Is There Any Legal Recourse For...

[Kinkstaah]

Hello everyone

Lets just say you're looking for a Skyline, and you're an idiot, or at least uninformed, or at least not a professional mechanic who works on Skylines all day, and you're buying a car.

Is there any legal recourse for being sold a car that is not quite "as advertised", or better yet a car that is accompanied with a RWC when the car is quite obviously defectable, given that reasonable questions were asked, and answered, or rather not answered, indirectly answered or answered incorrectly, and inspections were carried out by neutral third parties.

As much as "buyer beware" is a great rule of thumb, and "suck it up and move on" is an annoying option most people choose, sometimes you can be sufficiently "aware" and still get stung, and as much as being stung is crap, and sucking it up and moving is proving expensive.

Is there any recourse? And if there is, what burden of proof applies?

I'm sure someone around here has a bit of knowledge as to where to go, thankyou in advance to that guy.

[krzysiu]

Very hard to prove as they will say any unroadworthy parts that are on the car were caused after the sale.

[Kinkstaah]

Very hard to prove as they will say any unroadworthy parts that are on the car were caused after the sale.

I agree on this, but my main concern is the engine in question. The issue unfortunately isnt as simple as someone accidentally putting awesome turbos on a car or an aftermarket ECU. that could cause problems with lovely yellow stickers and EPA officials.

Given that the Engine number hasnt changed since the sale, and still matches what was in the car when it was purchased - does this stand for much, or is it not much of a leg to stand on.

If anyone remembers my other "WTF is in this car" thread, I found the answer, (Mucho Thanko to Trent @ Status, and Ray @ RE Customs, who are doing their best to un-f*** it) and the answer is that it was/is a NA+T, when the car was sold/advertised as a GTT.

[Jack-]

You didn't check the VIN when you bought it to see if it was an N/A or t? Little things like LSD, traction control, and other lights in the dash as awell as the 3 tachos instead of the screen/shelf... although that can easily be changed...

That's what I woulda looked for... not to mention the engine cover having NEO turbo on it... compared to just NEO

[adznight]

Tricky situation. As said above to a person who knows the car there are a shit load of tell tale signs that would show the car was a non turbo. I don't know what you could do really. Do you still have a copy of the advertisement from the car sale?

[BASHO]

Not quite clear whats happened but I can tell you it's a minefield, firstly don't for Christs sake get a warranty issue mixed in with a missrepresentation issue they are two differnt legal jurisdictions and you could end up hogtied for years.

Warranty-- (broken not workin bits of the car.) small claims/magistrates and moving on district court next stop supreme court.

If you have a warranty matter issue a defect notice to the dealer that sold you the car telling them exactly the nature of the problem and follow the proceedure , you do not need to be nice , you don't need to be rude either , there is a clear proceedure you can follow, every motor dealer knows this though it is doubtfull one in 50 would actualy help you , most will bullshit and hinder, there is an act in every state and territory which will tell you your rights goggle 'property agents and motor dealers act' and find the section that deals with warranty as it apertains to your vehicle in your state /territory, this varies with age and k's of vehicle , don't be frightened of the act just focus on finding the bits that relate to you're situation , legal aid can be helpfull, give them a call if you get stuck they can be slow but hey they're free.

Missrepresentation --Department of Fair trading. (you didnt get what you paid for.) this can be very serious as it can border on/be criminal.

If you feel that you haven't got what you paid for this may be missrepresentation, in this instance you will have to recall conversations made at the time of sale as well as produce any advertising and other proof to back up your claim.

For example if someone has knowingly sold you a car as a GTR that is actualy a GT and you purchased it as a result of thier promotion and sales you may have a case to bring.

These cases are hard to prove and littered with eroneous precidents keep it simple 'I DIDN'T GET WHAT I PAID FOR' would be my take on it.

The department of fair trade can advise you whether you may have a case go in and see them , you can pick up the start of what will turn out to be a mountain of paperwork they are patialy staffed by lazy wankers in my experiance so expect a fair ammount of the 'Sir Humphrey' syndrome however some of them will actualy go to bat for you if your case is warranted,

I would advise seeing a solicitor if you're going this way it's a tricky one even though in many instances it shouldn't be.

