jay_merrill
Vice Admiral
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 5,653
Re: Mislead on boat purchase, advice?
IMO, many of the answers here are unduly harsh.
First, the automotive analogy isn't of any value because what it really proves is that the OP is right. In that world, it is very true that cars are manufactured in advance of the model year. That said, those vehicles are clearly and exactly identified as being for a particular year's model run by both the VIN and the vehicle's features. Each new year will be visually identifiable by a number of things, most obviously, the body trim items. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't sell something on January 1 (never mind early, pre-January sales) if you haven't made it prior to that date, but the buyer does deserve to get what he paid for.
In the case of an outboard motor, you also can't sell it at the beginning of the year if you haven't built it prior to that time. But, as in the car, it is clearly identified as being of a particular year's model run by its model number and serial number. Since trim items aren't much different between consecutive years of an outboard, the year designation is less obvious visually - especially to the average consumer, who would not be likely to "study" such things in an in-depth manner.
In the OP's case, if the information that he has given us is correct (and I have no reason to assume that it is not), the dealership clearly misrepresented what they sold him. They provided a legal document (the bill of sale) which indicated that the motor was something that it is not. The document says it is a 2004 model but the model/serial numbers indicate otherwise. Simply put, doing that sort of thing will get you in trouble with any number of legal and regulatory folks in any state in this country.
Now, for the practical side of things. First, and most importantly, the OP may be beyond the point where he could bring a lawsuit simply because of the amount of time that has passed since the sale. On a lot of things, you have to file a suit within a year of "being injured."
Secondly, the dealership has gone out of business so it may be hard to find someone to hold responsible. That said, however, if I were the OP, I might take a look at the Fla Secretary of State's corporation listings - you never know. It is entirely possible that, even though that particular dealership no longer exists, that the corporation or LLC that owned it is still intact. If so, there is still a potential defendant. In terms of a corporation, even if it still exists but there are no assets, there is something known as "piercing the corporate veil." This happens when the personal liabilty aspects of a corporate entity are deemed breakable because the entity is all, or nearly all owned, by a small number of people, who also happen to form the decision making team of the business. In as much as many outboard dealerships tend to fit that description exactly, there is at least some possibility that the argument could be made. Since this gets into some failrly complicated legal scenarios, which may or may not apply, an attorney would have to be consulted.
If this problem were mine, the next thing on the list would be the amount of money involved. Simply put, the OP has to decide if the amount of loss involved is worth the fight. If there was still a potential defendant, and the discovery had been made in less than a year, I think the answer would be simple and I would go after him. There would be lots of ways to do that, starting with simply asking him to make a financial settlement. If the dealer resisted, however, the BBB and FTC would certainly be a couple avenues, but I would concentrate more on a smaill claims court hearing, reporting the business to the Fla Secretary of State (who would take interest in a Fla corporation conducting business in a fraudulent manner), and the local consumer reporters. By doing these things, the OP would be able to shift the decision making process to the dealer, by making him question whether all of the negative pressure was worth the money involved.
All of this said, life isn't so simple for the OP and he still has to decide if he is out enough money to make all the research and effort to find a responsible person, worth the effort. None of us can answer that for him - its a personal decision.
I think what bothers me the most about many of the answers here is that they suggest that the OP is being "whiny" or hasn't really been done wrong. I disagree - he was sold something that is not as it was represented and he probably didn't pay a fair price for that thing. That's not OK in my book and I don't live my life in a way that permits people to do such things to me. I also got a kick out of the superman's cape comment, but think the application of it was wrong. I believe that the average person has more clout than he or she often thinks, and should snatch that cape right out of the hands of "big business" and put it on.
Really, had the answers here been along the lines of, "yeah, that's a bummer but I wonder how much you can do about it," I would have been fine with what was written in response to the post. Its the "instant assumptions" that he is wrong, that I disagree with. I'm also glad that he made the post because it provides a learning experience for all. How many of us check the actual VIN on a vehicle, or the model/serial number on an outboard, when we buy such an item? How many of us compare that number with a particular model year's manufacturing run? Since neither of these things is a "low ticket" item, we should - I know I will if I ever give up my old JonnyRudes and go for a new ETec.
