sell them a GT350 if you advertised it as a Monaro.

 

There's a plethora of people selling done up Toranas and we pick them to bits here on a regular basis, if you buy an overpriced car that's not the seller's fault.

 

Buyer beware.

 

s

Edited by StephenSLR, 02 October 2014 - 03:47 PM.

[yel327]

Yes there is, you must not be reading the same article. The previous seller sold it to them for 18k.

At the bottom of the article it states:

It’s believed the De Romes have less than a month to file civil suit against previous owners of the Falcon for misrepresenting it to them before the statute of limitations runs out.

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

They had a month to do it, they could've claimed all damages incurred to them as a result of being sold a fraud and probably would've won... but they didn't pursue it because they rebirthed it themselves.

s

I get that, not talking about that case, just the precedent it sets for a scenario I created that is very close but the person in front of the judge didn't create the car which is what is suggested happened with the Falcon.

The Falcon case specifics are irrelevant to future cases afaik, the only relevant facts are that there were damages awarded against the party that the Judge accepted did not know the car was a rebody. It is this judgement and the precedent it creates that I am highlighting. Anything else with the Falcon case has no relevance, it would be the same outcome whether they bought it for $18000 or $78000. Yes they could have appealed, but given the facts presented and the judgement it would be hard to see a grounds for appeal that were based upon evidence (ie appealing on process or a techicality of some sort). Yes if they were not guilty of the rebody itself they could have gone after the guy they got it off, but that is my whole point - in the scenario I described there is no-one to go after as too much time has elapsed (or they are dead and buried) or the car was repaired using legitamite methods 30 years ago or you didn't buy it as a valuable car, just bought it because it was a Monaro or other such method.

[StephenSLR]

 in the scenario I described there is no-one to go after as too much time has elapsed (or they are dead and buried) or the car was repaired using legitimate methods 30 years ago or you didn't buy it as a valuable car, just bought it because it was a Monaro or other such method.

 

Indeed. The first line of the Hemmings article reads:

 

Note to sellers of cloned collector cars: Not only do you have to worry about facing criminal charges for misrepresenting a cloned car, but there’s also the very real possibility of having to answer to a civil lawsuit should you get caught.

 

s

[yel327]

The one month is the end of the Statute of limitations period where they could sue the guy they bought it off. 4 years maybe?

 

That yellow quote is spot on, that is what I was getting at. If you know you have a cloned car then beware. BUT if you don't know you have a clone (and I assume this means a re-body too although unclear in the case of HQ-HZ) then also beware.

[Tyre biter]

I recall reading the judgement when it came out and it is correct to say the judge accepted the version provided by the sellers in that they did not 'manipulate' the car.

He also said some other things which suggested his doubts in this regard - I liken this conflicting commentary to that of the the judicial review over David Harold Eastman here in the ACT in the judge saying that whilst the conviction was un-safe at law and recommended an acquittal but nevertheless stated that he felt Eastman committed the crime - talk about being handed a dead cat!

 

If I recall correctly, the judge also noted the sellers in this matter were entitled to pursue the former owner to whom they alleged had 'manipulated' the car.

The sellers did this but later withdrew their action for reasons which are not entirely clear, but from memory the reports at the time alluded to a lack of evidence notwithstanding the relatively low standard required in civil matters.  The statute of limitations then came into effect and their means of recourse was closed.

 

Regardless, IMO the judgement is about protecting the buyer.

If a seller describes something as X but it turns out to be Y, the seller has (albeit unwittingly) falsely described the item and accordingly the purchaser is right to claim damages - there must be some recourse otherwise the system, our system - not just the Court system but our way of life collapses because it is all about property and ownership thereof.

 

Think of it as you buying a white coloured fridge - you get it home and open the box where you see it turns out to be pink - the item was not as sold to you as described despite the salesman making an honest and genuine mistake, and accordingly he has to remedy the matter.  This is why I think some of the commentary is spot on here - if you sell a car and it turns out not to be what you thought, you may be liable for damages.  Keep in mind, this is a Queensland matter and observes statutes therein.  Subsequently the case is not deemed compelling elsewhere and is (at best) persuasive pending an alignment between the Queensland legislation and that of the other jurisdiction in which this matter is tendered as legal precedent.

 

Having said that, it would likely pay to approach a solicitor if you were selling a car to discern what protections could be afforded to you in the advent of the car you sold turning out to be not what you thought it to be/described it as.  I'd like to think I'd do this, especially if I owned a marque vehicle - a few hundred dollars for this outcome would be chicken feed and might even tie into a solicitor's insurance should said advice turn out to be flawed and an adverse judgement made.

 

Cheers, TB

Edited by Tyre biter, 02 October 2014 - 05:23 PM.