Pineapple Racing: Pending issue.
06-01-09, 10:28 AM
#26
You people are crazy, it is the shops mistake to let the engine go without being paid in full. I would never do that in the first place, and if I did I sure as hell wouldnt have the audacity to try to take the engine from the next buyer of the car who very likely had no clue about the situation. However, there are two sides to every story and Pineapple has too good of a reputation for this to have likely happened this way. There are two sides to every story and hopefully Pineapple will come in and set the record straight.
06-01-09, 10:43 AM
#27
GRINCHY
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya'll know how I feel about pineapple racing...... the *** turds. I'm sorry, that's not completely accurate...... the putrid, foul, *** turds.
Last edited by Xcentric; 06-01-09 at 10:54 AM. Reason: more adjectives
06-01-09, 03:13 PM
#28
Dustin Becktold
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salem Or
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i disagree. i don't think Rob needs to say anything about it. like the guy said 2 posts up, it's stolen property, Rob's/Pineapple Racing's stolen property. if you've ever dealt with this guy you'd understand. he's really a good guy. some of the story doesn't add up to me but Rob doesn't need to explain himself to anyone but the people involved and if need be the authorities.
06-01-09, 03:27 PM
#29
The seller screwed you.
The shop saw something that is legally theirs.
Just because you buy something that is stolen... does not change the fact that it is stolen.
The seller owes you, not the original property owner.
If you purchase a stolen car, and the legal owner sees it, he can legally TAKE it back.
That is why you do your homework on EVERY private sale.
Sorry, the law is on the shop's side for the original act of taking his property back. How is he supposed to know what is going on outside his shop?
The shop saw something that is legally theirs.
Just because you buy something that is stolen... does not change the fact that it is stolen.
The seller owes you, not the original property owner.
If you purchase a stolen car, and the legal owner sees it, he can legally TAKE it back.
That is why you do your homework on EVERY private sale.
Sorry, the law is on the shop's side for the original act of taking his property back. How is he supposed to know what is going on outside his shop?
06-01-09, 04:11 PM
#30
you bought a FD with a stolen motor and your mad that the builder took it back after you sent it to him??? hmmm, duh he's gonna keep it. if someone stole YOUR property you'd do the same thing. more then likely Rob got taken advantage of and let the guy go without paying the entire bill. now your flamming him for being a nice guy to some *** who took the motor and sold you his car? that's messed up.
really? I'm not really sure how he was suppossed to find this out. Quit blaming the victim. Obviously there isn't a lien on the vehicle as the DMV would have caught that.
The seller of this car is an an ******* and both Rob and the thread starter should actually get together and file complaints about this individual.
Last edited by Montego; 06-01-09 at 04:14 PM.
06-01-09, 04:13 PM
#31
Racing is Life.....
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern California
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkman is right
What you (your GF) stumbled into is a mechanic's lien at a minimum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanic's_lien
and her lawyer should recognize that. Just because she 'bought' the car, it came encumbered by this lien (as Montego says above, Rob would have needed to file the lien through proper channels. Assuming he did, he actually does have the right to keep the engine that magically came back to him).
Her legal relief is against the origninal seller, in small claims court most likely based on the amount. She could also present the information to the local district attorney, who could file criminal fraud charges against the original seller (but that's unlikely, the DA's got bigger fish to fry).
The law is on Rob's side - he got back the property he worked on, and is holding it until he gets paid. It would be only through Rob's good grace for him to return the motor.
Your g/f was cheated by the original seller, and that is where you need to direct your anger....but it is understandable that you'd be upset with Pineapple.
Beast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanic's_lien
and her lawyer should recognize that. Just because she 'bought' the car, it came encumbered by this lien (as Montego says above, Rob would have needed to file the lien through proper channels. Assuming he did, he actually does have the right to keep the engine that magically came back to him).
