Porsche successfully sued over allowing queue jumping
Discussion
AndrewD said:
Not sure if the 35k is a "joke" surely you need to read the judgement or maybe you have?
If the guy realised he had been shafted I guess he could have got one second hand for 35k more than list at that time. If he chose not to, then he can't expect the dealer to make good his "loss" based on current market values?
It's called loss of bargain. In a breach of contract the damages should be of sufficient in amount to put the claimant in a position they would have been had the breach not occurred.If the guy realised he had been shafted I guess he could have got one second hand for 35k more than list at that time. If he chose not to, then he can't expect the dealer to make good his "loss" based on current market values?
plasticpig said:
AndrewD said:
Not sure if the 35k is a "joke" surely you need to read the judgement or maybe you have?
If the guy realised he had been shafted I guess he could have got one second hand for 35k more than list at that time. If he chose not to, then he can't expect the dealer to make good his "loss" based on current market values?
It's called loss of bargain. In a breach of contract the damages should be of sufficient in amount to put the claimant in a position they would have been had the breach not occurred.If the guy realised he had been shafted I guess he could have got one second hand for 35k more than list at that time. If he chose not to, then he can't expect the dealer to make good his "loss" based on current market values?
Porsche GB need an absolute kicking.
As the poster above said, they lie for fun and don't even bother to hide their utter contempt for customers anymore.
Everyone remember the badly re-shelled GT3 RS sold through an OPC? Their behaviour during that very public case was beyond disgraceful.
And selling cars to whoever they want regardless of who was first has been going on for eternity.
I've been treat like s
t on the rare occasions I've had to deal with my local OPC with regards to warranty repairs on my own car.
As the poster above said, they lie for fun and don't even bother to hide their utter contempt for customers anymore.
Everyone remember the badly re-shelled GT3 RS sold through an OPC? Their behaviour during that very public case was beyond disgraceful.
And selling cars to whoever they want regardless of who was first has been going on for eternity.
I've been treat like s
t on the rare occasions I've had to deal with my local OPC with regards to warranty repairs on my own car.It would be interesting to know whether the position would have been weakened if he had not left a deposit on the car. It appears the OPC shot themselves in the foot with the e mail 'virtually guaranteeing' the car.
OPCs are now strongly advised not to take deposits before a car is officially announced although it appears some still are. Letters of intent have also essentially been scrapped, allocation being determined by other relevant 'factors'.
OPCs are now strongly advised not to take deposits before a car is officially announced although it appears some still are. Letters of intent have also essentially been scrapped, allocation being determined by other relevant 'factors'.
LordOfTheManor said:
Sent this post to my legal guy, he's immediately rang! think's we should file !!
look out opc the little people are fighting back !!
Now there's a shock; lawyer wants client to litigate; the phone call you've just received is probably billed on an invoice already.look out opc the little people are fighting back !!
Happened to me a long time ago, when the 996 C4S was launched. I was working in Stuttgart and saw one pre-launch, so put in a speculative order and paid a deposit to Porsche Kendal. When they became available to order I was told 12 months. That became 18 months, then 24 months...
It wouldn't have been so bad, but when taking the Boxster in for a service I overheard them promising a 'regular' a new C4S in about six months, when I was told I still had 12 to wait. I suspected they were selling on my slot, so I contacted Porsche GB and complained. Miraculously I had a new C4S a few months later.
But, after that experience, it was the last new one I bought. I really, really do not appreciate this kind of bias, so I prefer to buy "nicely run in" cars now :-)
It wouldn't have been so bad, but when taking the Boxster in for a service I overheard them promising a 'regular' a new C4S in about six months, when I was told I still had 12 to wait. I suspected they were selling on my slot, so I contacted Porsche GB and complained. Miraculously I had a new C4S a few months later.
But, after that experience, it was the last new one I bought. I really, really do not appreciate this kind of bias, so I prefer to buy "nicely run in" cars now :-)
If you want to know why the figure was £35,000, here is the Court of Appeal's reasoning:
38. In this case it is not, in my view, sensible to remit the case to the county court for the
assessment of damages, given the delay so far and the costs associated with doing so.
So it is necessary for us to determine the contract price and what Mr Hughes would
have had to pay to obtain the nearest equivalent vehicle, the difference being the value
of Mr Hughes's lost chance.
