New car painted wrong colour

[rampageturke]

OddCat said:

PPS Oh no, just realised AM are monitoring this and they won't sell me one now

Hi there OddCat! £20 has been deducted from your Aston Martin™©® Advertisements bank account, all future posts will be monitored and we will act accordingly.

[SirSamuelBuca]

pretty disapointing. to me its a car i would want to own even if it is slow and old hat compared to what else is in that price range

[ferrisbueller]

janesmith1950 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The key is what's in the contracts. Has the OP incurred any losses as a result of the contract not being fulfilled? Not directly, no. There is the suggestion that there may be an intangible loss-of-opportunity arising, but they're rarely covered by any contract.

What makes you say 'intangible' with such certainty, and why would it need to be explicit in the contract to be actionable?

You've not met this poster, have you?

[silentbrown]

rkwm1 said:

I am still slightly disappointed that its not the colour ordered but the dealers and AM have been excellent. Sometimes mistakes happen but it is how they are resolved which defines how good a company is in my opinion and this case both dealer and AM have been excellent. They recognise that a mistake has been made and have done all that is realistically possible to resolve it.

It is fair to say that i am totally satisfied with the outcome and look forward to collecting the GT8 and hopefully other Astons in the future.

I'd like to thank the dealership and AM and in particular Dr. Palmer and Paul Collett for following up to make sure i was happy with everything.

This was pretty much the OP's last post before the sh*t hit the fan. AM seems to have decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm gobsmacked that the situation has changed so drastically.

[SpeedBall]

OddCat said:

I'm sorry, but we are not seriously suggesting that AM have even the slightest interest in what is said on PH - let alone let such a thing have any bearing on their dealings with the OP are we ?

OC

PS saw my first DB11 on the road yesterday. I didn't like it. Something not right about the whole shape. I don't think it is the "it's more modern it'll look good in a few years" thing. It just didn't appeal. Especially the weird slash into the back of the front wheel arch. That's just wrong.

PPS Oh no, just realised AM are monitoring this and they won't sell me one now

Bad publicity spreads incredibly quickly on forums, especially when it appears that a company has made such a massive cock-up.

But I'd agree that they probably aren't too concerned with people who sign off using the initials of their username, then add PS and PPS sections below that...

Did you put a first class stamp on your monitor when you sent that comment?

[Sheepshanks]

OddCat said:

I'm sorry, but we are not seriously suggesting that AM have even the slightest interest in what is said on PH - let alone let such a thing have any bearing on their dealings with the OP are we ? That would be a bit like AM getting excited about the fact that the OP had a chat over the garden fence with his neighbour about it ! Or with his mates down the pub !

I worked for a car manufacturer many years ago and we had an agency monitoring and collating media reports that mentioned the brand so that we could respond to them if necessary. It would be astonishing if AM didn't monitor what was being said here.

[Vaud]

Sheepshanks said:

I worked for a car manufacturer many years ago and we had an agency monitoring and collating media reports that mentioned the brand so that we could respond to them if necessary. It would be astonishing if AM didn't monitor what was being said here.

See my post...

[anonymous-user]

Vaud said:

You will find that some manufacturers run real-time social media monitoring for reputation protection. They normally outsource it. I know this, as our company does just this for a number of companies.

Without disclosing details, they naturally they focus on the higher impact/influence/reach sites. Facebook, Twitter of course, and then depending on the product, a range of selected forums will be selected to be included in the "listening service"

It helps avoid "snowballing of issues" - early identification of a dissatisfied customer can allow early intervention (either automated, bot based or a more structured workflow for a customer service agent to get directly involved)

I don't personally know if AM use this type of service, but they do exist, and big and mid-volume manufacturers do use them and find them very useful.

Given the volume of users on PH, it's not unreasonable to think that it would be included.

Most small bsuiness do it as well its pretty easy to DIY it.

[SpeedBall]

Vaud said:

Sheepshanks said:

I worked for a car manufacturer many years ago and we had an agency monitoring and collating media reports that mentioned the brand so that we could respond to them if necessary. It would be astonishing if AM didn't monitor what was being said here.