Her legal relief is against the origninal seller, in small claims court most likely based on the amount. She could also present the information to the local district attorney, who could file criminal fraud charges against the original seller (but that's unlikely, the DA's got bigger fish to fry).
The law is on Rob's side - he got back the property he worked on, and is holding it until he gets paid. It would be only through Rob's good grace for him to return the motor.
Your g/f was cheated by the original seller, and that is where you need to direct your anger....but it is understandable that you'd be upset with Pineapple.
Beast
06-01-09, 05:00 PM
#32
man this is the most fucked up **** I have read in a while, so you guys think its ok for him to keep this girl's motor or motor parts or whatever?
Your actually blaming the seller for this? Had there been a lien on the car the seller would not have been able to purchase it.
What would you have the seller do? Call every shop in the country to ask if the person owes them money before buying the car?
You guys actually think the law is on the shop's side? Your CRAZY. You had better have the most **** paperwork imaginable with signatures to have a leg to stand on, even then the judge would STILL say "WHY DID YOU LET THE CAR GO WITHOUT PAYMENT?"
I think because some of you "know" Pineapple you are defending them, but put yourself in thier shoes, I mean really to those saying its the seller's fault- WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENT when you purchased the car?
Your actually blaming the seller for this? Had there been a lien on the car the seller would not have been able to purchase it.
What would you have the seller do? Call every shop in the country to ask if the person owes them money before buying the car?
You guys actually think the law is on the shop's side? Your CRAZY. You had better have the most **** paperwork imaginable with signatures to have a leg to stand on, even then the judge would STILL say "WHY DID YOU LET THE CAR GO WITHOUT PAYMENT?"
I think because some of you "know" Pineapple you are defending them, but put yourself in thier shoes, I mean really to those saying its the seller's fault- WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENT when you purchased the car?
06-01-09, 06:20 PM
#33
he quoted you $4500 for a rebuild. sounds steep.
what had to be done for the rebuild the first time around?
how much was the rebuild back then?
was there a warranty on the rebuild 6 years ago?
From PR perspective, there could be a possibility you are related/friends with the seller and are trying to have him fix the short block again without paying off the tab from the first time around.
gbas for the short block it sounds like Pineapple Racing (PR) got ripped off by the original seller and is unfairly confiscating your block. PR got ripped off and should accept responsibility for it. PR should have taken counter measures back then to protect itself (ie taken payment by credit card, rather than check or made sure the check cleared before returning the block). The original owner should have had returned it to PR and have it repaired under warranty. Since there is no way to confirm that you are not related/in cahoots with the seller in anyway, PR is not legally wrong for confiscating your block (fair and legal aren't always the same thing).
I think a compromise should be made, PR rebuild the block for the price it cost 6 years ago and return all your long block parts. You should cover the shipping cost of PR, one for the first time 6 years ago and once more when he rebuilds/returns the block.
what had to be done for the rebuild the first time around?
how much was the rebuild back then?
was there a warranty on the rebuild 6 years ago?
From PR perspective, there could be a possibility you are related/friends with the seller and are trying to have him fix the short block again without paying off the tab from the first time around.
gbas for the short block it sounds like Pineapple Racing (PR) got ripped off by the original seller and is unfairly confiscating your block. PR got ripped off and should accept responsibility for it. PR should have taken counter measures back then to protect itself (ie taken payment by credit card, rather than check or made sure the check cleared before returning the block). The original owner should have had returned it to PR and have it repaired under warranty. Since there is no way to confirm that you are not related/in cahoots with the seller in anyway, PR is not legally wrong for confiscating your block (fair and legal aren't always the same thing).
I think a compromise should be made, PR rebuild the block for the price it cost 6 years ago and return all your long block parts. You should cover the shipping cost of PR, one for the first time 6 years ago and once more when he rebuilds/returns the block.
06-01-09, 09:45 PM
#34
All out Freak!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in a little box on a stick
Posts: 2,300
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
9 Posts
first off, nothing will ever get solved here because all we see is everyone's speculation. What should happen is that Rob should join us on this thread. There is only one way to get the full story--by having all involved parties providing it. For example, here are some questions....