39. As I have explained, the contract price for the basic model was the list price. Both
sides accepted that that was around £128,000-£129,000. There was then the cost of
extras and it was common ground, said Mr Cookson, that the price of a Porsche 911
GT3 RS4 with extras was around £140,000. Mr Hughes's evidence was that he was
only interested in a different colour, black, to the standard white. It seems to me that
we can assume that the price Mr Hughes would have paid would have been some
£135,000. Macur U pointed out in argument that Pendragon provided no assistance
to the court as regards the price to the customer who trumped Mr Hughes. As Lord
Diplock noted in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972] AC 877, 930, parties
can withhold evidence under our adversarial system but cannot complain if the court
draws from the facts which have been disclosed reasonable inferences as to what the
facts are when a party chooses to do so.
40. The evidence about the cost of the nearest equivalent vehicle is deficient. The market
in the Porsche 911 GT3 RS4 has been illiquid after its launch in 2011. One thing
however is certain, the value of this model has appreciated and the resale value of the
vehicles is in excess of the price as new. Mr Hughes himself produced particulars of
other similar vehicles with asking prices of some £170,000; Mr Reeves referred to
expecting dealers to pay £180,000 to obtain one; Mr Mansfield gave a figure of
£165,000 - £170,000 were a purchaser to resell; and there was the reference in the
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Hughes v. Pendragon
disclosure by Pendragon to a black Porsche 911 GTI RS4, with limited mileage, on
sale at the Porsche Centre Leicestershire for £174,850. It seems to me that given that
Mr Hughes himself produced evidence of similar vehicles being available at
£170,000, and that the other evidence is not significantly inconsistent with that figure,
that this is the appropriate figure to adopt. Consequently, I would award damages to
Mr Hughes of £35,000, the difference between what would have been the contract
price of £135,000 and the cost of the nearest equivalent vehicle of £170,000.
38. In this case it is not, in my view, sensible to remit the case to the county court for the
assessment of damages, given the delay so far and the costs associated with doing so.
So it is necessary for us to determine the contract price and what Mr Hughes would
have had to pay to obtain the nearest equivalent vehicle, the difference being the value
of Mr Hughes's lost chance.
39. As I have explained, the contract price for the basic model was the list price. Both
sides accepted that that was around £128,000-£129,000. There was then the cost of
extras and it was common ground, said Mr Cookson, that the price of a Porsche 911
GT3 RS4 with extras was around £140,000. Mr Hughes's evidence was that he was
only interested in a different colour, black, to the standard white. It seems to me that
we can assume that the price Mr Hughes would have paid would have been some
£135,000. Macur U pointed out in argument that Pendragon provided no assistance
to the court as regards the price to the customer who trumped Mr Hughes. As Lord
Diplock noted in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972] AC 877, 930, parties
can withhold evidence under our adversarial system but cannot complain if the court
draws from the facts which have been disclosed reasonable inferences as to what the
facts are when a party chooses to do so.
40. The evidence about the cost of the nearest equivalent vehicle is deficient. The market
in the Porsche 911 GT3 RS4 has been illiquid after its launch in 2011. One thing
however is certain, the value of this model has appreciated and the resale value of the
vehicles is in excess of the price as new. Mr Hughes himself produced particulars of
other similar vehicles with asking prices of some £170,000; Mr Reeves referred to
expecting dealers to pay £180,000 to obtain one; Mr Mansfield gave a figure of
£165,000 - £170,000 were a purchaser to resell; and there was the reference in the
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Hughes v. Pendragon
disclosure by Pendragon to a black Porsche 911 GTI RS4, with limited mileage, on
sale at the Porsche Centre Leicestershire for £174,850. It seems to me that given that
Mr Hughes himself produced evidence of similar vehicles being available at
£170,000, and that the other evidence is not significantly inconsistent with that figure,
that this is the appropriate figure to adopt. Consequently, I would award damages to
Mr Hughes of £35,000, the difference between what would have been the contract
price of £135,000 and the cost of the nearest equivalent vehicle of £170,000.
So, the issue isn't that the dealer failed to fulfil a Contract as such, but that in doing so caused a loss to the buyer due to what it cost to procure one elsewhere.
This is only relevant in the case where a car increases in value at launch, due to Porsches own limit on production. ie, purposely ensuring supply is below demand.
No doubt Porsche will have long since 'fixed' the wording in their Letters confirming deposits to negate any liability in future.
