BEWARE 2004 Rio Yellow NSX-T JH4NA21624T000067 for sale on eBay
- Thread starter Brylek
- Start date
Across the water? I'm in Nova Scotia. I'll gladly pay the shipping. You have sent me stuff before.
Lake Ontario.......lol
Back on track... Looks like the guy sold the Original seat covers off the seats... Yet they werent the original seats to the car. I wont fault him for the 91-2005 reference as they fit however these are definitely the wrong seat covers for that car.
just sucks he used the sentence this way. Which is Correct yet Misleading. I know i would have been pissed if i bought them thinking they were correct for a 2004 and were a much older vintage.
"Up for sale a oem leather seat covers from 2004 Acura nsx with 19k mile in good condition"
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-2005-A...r_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item339406206e
just sucks he used the sentence this way. Which is Correct yet Misleading. I know i would have been pissed if i bought them thinking they were correct for a 2004 and were a much older vintage.
"Up for sale a oem leather seat covers from 2004 Acura nsx with 19k mile in good condition"
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-2005-A...r_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item339406206e
Not intentionally bumping this thread but do those rear alum bumper beams fit early cars? {91} Weight difference? Thank you.
Almost looks like GT-One quad tail pipes.
Almost looks like GT-One quad tail pipes.
Last edited:
shawn110975
Suspended
huge weight difference its worth it.
now only if we could get the front in alum then we would be cooking.
now only if we could get the front in alum then we would be cooking.
Mike, I think the car has re wrapped 91 seats. It most likely comes with '93 brakes, too.
Okay FIDESCO ,since you have been following this thread and not posting here but making threats to others by pm, it's time you get identified to protect the NSX community.
The information posted here is not being deleted. It is collected from legitimate sites establishing that the NSX you are trying to sell was wrecked and then repaired but is not in the mint condition you are claiming. Ever hear of the Streisand effect? Google it - just like you googled erroneous information to post a threat via pm to a member here. If you want to threaten legal action:
1. You first should know how to spell "lawyer".
2. Don't do a cut and paste from a municipal code of Sunnyside, WA and think it could apply here.
3. Do at least cite a statute that might somehow be related to the posting of information on the internet.
4. Be aware the information and photos in this thread are true thereby negating any of your arguments irrespective of the inapplicability of the municipal code you are quoting.
If you do ever manage to sell your misrepresented NSX with VIN JH4NA21624T000067, take some of the money you will get and purchase a dictionary then have your "Lauyer" call me so I can try to assist him in reuniting an idiot with his village.
From FIDESCO:
"I dont like when a respected buyer like me who pays lots of money for my car don't deserve all this hate about me on Internet .you create a bad propaganda about me who I don't deserve. There is carfax for the history of the car, not you . I already contacted my Lauyer and he's looking in to all this .i suggest you remove all this bad coments before its to late ( I don't deserve this ) Chapter 9.10
ASSAULT AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING PHYSICAL HARM
Sections:
9.10.010 Threats to do harm.
9.10.020 Provoking assault.
9.10.030 Crime Prevention Fund contribution required.
9.10.900 Statutes incorporated by reference.
9.10.010 Threats to do harm.
It is unlawful for any person to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to cause bodily injury to another person or the intent to cause physical damage to the property of another. Every person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of the offense of threats to do harm. [Ord. 1645 § 2, 1988; Ord. 1519 § 1, 1985; Ord. 1235 § 3, 1979: RCW 9A.36.071.]
9.10.020 Provoking assault.
It is unlawful for any person to willfully provoke or attempt to provoke, by word, sign or gesture, another person to commit an assault or breach of the peace. Every person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of the offense of provoking assault. [Ord. 1645 § 2, 1988; Ord. 1519 § 1, 1985; Ord. 1235 § 3, 1979: RCW 9A.36.072.]"
The information posted here is not being deleted. It is collected from legitimate sites establishing that the NSX you are trying to sell was wrecked and then repaired but is not in the mint condition you are claiming. Ever hear of the Streisand effect? Google it - just like you googled erroneous information to post a threat via pm to a member here. If you want to threaten legal action:
1. You first should know how to spell "lawyer".
2. Don't do a cut and paste from a municipal code of Sunnyside, WA and think it could apply here.
3. Do at least cite a statute that might somehow be related to the posting of information on the internet.
4. Be aware the information and photos in this thread are true thereby negating any of your arguments irrespective of the inapplicability of the municipal code you are quoting.
If you do ever manage to sell your misrepresented NSX with VIN JH4NA21624T000067, take some of the money you will get and purchase a dictionary then have your "Lauyer" call me so I can try to assist him in reuniting an idiot with his village.