1--how do we even know that this engine wasnt fully paid for? We live in a country of "innocent unitl proven guilty".....you cannot just say "hey, you owe me money" and take whatever you want! There MUST be proof--that goes without saying and it goes for anyone. Rob doesnt have the right to simply take the engine back without being able to show a balance owed. At the same time, his fight is NOT with the new owner. This is NOT stolen property folks. If you buy something, put it on your credit card, and then fail to make your credit card payments, does Visa show up at your door to take back the stuff you bought?? Think about this--the moment Rob let this guy drive off without paying in full, he created a credit transaction. That makes this subject to the laws regarding credit--see #3 below.
2--Why wasnt a lein put on the car? Someone said that Rob would have had to deal with someone in a different state--it doesnt matter. a lein is only paperwork, it isnt like he would have had to relocate to that other state to make it happen. Lets think about this.....if YOU all owned this shop and YOU built a multi-thousand dollar engine for someone, are YOU going to let 6 years go by without them paying for your work? I dont know, something doesnt seem right about that.
3--when it comes to consumer debts, there is a thing called "statute of limitations". It is different in every state, and different depending on the type of debt. Depending on what state Rob is in, the statute of limitations could have already passed on this, and if it did, he doesnt have the right to just take anything. He formed a credit situation the moment he allowed the previous owned to drive off in his car without paying the full balance, that was his doing. If youre all going to talk business here and what's right/wrong, then let's talk about all of that, not just some of it.
4--the proof of ownership of the car is sketchy, and once again shows why we really need to hear from Pineapple on this one, because all we have is "I think the proof was not on an RX7". That doesnt identify anything towards a solution, no offense at all intended to whoever posted that. What we really need, with respect to all involved, is to have their participation. Nothing else will resolve this matter. But Rob does need to understand that proof of ownership means different things in different states too--like was posted, the car cannot be registered in that state without getting the smog test done, which cannot be done with a dead motor. He needs to be realistic to such things. What would really help is a bill of sale, it's a legally binding document that proves transfer of ownership. The new owner should also consider furnishing proof of payment to Rob--nothing speaks louder than money changing hands. IF she can show that she paid $XX,000 to the other guy for the car, then that should help.
5--the additional parts....folks, believe me when I say this, Rob IS in the wrong here. Consider these facts:
--Rob knows that none of those parts were part of his engine build, so he has no legal right whatsoever to them because even if he's owed money, he isnt owed money for THOSE parts or the labor to install those parts. So, he's wrong for keeping them.
--She doesnt legally need to prove ownership of those parts....because Rob has no legal claim to them. He needs to return those parts immediately because she can actually file a criminal complaint for theft because he's unlawfully keeping them.
That is dangerous ground for him to be on. And before any of you want to jump on me for that, I went to college for criminal justice and have worked professionally in that field...I happen to know a thing or three about this.
Bottom line, guys--we're all only guessing here. And while that can be helpful it wont solve anything. We need all the facts. Thats the only way that anything can get resolved.
1--how do we even know that this engine wasnt fully paid for? We live in a country of "innocent unitl proven guilty".....you cannot just say "hey, you owe me money" and take whatever you want! There MUST be proof--that goes without saying and it goes for anyone. Rob doesnt have the right to simply take the engine back without being able to show a balance owed. At the same time, his fight is NOT with the new owner. This is NOT stolen property folks. If you buy something, put it on your credit card, and then fail to make your credit card payments, does Visa show up at your door to take back the stuff you bought?? Think about this--the moment Rob let this guy drive off without paying in full, he created a credit transaction. That makes this subject to the laws regarding credit--see #3 below.