This is only relevant in the case where a car increases in value at launch, due to Porsches own limit on production. ie, purposely ensuring supply is below demand.
No doubt Porsche will have long since 'fixed' the wording in their Letters confirming deposits to negate any liability in future.
RSVP911 said:
Very interesting - this will change the way Porsche deal with GT allocation.
Also the damages were way off the pace though - nowhere near the cars true value
My understanding (happy to be proved wrong) is that Porsche don't determine who gets the cars its the dealer but hopefully now they may get more involved in how the OPC's operate. Also the damages were way off the pace though - nowhere near the cars true value
Edited by RSVP911 on Wednesday 20th January 19:15
Slightly off topic, but the other thing to watch out for is that even once you've paid the non-refundable deposit on your new Porsche, the T&Cs (which you will have signed) do not guarantee you the price on your initial order form. I almost ended up paying £1k more than the price on my initial order because the lead time on my BGTS was so long and they bumped prices a couple of months before delivery.
In theory you can reject the car and get all your money back if the price has gone up, but in reality who will do that after waiting 6+ months for their shiny new P&J?
In theory you can reject the car and get all your money back if the price has gone up, but in reality who will do that after waiting 6+ months for their shiny new P&J?
Mario149 said:
Slightly off topic, but the other thing to watch out for is that even once you've paid the non-refundable deposit on your new Porsche, the T&Cs (which you will have signed) do not guarantee you the price on your initial order form. I almost ended up paying £1k more than the price on my initial order because the lead time on my BGTS was so long and they bumped prices a couple of months before delivery.
In theory you can reject the car and get all your money back if the price has gone up, but in reality who will do that after waiting 6+ months for their shiny new P&J?
Jesus, I wish I worked for a business with this sort of power! Being a Porsche Salesman must be the easiest job in the world!In theory you can reject the car and get all your money back if the price has gone up, but in reality who will do that after waiting 6+ months for their shiny new P&J?
It seems obvious to most of us Porsche enthusiasts that the way in which OPC's treat us is pretty poor. I can't believe some of the stories I hear about promises, LOI's, deposits etc actually go on in 2016 but it's obvious that they do and that's wrong.
A customer of mine was telling me just yesterday about his last straw with Porsche and why he will never buy another....
He previously bought a new Boxster and then had a brand new 997 when it was launched. When the first Cayman R came out he gave a LOI to his dealer along with a deposit for a Cayman GT'3' variant if ever one were to be made in the future. The dealer accepted his LOI and deposit and time passed....
Spring forward 4 years to the announcement of the GT4 and our customer was understandably very excited being in so early. When all the images and prices etc went out he called the OPC (his sales contact from 4 years previous was well gone by now) asking when he could expect delivery etc only to be told that he didn't have a slot secured as Porsche weren't making a GT'3' Cayman and therefore his deposit would be refunded as all of their GT'4' allocations were gone! UNBELIEVABLE!
After much ranting and complaining he has vowed NEVER to buy another Porsche again.
A customer of mine was telling me just yesterday about his last straw with Porsche and why he will never buy another....
He previously bought a new Boxster and then had a brand new 997 when it was launched. When the first Cayman R came out he gave a LOI to his dealer along with a deposit for a Cayman GT'3' variant if ever one were to be made in the future. The dealer accepted his LOI and deposit and time passed....
Spring forward 4 years to the announcement of the GT4 and our customer was understandably very excited being in so early. When all the images and prices etc went out he called the OPC (his sales contact from 4 years previous was well gone by now) asking when he could expect delivery etc only to be told that he didn't have a slot secured as Porsche weren't making a GT'3' Cayman and therefore his deposit would be refunded as all of their GT'4' allocations were gone! UNBELIEVABLE!
After much ranting and complaining he has vowed NEVER to buy another Porsche again.
agtlaw said:
A sensible judgement - it was quite clear what the intention of the email from the salesjockey was, namely that the Claimant was to get the first slot of OPC got a car allocated.Without this email things would not have been quite so clear cut!
Repost of my comment on the other thread;
Whats interesting here is I wonder if the gentleman would have still wanted the car had it not been worth more than the list price, and if the car was worth list or less and he had sued, what would he have been awarded?
Speculators often put down deposits and then ask for them back if the cars not going to do "overs".
Pendragon a hideous arrogant company so the results made me smile.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff