dealer sold me salvaged turbo no disclosure
09-30-2009, 02:28 PM
#91
I want to reserve judgment until all the facts are known. And I definitely agree that there are three sides to every story (his side, her side and then the truth). But, if as Baron claims Canepa knew of the prior damage (however minor or superficial), I find Canepa's original advertisement (quoted below, where the car is described as being in *NEW* condition) somewhat misleading. I will be curious to hear if he disclosed that damage verbally to NYC1123 prior to purchase.
"This Turbo has only been driven 2670 miles in the past thirteen years! It was special ordered in “paint to match” Polar Silver, with FULL black leather interior, sunroof, and “werks” center console.The first owner kept the car for three years driving it a little over 800 miles a year. He only drove it for pleasure, never in bad weather, always kept it garaged, and had all the scheduled service performed. Because of its great condition and exceptionally low miles the second owner purchased the car for his private collection with the intention of keeping the car just as it was and not adding any more miles. It has only been driven 500 in the past year and is in NEW condition."
"This Turbo has only been driven 2670 miles in the past thirteen years! It was special ordered in “paint to match” Polar Silver, with FULL black leather interior, sunroof, and “werks” center console.The first owner kept the car for three years driving it a little over 800 miles a year. He only drove it for pleasure, never in bad weather, always kept it garaged, and had all the scheduled service performed. Because of its great condition and exceptionally low miles the second owner purchased the car for his private collection with the intention of keeping the car just as it was and not adding any more miles. It has only been driven 500 in the past year and is in NEW condition."
Last edited by zellamsee; 09-30-2009 at 03:31 PM. Reason: typo
09-30-2009, 03:10 PM
#92
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mobile, Alabama
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I had my C4S, I made a small 2' crease in the r wheel well trying to get into the gearage. It drove me nuts, and I had the whole panel replaced with OEm parts and paint. You could NEVER, an I mean NEVER look at it and tell. It was perfect. When I sold the car, I offered pix of the creased fender, and the repairs and listed it as such.
Because of my honesty, I believe I got the price I wanted without problem
It seems to me that any failure to dislcose damage of ANY kind is tantamount to lying and would be defendable upon requesting some sort of restitution or return of the vehicle.
We could talk about VIN searches and buyer research, but to me, bottom line, the seller has an absolute oblicgation to deliver what he advertsies.
Because of my honesty, I believe I got the price I wanted without problem
It seems to me that any failure to dislcose damage of ANY kind is tantamount to lying and would be defendable upon requesting some sort of restitution or return of the vehicle.
We could talk about VIN searches and buyer research, but to me, bottom line, the seller has an absolute oblicgation to deliver what he advertsies.
10-01-2009, 02:15 AM
#96
Poseur
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
When I had my C4S, I made a small 2' crease in the r wheel well trying to get into the gearage. It drove me nuts, and I had the whole panel replaced with OEm parts and paint. You could NEVER, an I mean NEVER look at it and tell. It was perfect. When I sold the car, I offered pix of the creased fender, and the repairs and listed it as such.
Because of my honesty, I believe I got the price I wanted without problem
It seems to me that any failure to dislcose damage of ANY kind is tantamount to lying and would be defendable upon requesting some sort of restitution or return of the vehicle.
We could talk about VIN searches and buyer research, but to me, bottom line, the seller has an absolute oblicgation to deliver what he advertsies.
Because of my honesty, I believe I got the price I wanted without problem
It seems to me that any failure to dislcose damage of ANY kind is tantamount to lying and would be defendable upon requesting some sort of restitution or return of the vehicle.
We could talk about VIN searches and buyer research, but to me, bottom line, the seller has an absolute oblicgation to deliver what he advertsies.
10-01-2009, 02:55 AM
#97
Nordschleife Master
I am posting the images of the original listing for this car as they could be removed from the Canepa web site at a later date ... 
10-01-2009, 04:33 AM
#98
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owner #3, the gentleman that Canepa purchased the car from, stated openly that the car acquired superficial damage to the tops of the front fenders and hood during the first 800 miles. It seems that Owner #1 drove under a steel cable catch fence, lightly damaging ONLY the hood and tops of the fenders.
I guess anything can happen, but how can a cable damage the Tops and the hood "superficially"?
If it is loose it would never touch the hood, or at least you would think that if it just scratched the front of the hood then when it got over the fenders there is still that much slack not to do anything but scratch?
If it was tight it would crush the fenders to reach the hood
That is assuming it is just a cable and not a cable / fence, like nascar
If it did go that way... that was one sweet save
Jerry
I guess anything can happen, but how can a cable damage the Tops and the hood "superficially"?
If it is loose it would never touch the hood, or at least you would think that if it just scratched the front of the hood then when it got over the fenders there is still that much slack not to do anything but scratch?
If it was tight it would crush the fenders to reach the hood
That is assuming it is just a cable and not a cable / fence, like nascar
If it did go that way... that was one sweet save
Jerry
10-01-2009, 11:34 AM
#99
The following Ownership information is only partially
in chronological order as the facts and evidence
move back and forth through the three previous
owners in this story to try and explain the situation.
Canepa purchased the Turbo in question from the 3rd owner. Canepa based this purchase on referrals by two other people who knew of the car. The car was represented to Canepa as a three owner car with low milage.
Owner #3, the gentleman that Canepa purchased the car from, stated openly that the car acquired superficial damage to the tops of the front fenders and hood during the first 800 miles. It seems that Owner #1 drove under a steel cable catch fence, lightly damaging ONLY the hood and tops of the fenders.
