JD Classics, what have they been up to?
Discussion
Doofus said:
a8hex said:
Doofus said:
but if this thread is about anything, it's about the investment in hyped commodities by people who couldn't give a stuff about the product as long as there's a financial return..
Funny, I thought this thread was about whether if a dealer says he's got a client who wishes to sell a car to a collector and he's prepared to handle the purchase for a certain sum, whether the dealer is actually trying to sell the collector a car which he actually owns and the "I know a seller" is fictitious. 
One party is hyping a commodity to an ignorant buyer for financial gain.
a8hex said:
No, one is a case of hyping a product, which is legal dubious under many circumstances while the other looks like a breach of contract and probably fraud if the allegation are proved. The court seems to think there is a case to be answered here. If the case is proved then I wonder whether criminal proceeding will follow the civil ones. I also wonder where Breadvan is, of course he may well have good reasons for avoiding this conversation.
Fair enough. I'm not arguing legality, and I'm not admonishing anyone. I'm merely saying that the situation arose because a naive buyer was seen coming by somebody (a dealer) who was able to inflate the value of cars he was selling, based upon his 'projections' of future values.I'm not arguing that criminal activity may be involved; I am just saying that this is about naive buyers investing in a market based upon promises made by people who, by any stretch, can't be considered independent advisers.
My posts of the last day or so have been about the willingness of people to buy into a market about which they know little, just because somebody has promised them a decent profit. Regarldess of whether or not Mr Hood was acting fraudulently, on his own account, or on behalf of the client, there can be little doubt that he was encouraging Mr Tuke to invest in cars on the back of a promised pay off. The case was brought because the profits realised weren't as predicted.
Doofus said:
a8hex said:
No, one is a case of hyping a product, which is legal dubious under many circumstances while the other looks like a breach of contract and probably fraud if the allegation are proved. The court seems to think there is a case to be answered here. If the case is proved then I wonder whether criminal proceeding will follow the civil ones. I also wonder where Breadvan is, of course he may well have good reasons for avoiding this conversation.
Fair enough. I'm not arguing legality, and I'm not admonishing anyone. I'm merely saying that the situation arose because a naive buyer was seen coming by somebody (a dealer) who was able to inflate the value of cars he was selling, based upon his 'projections' of future values.I'm not arguing that criminal activity may be involved; I am just saying that this is about naive buyers investing in a market based upon promises made by people who, by any stretch, can't be considered independent advisers.
My posts of the last day or so have been about the willingness of people to buy into a market about which they know little, just because somebody has promised them a decent profit. Regarldess of whether or not Mr Hood was acting fraudulently, on his own account, or on behalf of the client, there can be little doubt that he was encouraging Mr Tuke to invest in cars on the back of a promised pay off. The case was brought because the profits realised weren't as predicted.
Personally I find the two to be completely different.
Yes it would be naive to expect a dealer to be giving you independent financial advise, but it's not unreasonable to expect someone with whom you have a contract to adhere the the terms of the contract.
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2018/03/19/re...
Lots of legalise for anyone who can’t get to sleep
Lots of legalise for anyone who can’t get to sleep
grumpy52 said:
I think that Mr Business man was more upset about Mr Car Dealer making more money out of some of the deals than he was without much of the risk. Added to the deception and double dealing by the Dealer .
Exactly.I would likely more the last bit than the first bit, especially that situation with the Gullwing.
Perseverant said:
Aspects of jealousy, ignorance and greed here, I fear. Yes, JD Classics are top end dealers, but to say that restoration means "buggered about with" is ridiculous.
Sorry - I did not use the expression meaning to convey the impression that restoration today is carried out in a shoddy manner. Quite the opposite. I meant that restored cars are not the pristine original specimens which to the untrained observer they seem to be. Often very little is actually original, the car has probably had a large number of things changed, fixed or altered, some professionally, others not, sometimes in the lengthy era when these were regarded as useless old rust buckets, culminating in a total rebuild resulting in what is sometimes a completely new car. Received a call that the case is completed, but no supporting facts. Anyone know if this is correct?
Better not say who I was told lost case, as if info wrong could get into hot water. Can confirm that if info true it ended badly for one of the parties! Hope this helps...........................
Better not say who I was told lost case, as if info wrong could get into hot water. Can confirm that if info true it ended badly for one of the parties! Hope this helps...........................
It seems that the case was due before the Queens Bench yesterday, but it has long been assumed that rather than washing dirty linen in public the case would be settled on the court steps. That avoids publicity, so how you have the details I know not, since usually there is a binding secrecy clause in the agreement. But I am usually wrong, so we'll wait and see.
t Sherlock" type statement! 
Wilmots Litigation - "Success against JD Classics Ltd".
PDF of judgement within link.
Wilmots state: "The Agency case was decided in Mr Tuke's favour as mentioned above. Although not part of that case the Judge nevertheless observed that Mr Hood had been guilty of deliberate and dishonest conduct in relation the the sale of an XKSS on Mr Tuke's behalf. The other three cases are to be consolidated and heard at a later date."
PDF of judgement within link.