2--Why wasnt a lein put on the car? Someone said that Rob would have had to deal with someone in a different state--it doesnt matter. a lein is only paperwork, it isnt like he would have had to relocate to that other state to make it happen. Lets think about this.....if YOU all owned this shop and YOU built a multi-thousand dollar engine for someone, are YOU going to let 6 years go by without them paying for your work? I dont know, something doesnt seem right about that.
3--when it comes to consumer debts, there is a thing called "statute of limitations". It is different in every state, and different depending on the type of debt. Depending on what state Rob is in, the statute of limitations could have already passed on this, and if it did, he doesnt have the right to just take anything. He formed a credit situation the moment he allowed the previous owned to drive off in his car without paying the full balance, that was his doing. If youre all going to talk business here and what's right/wrong, then let's talk about all of that, not just some of it.
4--the proof of ownership of the car is sketchy, and once again shows why we really need to hear from Pineapple on this one, because all we have is "I think the proof was not on an RX7". That doesnt identify anything towards a solution, no offense at all intended to whoever posted that. What we really need, with respect to all involved, is to have their participation. Nothing else will resolve this matter. But Rob does need to understand that proof of ownership means different things in different states too--like was posted, the car cannot be registered in that state without getting the smog test done, which cannot be done with a dead motor. He needs to be realistic to such things. What would really help is a bill of sale, it's a legally binding document that proves transfer of ownership. The new owner should also consider furnishing proof of payment to Rob--nothing speaks louder than money changing hands. IF she can show that she paid $XX,000 to the other guy for the car, then that should help.
5--the additional parts....folks, believe me when I say this, Rob IS in the wrong here. Consider these facts:
--Rob knows that none of those parts were part of his engine build, so he has no legal right whatsoever to them because even if he's owed money, he isnt owed money for THOSE parts or the labor to install those parts. So, he's wrong for keeping them.
--She doesnt legally need to prove ownership of those parts....because Rob has no legal claim to them. He needs to return those parts immediately because she can actually file a criminal complaint for theft because he's unlawfully keeping them.
That is dangerous ground for him to be on. And before any of you want to jump on me for that, I went to college for criminal justice and have worked professionally in that field...I happen to know a thing or three about this.
Bottom line, guys--we're all only guessing here. And while that can be helpful it wont solve anything. We need all the facts. Thats the only way that anything can get resolved.
06-02-09, 02:53 AM
#35
Team Benjos Captain
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greenwood/Hartsville, SC.
Posts: 2,720
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not to be combative, but I have a couple of things to point out.
From what the OP said, it seems as if the motor was originally paid for, but the original payment, a check, was later canceled. This is Theft by Deception and does indeed classify the motor as stolen property if that is truly what transpired. Rob should have gone after the original owner the minute that check was canceled. Why he suddenly decided to go after someone who seems to be truly not at fault, I don't know.
Even though the engine itself truly is "stolen property", consider the following. If she has a bill of sale showing that ownership of the vehicle had been transferred to her, then that's it, it's her car AND motor. Article 2 Part 4 of the Nevada Uniformed Commercial Code states the following:
Rob never followed up on the original dispute with the original buyer who canceled the payment, at least not to our knowledge. Even if he did, the DMV confirms that the title has been transferred to her and I would again refer you to my quoted passage from the NV UCC.
This is undeniably true. I can't believe anyone would possibly think they could just seize whatever property they wanted to without going through ANY proper channels. If everything that has been posted here is true, I hope Kiki gets the ball rolling on getting her property back and filing criminal charges against Rob.
He formed a credit situation the moment he allowed the previous owned to drive off in his car without paying the full balance, that was his doing. If youre all going to talk business here and what's right/wrong, then let's talk about all of that, not just some of it.
4--What would really help is a bill of sale, it's a legally binding document that proves transfer of ownership. The new owner should also consider furnishing proof of payment to Rob--nothing speaks louder than money changing hands. IF she can show that she paid $XX,000 to the other guy for the car, then that should help.
NRS 104.2403 Power to transfer; good faith purchase of goods; “entrusting.”
