High Court Legal Case Reporting

[Jon39]

I have noticed a news item about a current legal case, involving a dispute over the financing of a £1.8 million Aston Martin.
The case number is BL-2019-002257.
It has been reported that AML Works have given evidence.
Both parties have been publicly named, but I had better not post that.

There is a website reporting the proceedings, although it is 'behind a paywall'.

Does anyone know whether we can read any more about this?
It appears to involve one of the replica AMs, built by AM Works.

[JohnG1]

Google the case reference. Second hit.

Your mileage might vary!

[Jon39]

Thank you John.

Perhaps you have access to law360.com. That is indeed the website covering the story, but for me, it is hidden 'behind a paywall'.

[bogie]

Interesting, though ive not got any more access than google.

You do wonder if it was a speculative buy ....borrow money on cheap finance, get replica built on the basis AM Works find a buyer and you make a tidy profit....except there is no buyer and then you cant afford to get stuck with the £1.8M finance on a niche car ....mmmm

[Jon39]

Ì cannot find out about the story, but maybe going to the High Court will just increase the cost.

There presumably must be an extremely limited used market for the recreation cars. Track only, but Lord March does not want post 1966 built cars, even if they are period, to race in the Revival.

[oilit]

its not hard to get a free read account....

• *apparently****

man orders a car, gets finance, but cant give permission for it to be built without financiers agreement - but does anyway, then financier locks it away and prevents him from selling it - so he refinances it under a rent to buy plan without agreement.

Financier wants court to decide who owns car or get AM to pay a large sum of money as they built car despite not having official instructions to do so.

Basically sounds like a speculator getting caught with trousers around ankles and now squirming - but of course all wild speculation...

[AJB88]

Said car will be locked away 600m around the corner from me, following this to see the outcome.

[woodsypedia]

My understanding is that anyone can have a car built. You don’t need a finance house to confirm this. It’s perfectly viable to buy a car without finance and pay cash. I suspect the chap instructed AM to build the car and placed the order. The finance hasn’t come through and he now has no way to pay for it. Not sure how AM could be liable here. Any finance agreement is held directly between the customer and the finance house - not the selling entity.

[Jon39]

I could only read the very beginning of the court report, but it stated AM Works denied saying, they had agreed [presumably with the party in court] to find a buyer for the car.

It seems that the finance company instigated the initial court action, but then there was a counter claim from the defendant.

After looking at the new model announcement list, I guess the car in question must be one of the 25 DB4 GT Continuation models (track only), built by AM Works at Newport Pagnell. That model was announced on 9 December 2016.

[Big Ry]

Ah, I think I do know something about this

I'm pretty sure that this involves the Golden Saffron Vulcan currently at Works.

The original buyer bought it purely to get on the Valkyrie list (which he did). The car didn't cover a mile and was never used. Once he had his Valkyrie spot confirmed, the Vulcan was then sold on to buyer number 2. From what I'm lead to believe, somehow (and I assume this is what the legal case is about), buyer 2 managed to finance the car (no idea of specifics) with two different finance companies, and then didn't make the required payments. One of the finance firms then looked to recover the asset, only to find out that another lender also had an interest..........hence "who actually owns the asset".

Now don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but this is more or less what I understand has happened, or a variance of it.

[Jon39]

Thank you Ryan.

We are having a bit of fun here, trying to do a jigsaw with most of the pieces missing.

I am not sure that your Vulcan piece for the jigsaw is going to fit though.
AM Works seem to have been a witness in the court case, something about the denial of a promise to find a buyer, after the car was built.
Works did not build the Vulcans though. They were built by Special Vehicle Operations, who now have their premises at Wellesbourne.

[Big Ry]

Ah right, I didn't read any of the article so didn't look at how it hung together.

However......at least you now all know that there's a story behind the Vulcan too

[Jon39]

Perhaps and I am only guessing, we have come across two cases of, 'flipping for profit on margin' which went wrong, due to failure to sell.

Maybe flippers enjoy success several times during buoyant market conditions, then some of them do one deal too many and trip over a cliff. Quite a risk if there is a long wait before delivery and magnified of course, if borrowing is involved.

Do you remember the Jaguar XJ220 supercar? After a lengthy wait, first deliveries were during a recession. Cancelled orders and legal action took place. They never sold the planned number in the end.

Ryan's post is interesting, because we know that the last few Vulcans did not sell quickly. Wonder if the bait of a Valkyrie might have been used, to sell another Vulcan. Anyway, the first buyer was probably happy, it was the second buyer who it seems, got into 'hot water'.