Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay JH4NA1153PT000424

Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

Alan C. said:
In another thread brahtw8 wrote in response to a salvage title question on his car:


Don't you think you set this whole thing in motion? Didn't you offer an enticement by pointing out the car did not have a salvage tilte? I'm sorry, but you can't rain on other's parade without opening your own umbrella. This is one of the easiest ways of getting around a salvage title.

BTW, the owner is advertising just as you did: 'The car has a clean title'. Granted, you did show the damage at point of sale since you sold it as is.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous assertion. The car was as far away from a salvage title as a brand new Veyron. It's either a salvage or it's not. And he's not legally bound to share any information about the car's history insofar as everything works and is in good running order.

If it appears in perfect working order and the seller is not "aware" of any current problems meaning unless the buyer can track down a mechanic that will testify he told the seller at some point that there was a problem the seller failed to disclose and the seller can't prove he fixed it then, and only then, does the buyer have legal recourse.

It's caveat emptor, my friend. Ethically obligated and legally obligated are two different things. The Ebay seller isn't obligated to report past damage unless someone can prove he knows about it (which we don't know) and it has not been adequately repaired. That's why all we can do is post on prime that a particular car had damage and it's not currently being disclosed.

BTW Mitch, right there with ya.

G
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

Pardon me for unloading both barrels on you....I have had a crappy day, am back from vacation early to attend the forth funeral for the year, and am at my wits end with people taking an ivory tower stance on someone who was just trying to help. You cannot do anything on here without people slamming you and saying you should have done more or done something differently. Ask yourself this....would you have rather he said nothing and given the possible new owners NO notice of the cars history? Again, I apologize for being curt with you, but I really wish that people could help out these days without getting the raw end of the deal. Alright...that's it...I am going back to my cave. ...
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me in the least. I just hate to see the guy selling the car now lose money because some guy dug up a consience.
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

Alan C. said:
Doesn't bother me in the least. I just hate to see the guy selling the car now lose money because some guy dug up a consience.
Click to expand...

That's about the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Get a life, and a dictionary -- "conscience" is how those with integrity would spell it. :mad:

Cheers to Braht for alerting potential buyers to what the seller already knows.
 
nsx2tall said:
Something which has real consequences if you lie...
Click to expand...

...and hire an attorney, and go to court and file a judgement and find out where the person works and file a garnishment. There are no real immediate consequences for anyone who lies and signs a legal document.:mad:
 
Packard said:
In New York State if the cost of repair exceeds 75% of the value of the car it must be salvaged and may not be repaired and re-sold.
Click to expand...


Not if you buy the car back from your own insurance company after the crash.
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

Ski_Banker said:
That's about the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Get a life, and a dictionary -- "conscience" is how those with integrity would spell it. :mad:

Cheers to Braht for alerting potential buyers to what the seller already knows.
Click to expand...
I agree... well stated.
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

Ski_Banker said:
...Cheers to Braht for alerting potential buyers to what the seller already knows.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first half of your statement, but disagree with the second half. I applaud brahtw8's effort to memorialize the damage to alert future buyers. However, unless someone here has knowledge that either or both of the last 2 sellers knew of the accident, then it's not right to imply that they did anything wrong by failing to disclose the damage in their ads.

Brahtw8 said he doesn't know if the person who sold the car on ebay is the same person who bought it from him, and in fact, he said it appears to be a different person. It appears that the car sold on ebay, and the next buyer placed it for sale the very next day. It's not uncommon for people to turn a car quickly for profit.

Based on what's been said so far, this forum is at least 2 buyers, maybe more, removed from verifying that an owner of the car had knowledge of the accident. How could anyone assume that either of the last 2 sellers had knowledge of the accident, such as would trigger a moral or a legal duty to disclose?

Even if one or both of the last 2 known sellers had knowledge of the damage, who's to say that s/he didn't disclose the damage orally to potential buyers? I recently sold a car that had been stolen from my garage and recovered quickly enough that the title remained clear. I did not disclose the theft in my classified ad because I did not want to pay for the extra text in my ad. However, I certainly disclosed the theft and every other detail I could think of to each potential buyer who contacted me. Just because the written ad does not disclose an accident does not mean that it was not disclosed, or that the seller was dishonest.
 
otto_joe said:
It looks like this car is up for sale in Sacramento.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/car/254605769.html

Otto

1993 Silver Acura NSX. clean! 27k obo - $27000 (alamo square / nopa)
Reply to: [email protected]
Date: 2006-12-28, 1:19PM PST


***NOTE I AM IN SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA Acura : NSX 5 SPEED NSX
1993 ACURA NSX CLEAN RUNS PERFECT