1. A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though:
(a) The transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser;
(b) The delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored;
(c) It was agreed that the transaction was to be a “cash sale”; or
(d) The delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.
1. A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though:
(a) The transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser;
(b) The delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored;
(c) It was agreed that the transaction was to be a “cash sale”; or
(d) The delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.
Rob never followed up on the original dispute with the original buyer who canceled the payment, at least not to our knowledge. Even if he did, the DMV confirms that the title has been transferred to her and I would again refer you to my quoted passage from the NV UCC.
06-02-09, 09:42 AM
#36
Rotor or no motor
iTrader: (24)
Not to be combative, but I have a couple of things to point out.
From what the OP said, it seems as if the motor was originally paid for, but the original payment, a check, was later canceled. This is Theft by Deception and does indeed classify the motor as stolen property if that is truly what transpired. Rob should have gone after the original owner the minute that check was canceled. Why he suddenly decided to go after someone who seems to be truly not at fault, I don't know.
Even though the engine itself truly is "stolen property", consider the following. If she has a bill of sale showing that ownership of the vehicle had been transferred to her, then that's it, it's her car AND motor. Article 2 Part 4 of the Nevada Uniformed Commercial Code states the following:
Rob never followed up on the original dispute with the original buyer who canceled the payment, at least not to our knowledge. Even if he did, the DMV confirms that the title has been transferred to her and I would again refer you to my quoted passage from the NV UCC.
This is undeniably true. I can't believe anyone would possibly think they could just seize whatever property they wanted to without going through ANY proper channels. If everything that has been posted here is true, I hope Kiki gets the ball rolling on getting her property back and filing criminal charges against Rob.
From what the OP said, it seems as if the motor was originally paid for, but the original payment, a check, was later canceled. This is Theft by Deception and does indeed classify the motor as stolen property if that is truly what transpired. Rob should have gone after the original owner the minute that check was canceled. Why he suddenly decided to go after someone who seems to be truly not at fault, I don't know.
Even though the engine itself truly is "stolen property", consider the following. If she has a bill of sale showing that ownership of the vehicle had been transferred to her, then that's it, it's her car AND motor. Article 2 Part 4 of the Nevada Uniformed Commercial Code states the following:
Rob never followed up on the original dispute with the original buyer who canceled the payment, at least not to our knowledge. Even if he did, the DMV confirms that the title has been transferred to her and I would again refer you to my quoted passage from the NV UCC.
This is undeniably true. I can't believe anyone would possibly think they could just seize whatever property they wanted to without going through ANY proper channels. If everything that has been posted here is true, I hope Kiki gets the ball rolling on getting her property back and filing criminal charges against Rob.
06-02-09, 01:15 PM
#37
Team Benjos Captain
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greenwood/Hartsville, SC.
Posts: 2,720
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This is why Rob needs to speak up with his side of the story so that we can get the whole picture, as it's looking pretty bad for him so far.
06-02-09, 03:41 PM
#38
Rotor or no motor
iTrader: (24)
Do you know this for sure by talking to Rob or are you just going on what's been posted? The OP said that the title has been transferred to her, but that the car hasn't yet been registered in her name because she can't take the smog test. Titling the car and registering the car are two separate issues. If the car is titled in her name, it's hers. If the car's not registered in her name, it's still hers, she just can't legally drive it on the street, that's all.
This is why Rob needs to speak up with his side of the story so that we can get the whole picture, as it's looking pretty bad for him so far.
This is why Rob needs to speak up with his side of the story so that we can get the whole picture, as it's looking pretty bad for him so far.
Someone actually tried doing something similar to this to another engine builder I am friends with recently, he caught them though, still funny what people will try to do, not saying that is the case here at all.