Owner #1, a Virginia "loyer" (there's your problem !!) would not accept the Porsche dealer's repairs to his new car even though the insurance company paid for new OEM fenders to be installed on the car. The insurance company eventually gave in and resolved the issue by doing a cash settlement to the original owner (Scumbag Loyer). The car was subsequently sold to the 2nd owner.
In Canepas subsequent investigation based on the NYC123 (Spencer Wanderer) allegation, the 2nd owner who had the car for more than adecade stated the car never had a salvaged title. The 3rd owner that Canepa purchased the car from (lives in Utah) owned the car for a year, and provided to Canepa a valid Utah title for the car, not a salvaged title.
The 2nd owner has now informed Canepa that the car had additional damage (minor) requiring replacement of the right rear quarter panel. This information was not passed on by the 3rd owner when Canepa purchased the car.
The 3rd owner only provided Canepa with pictures of the front of the car which showed only the replacement of fenders and some slight scratches on the hood. The 2nd owner is currently sending Canepa copies of the original photographs during the repair process for the quarter panel.
In recent research, Canepa has also spoken with a mechanic who serviced the car for the 3rd owner in August 2008. He stated to Canepa that the engine was removed to repair a typical oil leak, replace a turbo, and other routine mechanical work; nothing to do with any of the previous body damage from 12 years ago.
Canepa has also spoken with the body shop owner that did the repair for the second owner. This body shop has been in business repairing high end cars, primarily Porsches, for over 30 years and stated that the damage to the right quarter panel was not major and the repairs were perfect by his and the 2nd owners standards.
When NYC123 addressed Canepa with these bomb shell accusations of fraud, Canepa asked NYC123 for two weeks to investigate these accusations.
Canepa HAS offered to purchase the Turbo back for NYC123 original purchase price.
I would also like to note that NYC123 has demanded nearly $20,000 more than he paid for the car from Canepa. This is after Canepa offered to buy back the car for original purchase price.
ANYONE on Rennlist that has followed this thread is free to call Canepa to discuss the "actual" facts of this issue.
Bruce Canepa can be reached at 831.430.9940 (when calling, please refer to this Rennlist thread)
in chronological order as the facts and evidence
move back and forth through the three previous
owners in this story to try and explain the situation.
Canepa purchased the Turbo in question from the 3rd owner. Canepa based this purchase on referrals by two other people who knew of the car. The car was represented to Canepa as a three owner car with low milage.
Owner #3, the gentleman that Canepa purchased the car from, stated openly that the car acquired superficial damage to the tops of the front fenders and hood during the first 800 miles. It seems that Owner #1 drove under a steel cable catch fence, lightly damaging ONLY the hood and tops of the fenders.
Owner #1, a Virginia "loyer" (there's your problem !!) would not accept the Porsche dealer's repairs to his new car even though the insurance company paid for new OEM fenders to be installed on the car. The insurance company eventually gave in and resolved the issue by doing a cash settlement to the original owner (Scumbag Loyer). The car was subsequently sold to the 2nd owner.
In Canepas subsequent investigation based on the NYC123 (Spencer Wanderer) allegation, the 2nd owner who had the car for more than adecade stated the car never had a salvaged title. The 3rd owner that Canepa purchased the car from (lives in Utah) owned the car for a year, and provided to Canepa a valid Utah title for the car, not a salvaged title.
The 2nd owner has now informed Canepa that the car had additional damage (minor) requiring replacement of the right rear quarter panel. This information was not passed on by the 3rd owner when Canepa purchased the car.
The 3rd owner only provided Canepa with pictures of the front of the car which showed only the replacement of fenders and some slight scratches on the hood. The 2nd owner is currently sending Canepa copies of the original photographs during the repair process for the quarter panel.
In recent research, Canepa has also spoken with a mechanic who serviced the car for the 3rd owner in August 2008. He stated to Canepa that the engine was removed to repair a typical oil leak, replace a turbo, and other routine mechanical work; nothing to do with any of the previous body damage from 12 years ago.
Canepa has also spoken with the body shop owner that did the repair for the second owner. This body shop has been in business repairing high end cars, primarily Porsches, for over 30 years and stated that the damage to the right quarter panel was not major and the repairs were perfect by his and the 2nd owners standards.
When NYC123 addressed Canepa with these bomb shell accusations of fraud, Canepa asked NYC123 for two weeks to investigate these accusations.
Canepa HAS offered to purchase the Turbo back for NYC123 original purchase price.
I would also like to note that NYC123 has demanded nearly $20,000 more than he paid for the car from Canepa. This is after Canepa offered to buy back the car for original purchase price.
ANYONE on Rennlist that has followed this thread is free to call Canepa to discuss the "actual" facts of this issue.
Bruce Canepa can be reached at 831.430.9940 (when calling, please refer to this Rennlist thread)
10-01-2009, 02:49 PM
#102
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 7,299
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
8 Posts
Maybe we should start another Post with this question, but, what do most people think this car is truly worth? In other words, what would be the fair price to buy this car from Canepa for, if he does take the car back?
10-01-2009, 03:08 PM
#104
Banned
You thought "loyers" were scumbags before wait until you see what's in store for you. If I was a "loyer" (not saying I am one, I wouldn't want the hate) I'd politely ask for all you information (real name, address, etc). If you declined I'd subpoena the info from rennlist. You'll be deposed and subpoenaed to testify. Your little rant has locked the seller into a story before his "loyer" can determine what's best for him. Congrats you've made yourself a vital witness in the case.
10-01-2009, 03:09 PM
#105
Banned