Interesting VIN number on 68 Barracuda

Mopar General Discussions

  1. Treblig

    Treblig Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,471
    Likes Received:
    3645
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Location:
    South Texas
    Local Time:
    3:59 PM
    Yes, "caviar emptatum"!! LOL What their disclaimer is saying is that no matter how screwed up the car might be (originality wise or authenticity wise) it's your fault for not doing your "due diligence" in verifying everything your self....WHAT A CROCK!!!

    Treblig
     
  2. Marcohotrod

    Marcohotrod Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    626
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Local Time:
    4:59 PM
    the disclaimer was written by a lawyer, and he charged big $ for it
     
  3. ramenth

    ramenth Gratis persona

    Messages:
    19,240
    Likes Received:
    9422
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Location:
    Prattsburgh, NY
    Local Time:
    4:59 PM
    From the sound of the ad, it sounds like the lawyer had a hand in writing it, too. There's no claim to authenticity, nothing about it being an original Formula S, even though it's got the badges. Just a glowing ad about what the car is, nothing about what it "might" be.
     
  4. jimharvard

    jimharvard JimHarvard FABO Gold Member

    Messages:
    783
    Likes Received:
    324
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Local Time:
    4:59 PM
    i always enjoy and welcome lawyer jokes... here's a few of my favorites:

    "what do you do when you have three lawyers up to their necks in concrete? get more concrete."

    "why did a famous research laboratory chance from using rats to using lawyers in their experiments? because they found that the laboratory workers were growing to attached to the rats."


    here's the reason for the "long winded" and "meandering" way i brought up the issue i had over the VIN number on the red barracuda: the internet is still pretty much of "the wild west" when it comes to legal rules. generally speaking, a person cannot be sued for defamation over comments they post "on line." however, these legal rules are not very well established and being the cautious lawyer that i am, i did not want to post any "opinion" or statement about the subject car without first asking my fellow FABO members to look at the ad and submit their own comments about my concerns. i was confident in my assessment that this red barracuda does not have the correct dash with accompanying VIN number for the style of the car, however, i wanted others to look at what i was looking at and hopefully come to the same conclusion as i had. it is black letter law in all 50 states that "if the statement made is true" a suit for defamation cannot succeed.

    my second goal was to - hopefully - generate a discussion about how to spot suspect VIN numbers or other important information about a collector car that one might be considering purchasing. i believe i achieved some level of awareness to this cautionary point.

    comments about whether or not my observation is of any importance to the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles are also good to read. there are vast differences in how strict vehicle registration laws are in all the states. the North and New England tend to be very strict about vehicles. the South and mid-west not so much. my understanding is that california is also strict.

    i hope some of my comments here on FABO are of value - especially to "younger folks" or those just getting into the collector car hobby. while a suspect VIN number might not be of any concern to some civil servant putting a rubber stamp on a title application, it might be of great concern to a future buyer of that vehicle. and in the worst case, selling such a vehicle when one knows about a VIN issue might land the person in the middle of an expensive and nasty law suit brought by a VERY unhappy buyer.

    as i stated previously, i still think this car is a problem for the present dealership notwithstanding their very "legalistic" disclaimer. as the famous phrase goes from the Nixon impeachment hearings: "what did you know and when did you know it?" sometimes in a law suit, how that question is answered will determine whether the person being sued wins or loses the case.
     
  5. VDART

    VDART Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,659
    Likes Received:
    44
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Location:
    heizer ks
    Local Time:
    3:59 PM
    Has anyone else contacted the dealer about the car? I like how they also name called the noted restorer -- Makes a person wonder on any of their rides how the re-sell(purpose) process is. If I lived closer I would go view the car & ask some questions. (calmly)
    I just think it would be fun to ask the salesman about possible title issues.

    Lawrence

    Ps thanks Jim for spotting this issue.
     
  6. Blind Squirrel

    Blind Squirrel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    670
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    Local Time:
    3:59 PM
    So if it can be proven that you notified them and that they received the notification you have set the baseline for "what did they know and when did they know it". Nicely done from the back door. I think you just became part of a fraud investigation. :) Does that mean you can bill for that?


    Oh, and the old one. What do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
     
  7. Treblig

    Treblig Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,471
    Likes Received:
    3645
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Location:
    South Texas
    Local Time:
    3:59 PM
    Back to the DISCLAIMER:

    "No allowance or set aside will be made on account of any incorrectness, imperfection, defect or damage - See more at: http://www.gatewayclassiccars.com/indianapolis/1968/plymouth/barracuda-S495.html#sthash.S3mCqVZf.dpuf"

    No allowance (money) or set aside (money) will be made to account.....bla bla bla.

    I think that means that they can not be held accountable for anything, monetary or otherwise, as they will not have "an allowance" or "set aside" to compensate you for any failure on your part to do your due diligence. Looks like they covered all the bases. Not only will the car be yours if you buy it but you can't go back and ask for any compensation for anything odd that you might find after you've made your purchase.