From FIDESCO:
"I dont like when a respected buyer like me who pays lots of money for my car don't deserve all this hate about me on Internet .you create a bad propaganda about me who I don't deserve. There is carfax for the history of the car, not you . I already contacted my Lauyer and he's looking in to all this .i suggest you remove all this bad coments before its to late ( I don't deserve this ) Chapter 9.10
ASSAULT AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING PHYSICAL HARM
Sections:
9.10.010 Threats to do harm.
9.10.020 Provoking assault.
9.10.030 Crime Prevention Fund contribution required.
9.10.900 Statutes incorporated by reference.
9.10.010 Threats to do harm.
It is unlawful for any person to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to cause bodily injury to another person or the intent to cause physical damage to the property of another. Every person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of the offense of threats to do harm. [Ord. 1645 § 2, 1988; Ord. 1519 § 1, 1985; Ord. 1235 § 3, 1979: RCW 9A.36.071.]
9.10.020 Provoking assault.
It is unlawful for any person to willfully provoke or attempt to provoke, by word, sign or gesture, another person to commit an assault or breach of the peace. Every person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of the offense of provoking assault. [Ord. 1645 § 2, 1988; Ord. 1519 § 1, 1985; Ord. 1235 § 3, 1979: RCW 9A.36.072.]"
Remind me to not get on your bad side RSO 34. Ever think about doing standup comedy?
Did it in college, just as comedy clubs were starting to pop up all over and before the decline in the late 80s. Don't miss the smells.........
Wow. Continually impressed by the community.
Bump.
Bump.
shawn110975
Suspended
it almost sounds like Tamoske's broken English
the winner of the Main rely PM me
the winner of the Main rely PM me
FIDESCO has been OWNED.
- Joined
- 25 March 2014
- Messages
- 179
FIDESCO sounds like he has had dealings with a criminal attorney as well, based on his lack of grammar and pronunciation. We have DB's like this guy here on my local motorcycle forum as well. Pretty delusional of him to think someone would not do their due diligence and run the vin # before making such a large investment.
Awesome.
Gotta love this community. Two thumbs up!
I've seen this car in person since it has been serviced at niello acura in sacramento, the car before the accident looked salvaged as the rear end did not even align up correctly
Are you sure it was this car?
Car was in Chicago before the accident if i recall correctly, and then fixed/being sold in Tacoma Washington. I dont see where it would have been in california.
- Joined
- 19 March 2003
- Messages
- 3,442
Bumpity 
Wow! I think this might be more applicable, and not in his favor (DISCLAIMER: This is NOT legal advice. It is Google advice):
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][h=2]RCW 19.86.020[/h][h=1]Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful.[/h][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
[1961 c 216 § 2.]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][h=2]RCW 19.86.090[/h][h=1]Civil action for damages — Treble damages authorized — Action by governmental entities.[/h][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of RCW 19.86.020, 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, or any person so injured because he or she refuses to accede to a proposal for an arrangement which, if consummated, would be in violation of RCW 19.86.030, 19.86.040, 19.86.050, or 19.86.060, may bring a civil action in superior court to enjoin further violations, to recover the actual damages sustained by him or her, or both, together with the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. In addition, the court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages up to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages sustained: PROVIDED, That such increased damage award for violation of RCW 19.86.020 may not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars: PROVIDED FURTHER, That such person may bring a civil action in the district court to recover his or her actual damages, except for damages which exceed the amount specified in RCW 3.66.020, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney's fees. The district court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not more than three times the actual damages sustained, but such increased damage award shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. For the purpose of this section, "person" includes the counties, municipalities, and all political subdivisions of this state.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][h=2]RCW 19.86.093[/h]
[h=1]Civil action — Unfair or deceptive act or practice — Claim elements.[/h][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
In a private action in which an unfair or deceptive act or practice is alleged under RCW 19.86.020, a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it:
(1) Violates a statute that incorporates this chapter;
(2) Violates a statute that contains a specific legislative declaration of public interest impact; or
(3)(a) Injured other persons; (b) had the capacity to injure other persons; or (c) has the capacity to injure other persons.
[2009 c 371 § 2.]
yes i'm 100% sure, i ran the vin jh4na21624t000067 in our system and that car was purchased brand new in feb 2004 at our dealership with 10 miles and it shows 1 owner.
makes sense, probably went to chicago after. I thought it always lived there
the car that is pictured here doesn't match that vin number also, i've seen both cars... The jh4na21624t000067 was a really nice vehicle, the one pictured was from a guy that worked in alaska on the pipelines....so something isn't right...
https://selenaauto.com/index.php?pid=203&carId=121865&vin=JH4NA21624T000067 Title status shows IL.
This was the for sale ad back in 2012 showing it was SOLD. Car formerly had Cali plates on it.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showthread.php/166918-2004-NSX-Yellow-Blk-JH4NA21624T000067
This was the for sale ad back in 2012 showing it was SOLD. Car formerly had Cali plates on it.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showthread.php/166918-2004-NSX-Yellow-Blk-JH4NA21624T000067
