NJ Supreme Court & E-Bay fraud

[65-to-00]

Today, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that a 1970 Corvette vert that was sold to a Missouri man on E-Bay was fraud.

The car was sold to Lyle Real of Missouri and he was awarded $62,447 by the court.

The car was listed as "good" ... few other details.

Richard Conklin of Montville apparently tried to use the fact that he was only an occasional sell of classics and hot rods.

Didn' woik too well now did it Richard?

 

[Chrisr]

I wonder if Richards nickname is Dick??? otfl

 

[dw1]

Don't judge without the facts

It is more than a bit upsetting that someone with no knowledge of the facts would write a post like the one above.

This is certainly a cautionary (and frightening) tale for anyone who is considering selling a used car via the internet.

If ever "gross miscarriage of justice" applies, it applies to this situation.

Rich Conklin is an extremely reputable member of the classic car & hot rodding community, and it is an insult to accuse him of fraud; an insult compounded by apparent judicial grandstanding by a judge with political aspirations, a newspaper's sensationalism in an effort to sell papers, and a newspaper writer who knows nothing about cars, let alone classic muscle cars.

The facts:
1) The car is a 1970 convertible.
2) It was advertised in "good" condition (not "very good", not "great", not "excellent", but only "good")
3) The buyer bought it for $13,651
4) The buyer complained of some rust on the frame, and about "significant hesitation" on acceleration.
5) The buyer claims he put $40,000 into the car to "fix" it.
6) The buyer claimed that the rust would prevent the car from passing inspection in his home state of Missouri (this I find especially dubious, given what I've seen on the roads of rural Missouri).
7) Rich is NOT a car dealer, but simply a hobbyist

The case was brought to court. Rich lost the first round, won the second (on appeal in the appellate court), and now has lost the 3rd round on the buyer's appeal.

Friggin' NJ - the highest number of lawyers per capita of any state. The NJ "Lemon Law" was created to protect consumers from used car dealers' odometer roll-backs & the like, not to go after honest hobbyists.

The car was advertised in "good" condition"? Doesn't the judge know that "good condition" is a relative term for any 40-year old, and especially for a 40 year old car?

Today's NADA "book value - low retail" for a base 1970 Corvette convertible is $31,000. (Yes, I know that's more than a bit high, but the point is that we're not talking about a cheap car here). It certain appears that the buyer got a great deal at $13,651 and should be thankful. $40,000 to restore it? The seller should NOT be responsible for his customer paying someone else way too much to restore the car to "mint" condition?

The customer complained and sued because of frame surface rust and "hesitation upon acceleration" in a 1970 car? Well, maybe the customer needs to know that these cars have carburetors. That the car would need some repairs and carb adjustment is not a surprise. Did he think he were buying another 2003 Corvette? Or a 2008 Cobalt?

 

[65-to-00]

Well gee! Where are the facts?

How about backing up your statements with "facts" instead of more "he-said-she-said".

To start with, I am no fan of the Star Ledger, however, the fact is that the court ruled against the man who had a lawyer represent him.

The paper reported that the frame was "half rusted through". Was that a small portion of the frame or a significant portion of the frame? Got photos or proof and .... I'd be glad to change my mind, part of which is that only idiots buy cars on the net.

Sounds like you are a friend, fan or Richard himself (or his lawyer) ... so where are the facts you purport?

And don't bring that idiot Soto into this .... it was a court ruling, not a personality contest. For those of you who are unaware, they published a photo of "Justice Soto" with the headline. Justice Soto has had his own share of little problems and possibly should have been shown the door. I think he got a reprimand or warning.

If I was buying a car (and to date, I have not seen the e-Bay listing or and correspondence ... if you got it man, post it), and it was represented as ....... " a driver " .... I'd sure expect to be able to legally drive it without killing myself (note severe hesitation claim).

And ... holy cow .... members of this forum have steered me away from some cars that had frame rust when I was shopping for (as I said, we don't know this for sure) ..... "a driver".

You claim surface rust ... no big deal ... got pics?

 

[Chrisr]

I don't usually reply back to posts such as yours DW1, just check this site out and find out for yourself. But in this case, I felt compelled to do so
.
Funny thing DW, you make a "Fact" list in your very first post on this site and list all "claims", not facts as you stated. No proof, no pics, no nothing. Misleading...absolutley. Sounds to me, like the buyer actually has no knowledge of corvettes, or what to look for when buying one off the internet.

Like 65-to-00 said, the court ruled in the buyers favor, not once, but twice. Obviosly somebody had the facts for that to happen.

I will agree with you on your comment that this is a cautionary and frightening tale for anyone selling a used car on the internet. I, personally would never buy a car nor sell a car from the internet.

Other than that, If you don't have the facts, don't post the claims.

And lastly, as for my post above, if it offended you, I sincerly apologize.

 

[KANE]

This is an interesting case.

A car that SELLS for 13K when it LISTS for 40K is very telling. It isn't perfect otherwise it would have sold for more. Simple logic, actually.

Some people have ideas they can get something for nothing. Everyone wants to find the 69 Camaro in grandma's garage that is perfect and her kids are selling it as an "old" car. These finds are few and far between.

When I sell a car of mine, I use a copy of Legal Zoom's Bill of Sale document. I've been nearly burned by a "hobbyist" who would have had me to repair a car to showroom condition by claiming "misrepresentation" when he found cosmetic things he'd had to repair after signing the title. He wanted a 13k car for 5K and was disappointed that he bought a 5k car for 5k. That incident was the LAST time I'll ever try to sell a car without a legally binding contract. Signature on a title is not enough.

 

[65-to-00]

Never saw the actual listing for the car, but I don't put much stock in the price. You see lots of cars that "list high" and just know that someone is counting on the dreaded "Barrett-Jackson Effect" ...

"Geeeeez Darryll, I seen one judzzzz lak that on Barrett-Jacksen da udder day! .. "

Like I said, I'd never buy a car or bride off E-bay ... but when I sold a few clunker 914's I knew I wasn't going to get around to fixing .... and this was over twenty years ago ... I listed them in the paper as needing work and then had a crude sheet of problems for the buyer to sign off on.

Heck, I made one guy sign off on a paper that the floor pans had rust and I recommended a flat bed but the yo-yo insisted on driving it home.

Don't think we'll see "dw1" again? He made his point and got outa' town without posting any (supported), facts.

BTW .. my initial post on this was triggered by another post on fraud .. the guy sold a car with lots of issues cheap and then he saw it on E-bay advertised as a driver for a lot more money just days later.