Standard Equipment:
LEATHER REAR SPOILER POWER DOOR LOCKS CRUISE CONTROL AUTO CLIMATE CONTROL ABS AM/FM RADIO CASSETTE POWER WINDOWS 2 WHEEL DRIVE POWER SEAT DRIVER 6 CYLINDER 3.0 LITER 24V


Optional Equipment:
AIR CONDITIONING POWER STEERING CD CHANGER

Miles: 100000
Doors: 2 doors or more
Transmission: Manual
Interior: Black
Year: 1993
Warranty: No
VIN Number: jh4na1153pt000424
Title: Clear
Exterior: Silver
Condition: Used
Engine: 6 CYLINDER 3.0 LITER 24V
Fuel Type: Gasoline

THIS 1993 ACURA NSX THIS CAR IS SUPER CLEAN. THIS CAR IS ALL FACTORY EXCEPT IT HAS LOWERING EIBACH SPRINGS INSTALLED AND AN COMPTECH CARBON FIBER INTAKE IN THE QUARTER PANEL. THIS CAR RUNS, NO EXTRA NOISES THIS CAR HAS BEEN KEPT IN GREAT CONDITION. ALL THE INTERIOR TRIM PANELS ARE IN PERFECT SHAPE ITS NOT EVEN CHIPPING OR PEALING. ALL THE GEARS WORK PERFECT NO GRINDS NOTHING. CAR HAS HAD A MAJOR TUNE UP DONE 15K AGO. NEW CLUTCH. CAR HAS NO OIL LEAKS. THEIR IS NOTING WRONG WITH THE CAR. THE CAR WILL NEED BREAKS DOWN THE ROAD AND THE REAR ENGINE COVER IS MISSING. BUT THE REAR GLASS IS TINTED AND YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEE THE ENGINE FROM THE OUTSIDE. I HAVE AN HID KIT ON THIS ACURA I WILL BE REMOVING THE KIT AND PUTTING BACK THE STOCK HEADLIGHT BULBS BACK ON. CAR IS MISSING THE SPARE TIRE. THE CAR ORIGINALLY CAME WITH A BLACK TOP I HAD IT PROFESSIONALLY PAINTED TO LOOK LIKE THE 1996 AND UP MODEL

asking $27,000 or best offer for this car. Price is negotiable

Call me at 916-821-3456 (John)
Click to expand...

Boy, if I was looking for an NSX and read that add I would just keep on looking. If you can't write about it, how the heck can you drive it and maintain it?:smile:
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

Batoutahell said:
I agree with the first half of your statement, but disagree with the second half. I applaud brahtw8's effort to memorialize the damage to alert future buyers. However, unless someone here has knowledge that either or both of the last 2 sellers knew of the accident, then it's not right to imply that they did anything wrong by failing to disclose the damage in their ads.

Brahtw8 said he doesn't know if the person who sold the car on ebay is the same person who bought it from him, and in fact, he said it appears to be a different person. It appears that the car sold on ebay, and the next buyer placed it for sale the very next day. It's not uncommon for people to turn a car quickly for profit.

Based on what's been said so far, this forum is at least 2 buyers, maybe more, removed from verifying that an owner of the car had knowledge of the accident. How could anyone assume that either of the last 2 sellers had knowledge of the accident, such as would trigger a moral or a legal duty to disclose?

Even if one or both of the last 2 known sellers had knowledge of the damage, who's to say that s/he didn't disclose the damage orally to potential buyers? I recently sold a car that had been stolen from my garage and recovered quickly enough that the title remained clear. I did not disclose the theft in my classified ad because I did not want to pay for the extra text in my ad. However, I certainly disclosed the theft and every other detail I could think of to each potential buyer who contacted me. Just because the written ad does not disclose an accident does not mean that it was not disclosed, or that the seller was dishonest.
Click to expand...

Correct. Based on the info in this thread it cannot be proven that the current seller is aware of any damage. It is likely that he knows but not a fact.

Personally, I would disclose everything I knew as well because any good PPI would reveal something like frame damage and I would not want to look like a liar and crook and waste my time and other people's time looking but not buying. One just ends up trying to cover up something that will probably be discovered anyway and you'll lose all credibility as well as the sale.:rolleyes:
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

brahtw8 said:
It is not enticement to give an honest answer to a question about the title. It is full disclosure.

It had a clean title. It didn't meet the definition of a salvage vehicle. I fully disclosed the damage to the car and the insurance payout.

What should I have said?

You have yet to articulate what I should have said or done differently.
Click to expand...