06-03-09, 09:26 PM
#40
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting border line stupid at this point, just because “Rob” put labor and or parts into the engine does not make it his simply because he was not paid for the services he performed on the engine. Anyone that thinks that that engine is even remotely considered “stolen property “is either drunk or cross eyed. Using that logic; my lawn care provider owned my house when my payment was late in the mail, to make things worse I was living a stolen house for two weeks that I heisted from the guy that mows my lawn ( or was it HIS lawn?) - You get the point here? It’s a no go, and complete BS.
Rob as a business owner is not qualified to enforce the law or to interrupt it as it fits his fancy (go to the police academy.. bitch). Fact of the matter is that he is owed money for services rendered to/by the previous owner. Think about it, she send him the engine…she was under the impression it was under warrantee. The fact of the matter is the engine became “stolen property” when Rob from pineapple racing refused to return the engine to the rightful owner.
He is a poor sad excuse for a business man if he truly thinks he can hold her responsible as a third party to a civil matter between him and another customer.
Anyone that can defend his (Robs) position is just as stupid as Rob.
Rob as a business owner is not qualified to enforce the law or to interrupt it as it fits his fancy (go to the police academy.. bitch). Fact of the matter is that he is owed money for services rendered to/by the previous owner. Think about it, she send him the engine…she was under the impression it was under warrantee. The fact of the matter is the engine became “stolen property” when Rob from pineapple racing refused to return the engine to the rightful owner.
He is a poor sad excuse for a business man if he truly thinks he can hold her responsible as a third party to a civil matter between him and another customer.
Anyone that can defend his (Robs) position is just as stupid as Rob.
06-03-09, 09:32 PM
#41
Rotor or no motor
iTrader: (24)
This is getting border line stupid at this point, just because “Rob” put labor and or parts into the engine does not make it his simply because he was not paid for the services he performed on the engine. Anyone that thinks that that engine is even remotely considered “stolen property “is either drunk or cross eyed. Using that logic; my lawn care provider owned my house when my payment was late in the mail, to make things worse I was living a stolen house for two weeks that I heisted from the guy that mows my lawn ( or was it HIS lawn?) - You get the point here? It’s a no go, and complete BS.
Rob as a business owner is not qualified to enforce the law or to interrupt it as it fits his fancy (go to the police academy.. bitch). Fact of the matter is that he is owed money for services rendered to/by the previous owner. Think about it, she send him the engine…she was under the impression it was under warrantee. The fact of the matter is the engine became “stolen property” when Rob from pineapple racing refused to return the engine to the rightful owner.
He is a poor sad excuse for a business man if he truly thinks he can hold her responsible as a third party to a civil matter between him and another customer.
Anyone that can defend his (Robs) position is just as stupid as Rob.
Rob as a business owner is not qualified to enforce the law or to interrupt it as it fits his fancy (go to the police academy.. bitch). Fact of the matter is that he is owed money for services rendered to/by the previous owner. Think about it, she send him the engine…she was under the impression it was under warrantee. The fact of the matter is the engine became “stolen property” when Rob from pineapple racing refused to return the engine to the rightful owner.
He is a poor sad excuse for a business man if he truly thinks he can hold her responsible as a third party to a civil matter between him and another customer.
Anyone that can defend his (Robs) position is just as stupid as Rob.
Rob wants a proof that her vehicle is hers and that would be the end of it,
06-03-09, 09:45 PM
#42
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She is not required to show him proof of ****, all he needs to know is that SHE sent him the engine, when was the last time your mechanic held your **** hostage till your brought him the title..cause some guy in a Chrysler Lebaron Convertible got over on him and yours looks just like it? Come on now..if he wants to be a Cop then put down the wrench and Pork up.
I will admit that it seems to be being handles too passively, if it was my engine that he was holding over something between him and another customer… let’s just say I would have the world’s most least expensive fresh rebuild.
06-03-09, 09:58 PM
#43
06-03-09, 10:07 PM
#44
Rotor or no motor
iTrader: (24)
She is not required to show him proof of ****, all he needs to know is that SHE sent him the engine, when was the last time your mechanic held your **** hostage till your brought him the title..cause some guy in a Chrysler Lebaron Convertible got over on him and yours looks just like it? Come on now..if he wants to be a Cop then put down the wrench and Pork up.
