sigsputnik

g'day contempt! haven't seen u in a while!

bump! Beautiful car, very well cared for, garaged all its life! Very smooth driver!

bump price drop to $12,000 negotiable!

bump!

very nice, wrxkilla - who did you go through?

Item: Nissan Skyline 1995 R33 GTS25 Coupe Location: Canberra, ACT Item Condition: Beautiful condition, very well cared for! Reason for Selling: Going overseas Price and Payment Conditions: $12,000 Negotiable Extra Info: - 83,000 kms - 18" Starcorp Impul Rims - Tyres have excellent tread - 3 point immobiliser and alarm - Automatic - JVC MP3/CD head unit with remote - Remote central locking - service log books from servicing in Japan - Factory features include climate control, power windows, power fold-in mirrors, original Skyline floor mats. - ACT rego until December - BONUS: additional set of 16" rims, tyres with great tread. This car would be perfect for the young driver, beautiful to get around town in. A smooth ride and a real head-turner. Easy on petrol, easy on insurance! This baby is a dream to own. For more pics, visit this site: http://users.tpg.com.au/adslv24i/sale/ More info at the carsales.com.au site

wow jayce - looks really sweet, can't wait to see it. this'll show me up - what does the gold head mean?

sorry mate, wasn't me - sounds like some sort of cheap imitation as i would definitely have waved.

cowie i'm very keen to see the progress shots and to get the whole story. that first pic is heartbreaking.

I BIN SPOOTED. gave my gf a fright though - she thought i was starting a fight, yelling out "are you terminal??????" that's a nice ride you have, mate!

>That said, I remember reading about a case where the plaintiff had signed a contract but the court ruled that as they did not understand what they were signing, the contract was void! It's unclear exactly what's going on here, and I've never heard of the case per se. I can say that simply declaring that you don't understand a contract does not usually constitute sufficient grounds for annulment. It's different if you can prove that the contract was misrepresented to you, and you signed in good faith, or that you were under some duress upon signature. Ordinarily, the judge will want to know why you didn't seek legal counsel to make the contract clearer. Additionally, counsel might seek to determine whether or not you began performing your other duties under the contract. If you had, they could argue that you must have understood at least part of the contract in this case. As I say, however, contract law is very sticky and I rarely get involved in it. If you want some interesting reading about how twisty it can be, have a look for Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. A classic case, and some interesting reading. >I'd argue the agent is responsible as they have made a misrepresentation Swell, Cowie, that's correct. Assuming this is your agent we are discussing, and you have given them the power to make decisions involving the appliances, and it is understood that those appliance problems are significant, then material misrepresentation has taken place. However, what consitutes 'material'? This is an important aspect and it varies in definition and interpretation, however a simple test is if the issue or disclosure would influence or change the outcome of a decision made in light of the issue or disclosure. Would the buyer of that R32 change their mind in light of this information? It is possible. > sigsputnik: What are the implications of actual authority vs. apparent authority? In what capacity?

>There is a lot of conjecture over whether agents such as PM or J-Spec are brokers or not. It is generally accepted that they are not brokers, after Customs stated that duties were payable on brokerage fees (or something like that - it was a while ago). There may be a lot of conjecture, but in the eyes of the law it would be pretty straightforward to establish that these firms are agencies. Any judge worth his or her salt would review the agreement and, in the case of one broker agreement, would see the phrase "providing information, guidance and contacts" and declare the business to be an agency. It would then be a simple matter of showing that a fee was paid, and bingo you have a fiduciary relationship. A clever corporate lawyer would then argue that if the firm was not in the business of providing assistance service, then what were they doing? Reading the broker agreement before me in greater detail, it's apparent that the firm is trying to divest itself as much as possible from any kind of "actual authority" in agency. However, a particularly clever corporate lawyer could use this agreement to establish "apparent authority" in agency, whereby the principal arms the apparent agent with the "indicia of authority" through simple representation of conduct. Again, "if you are not providing an assistance service in this regard, what are you doing?". It is true that in some industries there is a vital difference between an "agent" and a "broker". Insurance is a good example: if you engage a broker to purchase insurance, and they do not, you are not bound to any insurance provider for those services. If you do the same with an agent, then you would be bound by that insurance provider because you could reasonably rely on the agreement intra vires. No amount of waiving rights in an agreement such as this can result in estoppel of constitutionally granted rights. This is similar to a partnership, actually: many firms go to great lengths to declare that they are NOT partnerships (ostensibly to avoid mutual agency and unlimited liability problems). However, in the eyes of the law, they will still be treated as partnerships. In that regard it's usually easier to just incorporate, and have each director inject a single dollar as director's capital. As I said earlier, however, I am not a lawyer. >Are agents bound by the Sale of Goods Act or Trade Practices Act? They are a corporation, but what are they selling? Well there are some transactions that aren't covered by the TPA, however, even if they aren't covered by this Act, they will still be covered by their state's Fair Trading Act. >Can you misrepresent something you aren't actually selling? Of course - witness legal proceedings against recent share trading advice newsletters. Or, as noted earlier, the activity of real estate agents. >I was unpleasantly surprised by some of the 'mods' that came with the car. Same. BTW, I enjoy reading your posts, driftt - i think it's really interesting to hear about what's happening on the inside of the import scene.