Just offering my two cents because you asked. Please don't get offended, but I think you are being hypocritical. This person currently selling your old car is doing the same thing you did: Downplaying the fact that the car should have a salvage title. You did it by hiding behind the "clean" title, he is doing it by not disclosing damage.

When you declare in your earlier post, "The car may or may not have a "clean" title at present, but it has been hit hard and the rear frame rail was bent," you clearly convey your opinion that the car should have a salvage title. If you think that way now, you must have thought that way when you sold the car.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. You knew the car should have had a salvage title when you sold it yet i'd be willing to bet you didn't tell the buyer that. Now that someone else is trying to do what you did you're attacking him? That's not cool. Granted, he hasn't disclosed the extent of the damage, but his ability to do so depends heavily on what you or another owner disclosed to him. And who knows what that was.

Furthermore, when you are purchasing a used car, the theme is always "Buyer Beware." It's one thing to not to disclose damage upfront, and another to not disclose damage after questioning. If someone doesn't disclose something after being questioned, they are truly in the wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

SilverStone05 said:
Just offering my two cents because you asked. Please don't get offended, but I think you are being hypocritical. This person currently selling your old car is doing the same thing you did: Downplaying the fact that the car should have a salvage title. You did it by hiding behind the "clean" title, he is doing it by not disclosing damage.

When you declare in your earlier post, "The car may or may not have a "clean" title at present, but it has been hit hard and the rear frame rail was bent," you clearly convey your opinion that the car should have a salvage title. If you think that way now, you must have thought that way when you sold the car.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. You knew the car should have had a salvage title when you sold it yet i'd be willing to bet you didn't tell the buyer that. Now that someone else is trying to do what you did you're attacking him? That's not cool. Granted, he hasn't disclosed the extent of the damage, but his ability to do so depends heavily on what you or another owner disclosed to him. And who knows what that was.

Furthermore, when you are purchasing a used car, the theme is always "Buyer Beware." It's one thing to not to disclose damage upfront, and another to not disclose damage after questioning. If someone doesn't disclose something after being questioned, they are truly in the wrong.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand the situation and have not taken the time to read the original ad or even the basic information in this thread. You should not be so quick to judge someone and something you know very little about. You are wrong about this situation.

I never downplayed the damage. I fully disclosed everything. I did not even mention the title in the original ad. I only added that information when someone asked if it had a salvage title. That is why the original post in the ad has the same edit date as my response to the question about the title.

And when I did state the title was clean in the original ad, I went beyond that and explained precisely why it was legally clean despite the car having frame damage. I cannot speak for the current title status. I don't own the car anymore. It was clean when I sold it. That is what I mean when I say the current title may or may not be clean.

The answer to that question is outside of my personal knowledge, just like this situation is outside of yours.

The car does not meet the criteria for Salvage in WI because it is more than 7 MY old. It is also not subject to odometer disclosure.

The person who bought the car to my knowledge never saw the ad on nsxprime. I contacted them directly a month before the ad was even posted.

Not only were they completely aware of the car's condition, it was inspected by Acura of Brookfield prior to sale. The bill of sale contained explicit disclosures by the seller that the car had been in an accident, was subject to an insurance payoff and explicitly disclaimed any warranty or that any part or component or the car itself could be repaired.

I put the ad up on prime to see if anyone else was interested while I was still in discussions with the eventual buyer and the sale had not yet closed.

When people contacted me about the car as a result of the ad on prime, I told them the car would be very expensive to repair and that the car was probably best for parts. I chased away any foolish would-be buyer that thought this would be an easy fix, and as a result probably sold the car for $2000-4000 less than I could have to such a buyer.

The sale closed with the wholesaler a few days after I put the ad up on prime. I still have the PMs and the documents and can prove everything I have said.

Quite frankly, you owe me an apology.
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

SilverStone05 said:
Just This person currently selling your old car is doing the same thing you did: Downplaying the fact that the car should have a salvage title. You did it by hiding behind the "clean" title, he is doing it by not disclosing damage.
Click to expand...

:confused: Your statement doesn't make any sense at all. What authority are you to say the car should have had a salvage title? I believe you're using the term "salvage title" to mean whatever you want it to mean. You can't. "Salvage Title" is an official classification which this car clearly did not have. brahtw8 did this as well but was doing so figuratively to convey the nature and extent of the previous damage to the car which was fully disclosed by him. You're taking it more literally to mean the car really should have a "salvage title." That is not up to either of you to decide.

Legally, this is very black and white and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're admonishing brahtw8. The fact that a car had or may have had a salvage title is immaterial in every possible way. It only matters at the point in time at which he is asked "what is the status of the title." Please tell us under what legal statute someone must reveal the previous or imagined status of a car's title. It certainly isn't under "full disclosure" I can't see how brahtw8 hid behind anything. When someone says "salvage title" the first thing I want to know is "why?", not the other way around.
 