See my post...

+1

It would be incredibly naive to think that AM (and others) don't have a presence on sites such as PH. Although it's on a smaller scale, I remember saying (on Twitter) how unhappy I was with a mobile phone network provider. Within ten minutes they'd followed me and asked me to DM them. Everything was sorted incredibly quickly. Their quick response and solution resulted in me staying with them. AM can bang on about their heritage but history only gets you so far.

[whoami]

OddCat said:

I'm sorry, but we are not seriously suggesting that AM have even the slightest interest in what is said on PH -

I can 100% confirm that AM do indeed monitor what's being posted on here.

[ferrisbueller]

ferrisbueller said:

VGTICE said:

Not true, simlar things happened in the past, most recent being Hughes v Pendragon Sabre Ltd (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) [2016] EWCA Civ 18
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=156...

Problem is that the valuation depends on timing and in the case of Mr Hughes he only got his car valued at 170k when at the time of appeal the going rate was close to 300k.

Thanks for that reference - very informative.

From here

"Mr Hughes was successful on appeal and was awarded damages of £35,000.

The judge said that “…On 18 March 2011 it is as plain as a pikestaff that Mr Hughes entered some sort of contract with Pendragon. To characterise it as simply an expression of interest, with no contractual force belies what was contained in the standard form Pendragon proffered to Mr Hughes for signature…By no stretch of the imagination was this simply an agreement to agree, even though it was subject to Price and Spec...”

The appeal court found that under sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (“the 1979 Act”) there could be an agreement to sell future goods to be acquired by the seller after the contract of sale had been made, and there could be a contract for the sale of goods the acquisition of which by the seller depended on a contingency which might or might not happen. The fact that there was no vehicle at the time of the agreement to sell and the fact that the garage may never have been allocated one was not fatal to the existence of a contract. Furthermore, section 8(1) the 1979 Act explicitly provides that price need not be fixed by the contract but may be “left to be fixed in a manner agreed by the contract, or may be determined by a course of dealing between the parties”. The fact that there was no delivery date was irrelevant to the existence of a contract since when under a sale contract the seller is bound to send goods to the buyer, and no time for that is fixed, they are to be delivered in a reasonable time as provided in section 29(3) of the 1979 Act.

The judge also found that there was a collateral contract to the effect that if Porsche supplied a vehicle to the garage then that vehicle would be allocated to Mr Hughes. The background to this finding is that there was a clause in the vehicle Order Form terms and conditions to the effect that the garage had discretion not to fulfil orders in the order they were received. The effect of a collateral contract may be to vary the terms of the principal contract and the judge found this is what had occurred in this case.

Insofar as the measure of damages was concerned, there is detailed discussion in the written judgment. In brief, section 51(3) of the 1979 Act is to the effect that the measure of damages is to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or present price at the time the goods ought to have been delivered or, if no time had been fixed for delivery, at the time of refusal to deliver. However, these rules only apply when there is an available market for the goods. In the absence of an available market section 51(2) of the 1979 Act provides that the measure of damages is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the seller's breach of contract. The basis of this would be the value of the contract goods at the time and place of the breach and that could be assessed by any relevant evidence. In this case, the nature of the contract goods was specialised to the point of insufficient activity to evidence a market so it became necessary to determine the contract price and the price Mr Hughes would have to pay to obtain the nearest equivalent vehicle, the difference being the value of Mr Hughes’s loss. On the evidence, it was found that the contract price of the vehicle would have been around £135,000 with similar vehicles being available at around £170,000. Consequently, Mr Hughes was awarded damages in the sum of £35,000, being the difference between the two figures."

It's not the same, but it's food for thought and should help address some of the questions repeatedly raised in this thread.

Perhaps Aston Martin are gambling that the value of the GT8 will increase between the claim being raised and the case being heard such that its value will cover any compensation to the claimant, plus costs and leave some over as profit. Perhaps they've already sold it for more than the 285k the OP could prove it to be worth.

Perhaps we'll find out when the case is heard. Perhaps we'll never know....