>Duty of car dosent happen with buying a car here in Austalia so how can it happen out of Japan. Agents most definitely DO owe a duty of care. In Australia, the car dealer is not acting as your agent. He is acting as a retailer, where "In a contract of sale of goods, for example, the seller, at most, must not make any false representations or actively mislead; he is not bound to tell all he knows, and the buyer must take care of himself”. (p. 111, Webb, P. R. H. and Webb, A. (1979) Luxford’s Real Estate Agency, 5th ed., Butterworths, Wellington.) I'd argue that, in this case, the principal has engaged the services of a broker to assist in the purchase. The broker acts as an agent: "The agent owes the same duty of care of an expert...towards the buyer". (p. 8-49, Gunasekara, G. (1995) Agency, The Law of Business Organisations, Palatine Press). This was generally established in Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd [1964]. I'm not a lawyer but I have a lot to do with agency.

that write up really does give the impression that the car is sound - Supplier reports it to be mechanically sound and to drive well. True, the photos do reveal some flaws when you look closer but i think the agent would have a duty of care here. tdawg would have a field day. >sold by a potentially dodgy compliance workshop. ...and there aren't many of those, oh no.

spotted a pearl 4door r33 twice today. Had an EVO sticker on the back.

So that WAS you buying it at DJs! I thought you looked familiar - I was getting a digicam at the same time! were you getting a tv too? flat screen?

crumbs you're right, now that i look at it! didn't even notice the badges - fug, someone is going to get a rude shock. no air box, no pod either, just an afm. no space saver spare tyre. i don't know how you could break those air con vents. surely this thing couldn't be registered?

what's wrong with it, driver? i mean, what am i looking for in the pics?

we might be up for this, depends on $$$$$$$ for petrol glug glug. oz32 we're making mame cabinets too - they're painted and all, we're just soldering together the controls. we're using the old taito cabs - this is what ours look like: sorry to get off topic.

well i saw that blue r34 gtr in woden and spotted a burgandy r32 in civic around lunch time.

oi cripes a uni student!!! got a quote for us, have ya?? i thought i put your case fairly well in my post, but when you come out guns blazing and pants around your ankles, it makes you look like a twit. ugh, work it out tdawg.

i have an airbox if the others fall through!

i hear you mate. it costs nothing to smile and wave back. these people who equate their cars with their egos are prats. i remember a letter in mixmag a long time ago which pretty much said, "i'm sick of going to clubs, trying to be friendly and getting mega attitude from dickheads who stack shelves at woolworths for a living". step off, i'm just waving. i'm not worshipping you. what are you when you get out of your car, mate? nothing.

spotted a dark blue r33 with tri-spoke advan rims last night at weston car lovers. dig those tri-spokes.

search the forum, these have been answered quite a few times. tdawg in particular is a proponent of DIYing the import process. in a way, he's right. you assume the role of the broker and handle all the paperwork. obviously someone else ships the car, someone else complies the car, etc. like just about any middleman, you can do their job if you have time and resources. i went with a broker on both of my imports and probably will on the next one too, simply because they have the contacts and the reputation to lose. have a search on the forum for stories of uncompliable imports that have to be re-exported or destroyed. sobering.