I will admit that it seems to be being handles too passively, if it was my engine that he was holding over something between him and another customer… let’s just say I would have the world’s most least expensive fresh rebuild.
I will admit that it seems to be being handles too passively, if it was my engine that he was holding over something between him and another customer… let’s just say I would have the world’s most least expensive fresh rebuild.
My car breaks down, i owe Rob money and i sell my car to you saying it has warranty. so you go through all the hassle and you realise in the end that you have just been ****ed. Not your fault at all, but you have been officially screwed
What if though, you and i are friends, so to avoid the whole extra charge/hassle from the past with Rob, you send my engine to Rob and claim that its yours in order to get a fresh "under warranty "rebuilt , Would you buy that?
And im pretty confident that Rob has some proof that the previous owner and the new owner are friends...
I m not saying this is the case BUT it is a possibility
06-03-09, 11:12 PM
#45
okay..let see it from other angle now. Lets say that rob isnt willing to do warranty work on that engine (eventough) that engine is UNDER warranty (altough is it possible for an engine to be under warranty after 6 yrs)??. So he said to you that its a stolen engine (or unpaid) and and tell you that for you to get it back is to pay him $4500. How do you feel???
Honestly, how can he let go a motor that cost him $4500 unpaid?? If this isnt a well known shop...and someone pulling this on me, this is sound like a scam. I mean i wouldnt buy his story that he let the motor to be pick up without the owner paid him.
Honestly, how can he let go a motor that cost him $4500 unpaid?? If this isnt a well known shop...and someone pulling this on me, this is sound like a scam. I mean i wouldnt buy his story that he let the motor to be pick up without the owner paid him.
06-03-09, 11:38 PM
#46
Here is a role play.. Say u went out to a fancy dinner w/ ur gf. At the end of the night when u wanna pick up ur car, the parking attendant told u that the car was his car stolen 6yrs ago and he is keeping it.
Without proof.
How do u feel?? I wonder what happen when everyone start to take matters into their own hand??
Without proof.
How do u feel?? I wonder what happen when everyone start to take matters into their own hand??
06-04-09, 12:20 AM
#48
Senior Member
What if that same parking attendant looked at the VIN and it was his stolen car..........
Housings have serial numbers on them......If they are the same ones taken and not paid for, I think I'd keep them too. He may be able to prove this with his records.
Bet he got pissed at another cheep skate complaining over what they do for 4500 as well.
They would not be around for so long if they did not do good work.
Housings have serial numbers on them......If they are the same ones taken and not paid for, I think I'd keep them too. He may be able to prove this with his records.
Bet he got pissed at another cheep skate complaining over what they do for 4500 as well.
They would not be around for so long if they did not do good work.
06-04-09, 12:49 AM
#49
Zoom Zoom Baby
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Denver/Vegas
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i still don't see how rob can keep the accessories.
if she bought the car and the engine was rebuilt but not paid for, that doesn't mean the accessories are his.
i can understand keeping the engine but not those parts.
they should be considered hers along with the car right?
and they already have another short block so just send her the accessories and keep the engine to sell or for parts.
if she bought the car and the engine was rebuilt but not paid for, that doesn't mean the accessories are his.
i can understand keeping the engine but not those parts.
they should be considered hers along with the car right?
and they already have another short block so just send her the accessories and keep the engine to sell or for parts.
06-04-09, 04:10 AM
#50
Smoke moar
If Rob was a good business man he'd send atleast the acc parts back. I belive by technical terms he did steal it from her.
He let the engine go, was there any signed paperwork that the person would pay him back? Why does he not take them to court? The seller didn't write an agreement that Kiki owes Rob for the engine and thus the car was cheaper, she bought a FD for christ sakes.