19 replies to this topic

[Garsted]

From the Mail Online:
the judges said "a description of a car doesn’t imply its originality or provenance"

Buying an historic car these days is to enter very muddy water indeed (but I suppose we already knew that)

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1owILa65z

Steve

[D-Type]

Not a good judgement - it rather opens the floodgates doesn't it!

[Lee Nicolle]

The proverbial Grandpas axe is now a true antique despite having 10 handles and 3 heads!

But truly this will always be a mire. Though the fact that it was not a true Speed 6 really means it was a fraudulent description, as distinct to being called a true replica.

With popular classics eg Muscle Cars in particulatr there is now more in existence than what was originally made. eg Shelby Mustangs, Yenko Camaros, Falcon GTHOs Torana XU1s and ofcourse similar in Euro and Asian classics also.
As has been done with the Bentley start with a lower level model and modify it to hero car specs.

[maoricar]

Without being privy to the original description and/or the discussion(s) that presumably took place, prior to the purchase, I find it difficult to condemn the seller out of hand. Has the seller a history of these kinds of disputes? Have any of the other involved parties a history of this type of dispute?
While it is difficult ( for me) to have MUCH sympathy for an american-born lawyer, these types do have a history of litgating at the drop of a hat and why did she not take up the seller's offer to refund her purchase price?

The fact that he re-sold it at a higher price, subsequent to all of the publicity, might indicate that the car in question has SOME value, to some people
Un-realized expectations are rife in this business, as is 'let the buyer beware'

Edited by maoricar, 13 March 2012 - 03:11.

[cheapracer]

With popular classics eg Muscle Cars in particulatr there is now more in existence than what was originally made. eg Shelby Mustangs, Yenko Camaros, Falcon GTHOs Torana XU1s and ofcourse similar in Euro and Asian classics also.

They all had ID plates so they can be checked - I don't see any problem with a complete reconstruction as long as it's true and wears the correct ID plate that may have been taken from a completely lost car.

As has been done with the Bentley start with a lower level model and modify it to hero car specs.

Bentley did it as with all the Super/Muscle cars you mention above, they all started life as base models.



"The problem with 80-year-old cars like these is that at some stage everything has to be replaced"

Anyone who can't understand the above needs mental help.

[Jimisgod]

Isn't there a saying "Of the 300 GTHOs ever made, only 400 survive today."

[Lola5000]

i better start polishing that chassis plate and front axle I've got.

[Lee Nicolle]

Isn't there a saying "Of the 300 GTHOs ever made, only 400 survive today."

800!

[Jimisgod]

800!

To clarify, I mean Phase IIIs.

[Guido22]

Doesn't look good for Bonhams.

[AAGR]

Authenticity ? Reminds me of a quite recent conversation I once had with an Elder of the MG Car Club, who said of the famous trio of 1963 'works' MGB race cars - 6DBL, 7DBL and 8 DBL:

'Ah yes, I know them well. I know where all ten of them live ....'

[Bloggsworth]

I have a Hesketh teddy-bear which once sat in the seat of James Hunt's car, so if anyone wants to build a genuine Hesketh 308 and we can agree a price...

[Marticelli]

In view of the fact that there has been almost a production line for 'original' Bentley chassis parts, it is perhaps surprising that this car even had an original chassis! Although it would appear on careful reading that only the front half of the chassis was original, married to a presumably newly manufactured rear? Caveat emptor applies more than ever these days!

As for the judgement of our noble law Lords, whatever happened to the Trade Description Act?

Marticelli

[LittleBertha]

I suggest before you all start clucking away like a load of mother hens that you take a moment to google 'Vintage Bentley court case' which will lead you to another thread where a lawyer has abstracted all the important parts from the CA judgement and shed legal based light on the case.

Ill informed wittering is bad practise in my view particularly when based on a Daily Mail article!

Edited by LittleBertha, 13 March 2012 - 09:10.

[xj13v12]

American lawyer buys car .....maybe this is a clue?
Mann is THE name in such Bentleys.
A car is worth what a buyer is willing to pay.

[David McKinney]

Authenticity ? Reminds me of a quite recent conversation I once had with an Elder of the MG Car Club, who said of the famous trio of 1963 'works' MGB race cars - 6DBL, 7DBL and 8 DBL:

'Ah yes, I know them well. I know where all ten of them live ....'

BMC (or whatever it was in those days) used the same reg numbers for a variety of cars, so the "all ten" description might be closer to the truth than at first appears

[ensign14]

As usual things are a bit more complex. In sum, it's not about the car, more about the engine, and whether a car becomes a different car if the engine is not original.

You can see the judgment here. It’s a biggie though. (So is this post, I’m afraid.)