I struggle with the notion that they won't let the OP have the car in case he sells it when there are already cars appearing for sale. Are AM going to sue those buyers for breach of contract?

I don't see how if I buy something and then get a situation arise which requires me to raise funds ASAP I'm not allowed to sell whichever of my assets I choose to in order to raise those funds.

[ferrisbueller]

OddCat said:

I'm sorry, but we are not seriously suggesting that AM have even the slightest interest in what is said on PH - let alone let such a thing have any bearing on their dealings with the OP are we ? That would be a bit like AM getting excited about the fact that the OP had a chat over the garden fence with his neighbour about it ! Or with his mates down the pub !

Those things wouldn't come up on a google search.

Brands absolutely do care what is put out there in cyberspace about them.

[OddCat]

SpeedBall said:

Bad publicity spreads incredibly quickly on forums, especially when it appears that a company has made such a massive cock-up.

But I'd agree that they probably aren't too concerned with people who sign off using the initials of their username, then add PS and PPS sections below that...

Did you put a first class stamp on your monitor when you sent that comment?

A Speedball Esq
c/o Pistonheads
God-knows-where
England

Dear Mr Speedball,

Further to your earlier post (copy above), I understand that you feel that it is unlikely that Mr Aston and Mr Martin will be too bothered about someone who uses his Username initials as a 'post' sign off and then uses PS and PSS.

I would just like to make it clear that I absolutely agree with you. Such a person is undoubtedly a mentalist.

Yours sincerely

Mr O Cat

PS Foxtrot Oscar

[OddCat]

whoami said:

OddCat said:

I'm sorry, but we are not seriously suggesting that AM have even the slightest interest in what is said on PH -

I can 100% confirm that AM do indeed monitor what's being posted on here.

....well then they will also know that, given the facts as they appear so far, the majority of right minded posters on here consider their actions in this case to have been wholly unacceptable and, to be honest, bordering on downright mental.

It could be of course that we only have half of the story and Aston have, say, refused to sell the OP the car because they realise that the almighty c*ck up on the colour is totally unacceptable (and embarrassing) and they are planning something mega as a "put it right" thing with which they are going to surprise the OP and amaze us all and re-affirm their sheer class......

Is there an Imogi for "holding breath" (or not doing so)?

[danllama]

OddCat said:

SpeedBall said:

Bad publicity spreads incredibly quickly on forums, especially when it appears that a company has made such a massive cock-up.

But I'd agree that they probably aren't too concerned with people who sign off using the initials of their username, then add PS and PPS sections below that...

Did you put a first class stamp on your monitor when you sent that comment?

A Speedball Esq
c/o Pistonheads
God-knows-where
England

Dear Mr Speedball,

Further to your earlier post (copy above), I understand that you feel that it is unlikely that Mr Aston and Mr Martin will be too bothered about someone who uses his Username initials as a 'post' sign off and then uses PS and PSS.

I would just like to make it clear that I absolutely agree with you. Such a person is undoubtedly a mentalist.

Yours sincerely

Mr O Cat

PS Foxtrot Oscar

Very good!

[silentbrown]

OddCat said:

Dear Mr Speedball,
...

But you forgot to date it...

[TSCfree]

I don't think the OPs got the hang of this, come on 'What would Bond do?'

AM - "I'm giving you the opportunity to walk out with this car Mr OP".
OP - "I'm giving you this opportunity to walk out with your life".

Might work

[FiF]

TSCfree said:

I don't think the OPs got the hang of this, come on 'What would Bond do?'

AM - "I'm giving you the opportunity to walk out with this car Mr OP".
OP - "I'm giving you this opportunity to walk out with your life".

Might work

But he doesn't have a racquet.


Oops wrong thread.

[OddCat]

FiF said:

TSCfree said:

I don't think the OPs got the hang of this, come on 'What would Bond do?'

AM - "I'm giving you the opportunity to walk out with this car Mr OP".
OP - "I'm giving you this opportunity to walk out with your life".

Might work

But he doesn't have a racquet.

but he's going to get one around 10 ish......?

Edited by OddCat on Tuesday 21st February 16:20

[lee_fr200]

Any news yet