The Fixer

^ What Randy said.

Looks incredible without the rub strips. You're a lucky man!

deutschmick

Glad everything worked out.

Beautiful car!

Nicole

Beautiful - even more so because it doesn't have the rub strips. And not having them eliminates a potential source of rust on the doors.

Avar928

If I didn't know any better and you would have shown me that GTS picture and told me it was a new Porsche that's coming out, I would have believed it.

GTS without rub stripes, silver color, updated wheels. Modern, classy, powerful. We really do drive 'new old' cars.

rnixon

I'm not a lawyer, but that isn't my understanding. My understanding is that this only applies if one party is denying the existence of an oral contract.

95993RS

I will try to edit the title of the first post

the flyin' scotsman

I believe this would be the correct move........theres much more behind this title/thread.....quite sad really.

rnixon

Sorry, I was trying to correct a point made, not trying to confuse. I'm glad that it worked out for you.

Jerry Feather

Well, I am a lawyer. What you need to do is reread what I posted. I used the word "enforcement" and not the word "performance" which I think you have interpreted that I wrote. Of course the statute of frauds would only come into play if one of the parties to the verbal contract denied it or refused to perform it. If both parties to the verbal contract agreed to it they would simply perform it. If both parties denied the verbal agreement or both decided not to perform it they would simply ignor it. In both of these latter cases the statute of frauds would not come into play, but in respect to the first of the latter two there could still be performance.

On the other hand, I think that the only time the issue about performance might come up when both parties to the verbal agreement agree that it did not exist or agreed not to perform it might be when a different person, someone perhaps claiming to be some kind of third party beneficiary to the verbal agreement between the original two, wanted to claim under the contract; then there could be a situation where both parties deny the contract but enforcement is sought by the third party. Then I think the statute of frauds could very well come into play, and would then preclude ENFORCEMENT if it was over $500.

James-man

This is not a sale.

It is an adoption.