IMO, many of the answers here are unduly harsh.
First, the automotive analogy isn't of any value because what it really proves is that the OP is right. In that world, it is very true that cars are manufactured in advance of the model year. That said, those vehicles are clearly and exactly identified as being for a particular year's model run by both the VIN and the vehicle's features. Each new year will be visually identifiable by a number of things, most obviously, the body trim items. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't sell something on January 1 (never mind early, pre-January sales) if you haven't made it prior to that date, but the buyer does deserve to get what he paid for.
In the case of an outboard motor, you also can't sell it at the beginning of the year if you haven't built it prior to that time. But, as in the car, it is clearly identified as being of a particular year's model run by its model number and serial number. Since trim items aren't much different between consecutive years of an outboard, the year designation is less obvious visually - especially to the average consumer, who would not be likely to "study" such things in an in-depth manner.
In the OP's case, if the information that he has given us is correct (and I have no reason to assume that it is not), the dealership clearly misrepresented what they sold him. They provided a legal document (the bill of sale) which indicated that the motor was something that it is not. The document says it is a 2004 model but the model/serial numbers indicate otherwise. Simply put, doing that sort of thing will get you in trouble with any number of legal and regulatory folks in any state in this country.
Now, for the practical side of things. First, and most importantly, the OP may be beyond the point where he could bring a lawsuit simply because of the amount of time that has passed since the sale. On a lot of things, you have to file a suit within a year of "being injured."
Secondly, the dealership has gone out of business so it may be hard to find someone to hold responsible. That said, however, if I were the OP, I might take a look at the Fla Secretary of State's corporation listings - you never know. It is entirely possible that, even though that particular dealership no longer exists, that the corporation or LLC that owned it is still intact. If so, there is still a potential defendant. In terms of a corporation, even if it still exists but there are no assets, there is something known as "piercing the corporate veil." This happens when the personal liabilty aspects of a corporate entity are deemed breakable because the entity is all, or nearly all owned, by a small number of people, who also happen to form the decision making team of the business. In as much as many outboard dealerships tend to fit that description exactly, there is at least some possibility that the argument could be made. Since this gets into some failrly complicated legal scenarios, which may or may not apply, an attorney would have to be consulted.
If this problem were mine, the next thing on the list would be the amount of money involved. Simply put, the OP has to decide if the amount of loss involved is worth the fight. If there was still a potential defendant, and the discovery had been made in less than a year, I think the answer would be simple and I would go after him. There would be lots of ways to do that, starting with simply asking him to make a financial settlement. If the dealer resisted, however, the BBB and FTC would certainly be a couple avenues, but I would concentrate more on a smaill claims court hearing, reporting the business to the Fla Secretary of State (who would take interest in a Fla corporation conducting business in a fraudulent manner), and the local consumer reporters. By doing these things, the OP would be able to shift the decision making process to the dealer, by making him question whether all of the negative pressure was worth the money involved.
All of this said, life isn't so simple for the OP and he still has to decide if he is out enough money to make all the research and effort to find a responsible person, worth the effort. None of us can answer that for him - its a personal decision.
I think what bothers me the most about many of the answers here is that they suggest that the OP is being "whiny" or hasn't really been done wrong. I disagree - he was sold something that is not as it was represented and he probably didn't pay a fair price for that thing. That's not OK in my book and I don't live my life in a way that permits people to do such things to me. I also got a kick out of the superman's cape comment, but think the application of it was wrong. I believe that the average person has more clout than he or she often thinks, and should snatch that cape right out of the hands of "big business" and put it on.
Really, had the answers here been along the lines of, "yeah, that's a bummer but I wonder how much you can do about it," I would have been fine with what was written in response to the post. Its the "instant assumptions" that he is wrong, that I disagree with. I'm also glad that he made the post because it provides a learning experience for all. How many of us check the actual VIN on a vehicle, or the model/serial number on an outboard, when we buy such an item? How many of us compare that number with a particular model year's manufacturing run? Since neither of these things is a "low ticket" item, we should - I know I will if I ever give up my old JonnyRudes and go for a new ETec.
. I'm curious to see what their response will be...