Remember sale by description is a minefield. Mrs Brewer wanted a car; she got a car. The centre of the dispute was the engine. Mrs Brewer complains that the engine was not a Speed Six engine; she knew the engine was not original to the car (para 63-4) but if it was not a Speed Six engine she had not bought a Speed Six.

This raises an important point. It is not so much whether the Bentley IS a Speed Six, but rather whether people THINK it is a Speed Six. A continuously restored Speed Six is still considered to be a Speed Six, according to expert evidence in the case (para 43), and the pre-sale valuations did not raise an eyebrow at the engine not being original (para 68) even though it was obviously not original to the car (the Bentley literature is clear on this matter, e.g. para 190). A Speed Six chassis with a non-Speed Six engine is considered to be a Speed Six – after all, a Delorean is a Delorean, not a Peugeot despite having a Peugeot engine (para 300 for a less gearhead analogy). Mrs Brewer’s expert witness did not originally address whether the Bentley could be described as a Speed Six regardless of engine AT ALL (para 132), curious given the nature of the case, and when he met with Mann’s expert he DID agree that “Speed Six” referred to the chassis rather than engine (para 133). And he overtly conceded the point in the witness box (para 139).

So if everyone, including Mrs Brewer’s expert, says the Bentley’s a Speed Six, how can there be dishonesty, or even inaccuracy, in calling it a Speed Six? Indeed its subsequent sale at a profit vindicates the Court of Appeal.

Perhaps it was for that reason that the claim was for breach of warranty instead, i.e. Mann promised it was a Speed Six engine (para 120), that this was therefore a contractual term, ergo she did not get what she paid for and could sue for extra losses, in this case HP charges of £65k. The big difficulty was proving what was said in one conversation in May 2007 (para 122).

And we don’t know what was said. The point of the appeal was because the trial judge went off on one. He found that Mann was dishonest, even though Mrs Brewer did not allege dishonesty, and that pretty much decided the case. There were other peculiarities in the original judgment – he brought in another party apropos of nothing, he rejected any credit for Mrs Brewer having had 14 months’ use of the car (the CoA reckoned that in itself was worth £45k, see para 325), that she was entitled to reject the car after over a year, that it was pretty much a cut & shut (para 148) without any claim or evidence for that, even changing his judgment when Mann showed grounds for appeal (at one point the judge goes from approving Mann’s expert to rejecting his comments), all of which are highly questionable points. No question that, given such a judgment, Mann (and the finance company that lent the purchase money) would seek to appeal.

So now it’s decided that Mann was not dishonest, it comes back down to what was said in that fateful conversation in May 2007. Did Mann say there was a Speed Six engine in the car? The trial judge said he did, but the major problems in the judgment led the Court of Appeal to assume the judge was just making up stuff (see paras 169-89, 192, 205 and 223, especially para 176, whenever a Court calls another judge’s work “worrying” you KNOW the knives are out) to ensure Mrs Brewer won. (Fun comment at para 296 which suggests that on the trial judge’s contortions there would be no Speed Sixes left!) No confidence that his assessment of the competing evidence was sound. Indeed the CoA suggested there was evidence to suggest Mann did NOT assert there was a pukka Speed Six engine in the car (para 190-2 and 200-2), but the CoA’s job is not to look at evidence, just the law.

The job of looking at the evidence is that of a trial judge.

Which means there will be a re-trial...

[LittleBertha]

Stanley would have been daft to assert it was a Speed Six engine since the engine number was in full view and two minutes with Hay would have uncovered that as a lie.

Anybody with some sense spending that sort of money would consult some independent advice - remember this was not the first Bentley to come into their ownership

[ensign14]

Stanley would have been daft to assert it was a Speed Six engine since the engine number was in full view and two minutes with Hay would have uncovered that as a lie.

Which is what the Court of Appeal strongly hinted at. Especially as Mann SENT the Hay book chronicling the Speed Six chassis and engine numbers to the Brewers...

Anybody with some sense spending that sort of money would consult some independent advice - remember this was not the first Bentley to come into their ownership

They did, which is also a strong hint from the CoA that the engine question could not have been to the forefront of Mrs Brewer's mind.

It must be noted that the case wasn't about rejecting the Bentley, or what it's really worth, as it was bought back. The real issue was over the finance charges in the meantime.

[LittleBertha]

I think it unlikely there will be a retrial - the CA have to a large extent undermined the Brewer case notwithstanding they have to pay Stanley something like £85,000 in costs

The main thrust I was making was that contributors should be wary of castigating Stanley further since to all intents and purposes he has been vindicated in his actions both pre and post sale

For the record I have had no business dealings with Stanley although a good friend of my father purchased a superb original VDP bodied 3 litre from him in the 80's for which he paid a strong price and then enjoyed immensely - you get what you pay for.