All the best with it

I have been there and back with both warranty and missrepresentation actions , I won both , but it was a battle.

[Downforce]

^^ nice summary & clarification.

[RBPOWA-(TJ)]

indeed

[Kinkstaah]

Thankyou guys for the responses, I appreciate it a lot.

You didn't check the VIN when you bought it to see if it was an N/A or t? Little things like LSD, traction control, and other lights in the dash as awell as the 3 tachos instead of the screen/shelf... although that can easily be changed...

That's what I woulda looked for... not to mention the engine cover having NEO turbo on it... compared to just NEO

Tricky situation. As said above to a person who knows the car there are a shit load of tell tale signs that would show the car was a non turbo. I don't know what you could do really. Do you still have a copy of the advertisement from the car sale?

Here's the thing - I did do a lot of digging before I bought the car, and found out that it definitely started its life as a Non-Turbo car. There were telltale signs that even I (with no prior knowledge of skylines) was able to pick up and discover and determine, so I went above and beyond your random DUHHH buyer of a car in working these things out and was able to pinpoint that the car came out as a NA, and had had an engine swap.

This would explain the GT dash, the blue GT badges, etc, which OFC I used as a leverage on price due to the fact it doesnt have things like Traction control, etc. Which I could live with in a RWD.

When asked about the engine, I was told it had an Engine Swap, but the replacement engine was a RB25DET NEO, which would make sense, given the person who was telling me this really should have an idea on this kind of thing, because who would replace an engine with another NA one, add a turbo, add a front mount, add a POD to a replacement NA engine, instead of doing it to a turbo engine? I mean f**k sake are people that dumb?

Seems so, because yes, it's a NA engine.

The car was checked mechanically by State Roads who issued a clean bill of health from the car too.

One thing that helps is I also was smart enough to bring other people with me every time I was at the seller's place or inspecting/testing the car. Which means it isnt one word vs one word, but it's 3 v 1, which may or may not count for something.

As for the ad, don't have it unfortunatley but I don't know if Carsales keeps this on record. There are SMS messages on the record which detail my questions and answers as well, but it would definitely be more "Misrepresentation" than anything else.

It's irritating because the only real fix to get it legal is return it to NA land, which makes me the not too happy owner of a R34 NA, given that I'm 28 and was looking for a turbo makes it f**king irritating.

But thankyou for the responses guys, now at least I know where I can look into.

[Birds]

I thought the EPA laws were that you could turbocharge an N/A engine as long as there was a factory turbo model of that engine available, and the modifications you make bring it to the same specification, i.e. same turbo, same ecu etc. is used.

As for the legality of your scenario, I'm pretty sure if you signed a deposit agreement with terms like "as is condition" written throughout then you might be stuck for legal stance. Is it a dealer or a private seller? If the latter, I would be taking this to VCAT for resolution there. Skip the courts, that's way too expensive to justify on a car, as by the time you're done with those money pits you could have sold your N/A and bought a turbo with the money.

[Kinkstaah]

I thought the EPA laws were that you could turbocharge an N/A engine as long as there was a factory turbo model of that engine available, and the modifications you make bring it to the same specification, i.e. same turbo, same ecu etc. is used.

Yea I had a bit of a readup, but the issue ies (as told by both RE and Status) the intercooler and piping is all wrong. Basically upgrading the brakes would work, but I'd have to get a "stock" intercooler which may or may not be actually stock, as it isnt possible to get a standard Airbox setup working with the current front mount. And 2 intake mods = EPA fail.

In addition to paying extra for brakes. Their advice (which is sound, and what I am most likely doing to do) is to either

a) Replace the whole engine, sell the current one, upgrade the brakes.

Doable, but its a lot of stress, and will cost $$$$ in labor time undoubtably, and I have to then sell an engine with it sitting in my hawthorn apartment. Not exactly the best thing to explain to a g/f who doesnt like the car and its various stresses to begin with.

b) Bring it all back to stock, sell it (gl, me.. but at least the issues are worked out..) and buy a GTT that has it all factory installed and ready to go. Or something else entirely. I'll most likely attempt to go down this road.