Wilmots state: "The Agency case was decided in Mr Tuke's favour as mentioned above. Although not part of that case the Judge nevertheless observed that Mr Hood had been guilty of deliberate and dishonest conduct in relation the the sale of an XKSS on Mr Tuke's behalf. The other three cases are to be consolidated and heard at a later date."
_Sorted_ said:
Wilmots Litigation - "Success against JD Classics Ltd".
PDF of judgement within link.
Wilmots state: "The Agency case was decided in Mr Tuke's favour as mentioned above. Although not part of that case the Judge nevertheless observed that Mr Hood had been guilty of deliberate and dishonest conduct in relation the the sale of an XKSS on Mr Tuke's behalf. The other three cases are to be consolidated and heard at a later date."
Interesting, thanks for posting... PDF of judgement within link.
Wilmots state: "The Agency case was decided in Mr Tuke's favour as mentioned above. Although not part of that case the Judge nevertheless observed that Mr Hood had been guilty of deliberate and dishonest conduct in relation the the sale of an XKSS on Mr Tuke's behalf. The other three cases are to be consolidated and heard at a later date."
I truly am aghast at this part of the ruling:-
"He instructed Mr Derek Hood of J D Classics Ltd as a professional advisor and his agent for buying and selling cars on his behalf. Mr Hood advised him that he could double his money.
Over the next few years Mr Tuke bought and sold some 41 classic cars on the advice of Mr Hood, and, at a time when the values of classic cars was increasing, suffered catastrophic losses which nearly bankrupted him".
He lost money over a period when prices were rising at a rate not seen since the bubble of 90/91? I did a quick google, and came across this interesting article by the Daily Mail from their financial pages:-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-26...
To be fair to Derek Hood, that the client lost money and continued to take his advice astounds me. Seems more like a Stockholm Syndrome case than anything else I have read lately.
"He instructed Mr Derek Hood of J D Classics Ltd as a professional advisor and his agent for buying and selling cars on his behalf. Mr Hood advised him that he could double his money.
Over the next few years Mr Tuke bought and sold some 41 classic cars on the advice of Mr Hood, and, at a time when the values of classic cars was increasing, suffered catastrophic losses which nearly bankrupted him".
He lost money over a period when prices were rising at a rate not seen since the bubble of 90/91? I did a quick google, and came across this interesting article by the Daily Mail from their financial pages:-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-26...
To be fair to Derek Hood, that the client lost money and continued to take his advice astounds me. Seems more like a Stockholm Syndrome case than anything else I have read lately.
lowdrag said:
I truly am aghast at this part of the ruling:-
"He instructed Mr Derek Hood of J D Classics Ltd as a professional advisor and his agent for buying and selling cars on his behalf. Mr Hood advised him that he could double his money.
Over the next few years Mr Tuke bought and sold some 41 classic cars on the advice of Mr Hood, and, at a time when the values of classic cars was increasing, suffered catastrophic losses which nearly bankrupted him".
He lost money over a period when prices were rising at a rate not seen since the bubble of 90/91? I did a quick google, and came across this interesting article by the Daily Mail from their financial pages:-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-26...
To be fair to Derek Hood, that the client lost money and continued to take his advice astounds me. Seems more like a Stockholm Syndrome case than anything else I have read lately.
+1"He instructed Mr Derek Hood of J D Classics Ltd as a professional advisor and his agent for buying and selling cars on his behalf. Mr Hood advised him that he could double his money.
Over the next few years Mr Tuke bought and sold some 41 classic cars on the advice of Mr Hood, and, at a time when the values of classic cars was increasing, suffered catastrophic losses which nearly bankrupted him".
He lost money over a period when prices were rising at a rate not seen since the bubble of 90/91? I did a quick google, and came across this interesting article by the Daily Mail from their financial pages:-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-26...
To be fair to Derek Hood, that the client lost money and continued to take his advice astounds me. Seems more like a Stockholm Syndrome case than anything else I have read lately.
When I first heard of this case and the, at the time, alleged losses I too was astounded. My immediate thoughts were 1. how can a theoretically smart entrepreneur invest 66% of his cash into a single market when we all know this is a disastrous strategy, especially as Tuke's background is not the classic car sector, 2. the stated level of investment at £40M into a single market and 3. investing such a large sum with a classic car dealer who, in fact, does not own his own business...a business owned by VC's who can pull the plug at any time...and who will the moment the market turns. Clearly Tuke's failed to complete even the most basic of financial due diligence and, as lowdrag rightly highlights, continues to take Hood's advisory on acquisition[!]
Irrespective of the judgement, one has to question Hood's moral fibre. Good honest financial gain is absolutely acceptable. Poor professional advisory to/with a deep pocketed, cash cow type client is morally unacceptable.
lowdrag said:
Mr Hood advised him that he could double his money.
Maybe this was were the problem started, what Mr Hood actually ment was that Mr Hood could double his money by (allegedly) taking money from a client for cars he already owned and was selling at an inflated price by making up fictitious third party owners, then charging the same client to restore / race the cars, buying them back, selling them on again for a profit then charging 10% as a commission on any 'profit' the orginal client had cleared (if there was any) It will be interesting to see if after the rest of the case is heard JD's Goodwood profile will substantially (quietly) reduce.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff