Wanted - People Who Have Had Complications Importi

[Remix-]

As per topic, I am searching for people who have imported a vehicle through Prestige Motorsport who have experienced any serious problems to contact me as soon as possible on 0400-77-99-78 or to email [email protected]

Edited August 18, 2005 by gtr90

[raz0r$harP.UK]

Just a quick reminder to all visiting this that there is to be no public slandering of businesses, as per the forum rules. Keep it cool, people.

Vijay

[Driver]

ask the poor person who bought this car..

http://www.prestigemotorsport.com.au/au/st...sp?StockID=3300

[sigsputnik]

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

[Paradizzle]

Rust, damage.... If cars have substantial rust they will not be able to be complied. The whole boot is full of rust. its f*cked.

[predator]

Unfortunately.. you could see that car on the road for about $12k in 12 months time.. with a $2000 respray and new rear bar, and few other dodgy areas fixed.. and somebody would still be making a profit at the end of the day.

If its a 1989, and it has import approval, all it has to meet is a basic engineering, and roadworthy test. Although some engineers may knock it back because if it is involved in an accident, then their licence may be at risk.

The rust could quickly be covered in about 2 hours by any amateur.. enough to meet a RWC ( hell i've done it on cheap run arounds myself)

[Driver]

not only that its had a dodgy turbo conversion, things arent secured properly in the engine bay

god knows why there is an afm in the boot

boot has no lining, spare tyre, tools and looks rusty

the exhaust is held on by a worm clamp to the tow hook on the rear

the body is rooted, needs ALOT of attention, front bar isnt attached properly - i wouldnt be suprised if it has underbody damage and or has been in an accident. Its had such a cheap respray they even painted the badges. Im guessing they sprayed the car how it sat.

Custom intercooler installed, by looking at the rest of the car, they probably drilled a hole thro a main support somwhere to put an intercooler pipe through

the interior is appuling

i would say that car has been absoulutly THRASHED!!!

other than that - WAT A HOT CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Driver]

oh i forgot to mention

look how high the handbrake is - im sure its been used for alot of handbrakies

i also think the front of the bonnets been bent, you can see the lights dont line up with the bonnet edge. u can see a dent in the very 1st pic and the last 2 photos.

they probly waited till it was raining to take pics of the car, wet cars always look alot better

Edited August 26, 2005 by Driver

[Driver]

oh and look how far the exhaust is sticking out

bah

how could this car be alloud to be registerd. - it needs so much work to be a decent car

[sigsputnik]

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?

[Driver]

yea didnt see that at 1st either,

that car is just scrap

[Mr_G]

P.S, theres no air filter either....

[MearCat]

ask the poor person who bought this car..

http://www.prestigemotorsport.com.au/au/st...sp?StockID=3300

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see the problem that a car like this has been advertised.

You'd be a flipping idiot to do something huge like personally importing a car without knowing all the rules and regs involved and knowing exactly what is required to register a car on Aussie roads for the first time. I'm sorry but if someone buys this car and has problems getting it registered, then it's their own fault. I dont' see why it's wholy the problem of the advertiser (whoever it is). The pics show exactly what condition it's in. If you DID want to buy this car, most import companies can provide further details and pics on request before you made a decision.

I would however be severly p!ssed off if I got this car after it had been comlplied and sold by a potentially dodgy compliance workshop.

[Guest]

This week I had a couple of guys ask me if I wanted to buy some 1990 300Z's they had coming and l I found out a few things including

Import approvals were just put in, cars were on the water, they were bought 1 month ago with invoices and bank transfers showing this and were sold to them buy a dealer/exporter who was ex aussie.

They didnt look into the rulings and the exporter didnt tell them anything else, not cheap either at around 350,000 to 400,000 FOB.

Not good to hear as some people are still ripping the young guys out their.

[sigsputnik]

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.

[Guest]

Duty of car dosent happen with buying a car here in Austalia so how can it happen out of Japan.

[sigsputnik]

>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.

[cowie165]

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).

Are agents bound by the Sale of Goods Act or Trade Practices Act? They are a corporation, but what are they selling? Can you misrepresent something you aren't actually selling?

I was unpleasantly surprised by some of the 'mods' that came with the car.

[sigsputnik]

>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.

[cowie165]

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading some of your arguments, they make a lot of sense, particularly the idea that if they aren't providing assistance, what are they doing? And why are you paying them?

I'll have to dig out my PM agreement. I wish I understood contracts back when I signed it!

What are the implications of actual authority vs. apparent authority?

I'd like to discuss this topic further but I'd better go find my contract. I'm wondering what exemptions I actually agreed to....

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! Doesn't make sense to me