As for the legality of your scenario, I'm pretty sure if you signed a deposit agreement with terms like "as is condition" written throughout then you might be stuck for legal stance. Is it a dealer or a private seller? If the latter, I would be taking this to VCAT for resolution there. Skip the courts, that's way too expensive to justify on a car, as by the time you're done with those money pits you could have sold your N/A and bought a turbo with the money.

It's a private seller (technically) who operates from a Car Workshop, who can be expected to have a responsibility to have explicit knowledge of what is being sold (in my opinion) but they didn't, or didnt tell me when I asked them.

I'm sure a few people will read that and go "OHHHHHHHHHHHH.... I bet I know who that is.." but I know enough to know naming names isn't allowed on the forum.

Edit: The exact wording is "The converted vehicle is in all respects identical to the production turbocharged/supercharged vehicle"

I suppose that comes down to the definition of "In all respects", for emission standards I doubt they would care too much about brakes as brakes arent EPA, I wonder if this is escapable by just installing a stock intercooler and winging it in regards to the above dot point.

Guess I'll have to get on the phone again

Edited October 23, 2009 by Kinkstaah

[Ziller]

Yea I had a bit of a readup, but the issue ies (as told by both RE and Status) the intercooler and piping is all wrong. Basically upgrading the brakes would work, but I'd have to get a "stock" intercooler which may or may not be actually stock, as it isnt possible to get a standard Airbox setup working with the current front mount. And 2 intake mods = EPA fail.

In addition to paying extra for brakes. Their advice (which is sound, and what I am most likely doing to do) is to either

a) Replace the whole engine, sell the current one, upgrade the brakes.

Doable, but its a lot of stress, and will cost $$ in labor time undoubtably, and I have to then sell an engine with it sitting in my hawthorn apartment. Not exactly the best thing to explain to a g/f who doesnt like the car and its various stresses to begin with.

b) Bring it all back to stock, sell it (gl, me.. but at least the issues are worked out..) and buy a GTT that has it all factory installed and ready to go. Or something else entirely. I'll most likely attempt to go down this road.

It's a private seller (technically) who operates from a Car Workshop, who can be expected to have a responsibility to have explicit knowledge of what is being sold (in my opinion) but they didn't, or didnt tell me when I asked them.

I'm sure a few people will read that and go "OHHHHHHHHHHHH.... I bet I know who that is.." but I know enough to know naming names isn't allowed on the forum.

Edit: The exact wording is "The converted vehicle is in all respects identical to the production turbocharged/supercharged vehicle"

I suppose that comes down to the definition of "In all respects", for emission standards I doubt they would care too much about brakes as brakes arent EPA, I wonder if this is escapable by just installing a stock intercooler and winging it in regards to the above dot point.

Guess I'll have to get on the phone again

It would be too easy if people did the right thing, pain in the ass!, sounds like BASHO has the right idear thou.

PM me the workshop if you like, Fore warned is for armed, Good Luck!

[33gtst]

Are ppl that dumb? I thought to be a weird question.

No but ppl are cheap kents. A non turbo engine is alot cheaper than a turbo one, and high comp n/as with turbos added run great...until they hand grenade.

I hope you get it sorted.Just curios tho, what computer is it running?

[Guest]

Currently sorting an EVO 8 that was bought from a dealer but failed emissions big time (1,540 ppm on HC when should be 50 ppm) and after a fair bit of money spent it was legal. Cams replaced with OEM, re-tune and OEM suspension fitted.

This person was advised by DPI that he was sold an un-roadworthy vehicle and due to that reason was directed to Dept of Commerce (fair trading over here) to seek compensation for costs incurred returning to road worthy state.

Also recently we had a large dealer advertise a WRX for sale but was an RX with a Forester motor, they say it was unknown to them but it went to court, the dealer lost of course and had to buy the car back with expenses on top of that.

"As is condition" should not be relevant if car is not road worthy, if not road worthy it should be sold unregistered.

[Birds]

Given a RWC is required for transfer of registration and this was obviously obtained..."as is" could certainly play a part given it's technically not unroadworthy. Is it normal for roadworthy inspections to check for engine swaps?