Re: Buyer Beware: Previously Frame-Damaged NSX on Ebay

brahtw8 said:
You obviously do not understand the situation and have not taken the time to read the original ad or even the basic information in this thread. You should not be so quick to judge someone and something you know very little about. You are wrong about this situation.

I never downplayed the damage. I fully disclosed everything. I did not even mention the title in the original ad. I only added that information when someone asked if it had a salvage title. That is why the original post in the ad has the same edit date as my response to the question about the title.

And when I did state the title was clean in the original ad, I went beyond that and explained precisely why it was legally clean despite the car having frame damage. I cannot speak for the current title status. I don't own the car anymore. It was clean when I sold it. That is what I mean when I say the current title may or may not be clean.

The answer to that question is outside of my personal knowledge, just like this situation is outside of yours.

The car does not meet the criteria for Salvage in WI because it is more than 7 MY old. It is also not subject to odometer disclosure.

The person who bought the car to my knowledge never saw the ad on nsxprime. I contacted them directly a month before the ad was even posted.

Not only were they completely aware of the car's condition, it was inspected by Acura of Brookfield prior to sale. The bill of sale contained explicit disclosures by the seller that the car had been in an accident, was subject to an insurance payoff and explicitly disclaimed any warranty or that any part or component or the car itself could be repaired.

I put the ad up on prime to see if anyone else was interested while I was still in discussions with the eventual buyer and the sale had not yet closed.

When people contacted me about the car as a result of the ad on prime, I told them the car would be very expensive to repair and that the car was probably best for parts. I chased away any foolish would-be buyer that thought this would be an easy fix, and as a result probably sold the car for $2000-4000 less than I could have to such a buyer.

The sale closed with the wholesaler a few days after I put the ad up on prime. I still have the PMs and the documents and can prove everything I have said.

Quite frankly, you owe me an apology.
Click to expand...

Hey Man - despite some others' desire to witch-hunt for ulterior motives - I appreciate your posting this thread.

The most DISHONEST thing I can think of you doing would be to 1) see your old car for sale, improperly advertised, and then 2) keeping your mouth shut.

These other arguments are complete nonsense. :confused:
 
kiiska said:
This car is up for sale again, this time in San Jose, California.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/car/440172229.html

When inquired, the seller claimed that she was the 3rd owner, and the repaint was due to scratches and such. She denies knowledge of its previous history.

BUYERS BEWARE!!!
Click to expand...

It looks like the ad has been flagged for removal from Craigslist.

I have never spoken to the seller, but I have been told by others who have spoken to her that she was well aware of the history of the car but does not believe it. She has told these other individuals that she had her mechanic inspect the car before she bought it and he could not find any evidence of frame damage.

It is possible that her mechanic did inspect the car and did not notice the damage. The rear frame rail that was bent was only visible when the rear quarter panel was removed, so I doubt very much that her mechanic looked at it.

I can verify she is not the third owner. To my knowledge, I was the third owner, as I can recall two owners prior to myself. I sold it someone other than the current seller. The earliest she could be would be the fifth owner, and she may be farther down the chain than that.
 
There is also a flooded car from Katrina that is out there somewhere with a clean title. There was no insurance claim so it's a clean car.
 
According one of my friends that checked this car out in S.J., she is in denial of it being salvage title. If you look up the VIN I believe it states "salvage" while in Texas. She still refused to believe it. Also I understand that the doors do not line up evenly. It rubs due to the frame damage.
 
Greetings
I ran a carfax on it. Guaranteed for title -- no salvage, junk, or rebuilt. total loss check -- no issues reported. Frame Damage -- no issues reported.

Martin
 

Similar threads

G
Buyers Beware JH4NA115XNT000773 totalled cluster rollback
Replies
0
Views
348
gne307
G
B
1993 NSX coupe Silver/Black 5-Speed 127000 mil JH4NA1153PT000424
Replies
3
Views
4K
bogeygolferkyle
B
S
  • Locked
1991 NSX coupe Red/Black 5-Speed 110500 JH4NA1150MT001414
Replies
9
Views
4K
Steve676
S
Shaun Ray
  • Locked
2004 NSX-T Yellow/Black 6-Speed 25,500 JH4NA216X4T000009
Replies
4
Views
6K
Shaun Ray
Shaun Ray
PHOEN$X
  • Locked
1993 NSX coupe Red/Black 5-Speed 150,xxx mi JH4NA1159PT000606
Replies
1
Views
3K
PHOEN$X
PHOEN$X
Back
Top