    Am I ready this correctly????
    treblig
     
  8. jimharvard

    jimharvard JimHarvard FABO Gold Member

    Messages:
    783
    Likes Received:
    324
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Local Time:
    4:59 PM
    i am not admitted to practice law in indiana and do not know indiana's motor vehicle code. however, i will offer a general comment about the legal effect of "disclaimers."

    when a person buys something from a "seller" operating "a business" - like a car dealership, the car dealership can sell a vehicle "as is" or "with no implied or express warranty" (meaning that there is nothing in writing guaranteeing the car nor has anyone from the dealership verbally promised that the car is in good condition), the buyer generally bears the responsibility for inspecting the car prior to purchase and accepting any problems with the car after the sale. this situation is usually referred to as "caveat emptor" - "let the buyer beware." this doctrine developed over the last 200 years for business and private transactions.

    around the late 1950's, many states started passing laws saying that any time a business sells "anything" - the thing being sold has to at least have a statutory implied "warranty of use" which means the thing being sold has to at least be able to be "used for its intended purpose." thus, if a person would buy a lawnmower with no blade, that item could be returned because it could not be used "for its intended purpose."

    when you buy a car from a private seller, the warranty of use doctrine is very hard to enforce. however, every state has rules regarding the "fair trade" of businesses so if a commercial business sells a car that cannot be used, a suit for breach of "warranty of use" could at least be filed against the dealership. "hypothetically" if one purchased a car from a commercial dealer that could not be registered with the state's department of motor vehicles, that buyer would have a very good breach of warranty of use case.

    but there is another aspect of the law that "a disclaimer" can NEVER cancel or avoid - criminal activity. this is the area where "pawn shops" get into trouble. in every state in the U.S., any police department can walk into a pawn shop and confiscate any item that has been stolen. it does not matter that the pawn shop owner never knew or suspected that the item was stolen at the time he paid the person some amount of money either on loan or as a sale. the legal concept is that no person can acquire "good title" to an item that was stolen because the thief did not have "good title" to transfer. there are a few exceptions to this rule but generally, that is the law.

    in the case of automobiles, we all have read articles about someone getting their stolen Corvette back 30 years after it was stolen from some present day owner that had no idea that the car he had was stolen. if you are in possession of a stolen car, you can never acquire good title to that vehicle unless a Court issues an Order allowing you to keep the car. in this area of the law, having a "disclaimer" on the windshield of a used car has NO EFFECT!! the criminal statutes of the state where that car is being sold will overcome ANY aspect of a disclaimer.

    disclaimers on vehicles will stop further liability of a seller if the car breaks down or requires some kind of repair after a sale. but that only applies to normal and "legal" repairs that might be required.

    there is another criminal doctrine that most will be familiar with - "ignorance of the law is no excuse" or in latin: Ignorantia legis non excusat." if a business sells a car that has a criminal legal problem attached to it, that business may still be drawn into a criminal investigation and/or prosecution even if they did not know of the criminal problem and the posting of a "disclaimer" will not protect them from the police or district attorney.

    finally, most states also make it a criminal offense to file "false documents" with the state. suppose a person bought a car that they knew did not have the right VIN number and then sends in an application for a title. if the state discovers that the VIN number is incorrect for the car, the person filing the title application could theoretically be charged with "filing false documents" - or in Pennsylvania, "Unsworn falsification to authorities" which in this state, is a second degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 years in jail - here's PA statute:

    Title 18§ 4904. Unsworn falsification to authorities.
    (a) In general.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with intent to mislead a public servant in performing his official function, he:
    (1) makes any written false statement which he does not believe to be true;
    (2) submits or invites reliance on any writing which he knows to be forged, altered or otherwise lacking in authenticity; or
    (3) submits or invites reliance on any sample, specimen, map, boundary mark, or other object which he knows to be false.

    the following is a very long posting, however, i've included it for reference for FABO members in various states:

    From the Mustang Monthly publication - "Numbers Game: VIN Tampering"
    Straight to the point: Let there be no doubt that it is illegal to tamper with a VIN on a vehicle or even the parts of a vehicle.
    This is not an all inclusive list of state laws/statutes. It is merely a sampling. Do not assume because a state is not mentioned here that there are no such laws in that state (country).

    Legal research/reference provided by Sam Mamola, J.D.

    18 USCS § 2321

    TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I. CRIMES
    CHAPTER 113. STOLEN PROPERTY

    18 USCS § 2321 (2003)

    § 2321. Trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts

    (a) Whoever buys, receives, possesses, or obtains control of, with intent to sell or otherwise dispose of, a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, knowing that an identification number for such motor vehicle or part has been removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    107 A.L.R.5th 567

    SUMMARY: Illegally removing or altering a vehicle identification number (VIN) or selling or possessing a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN constitutes a crime in most states. In order to impose liability, state courts normally require a culpable mental state on the part of the defendant in altering or removing a VIN or in possessing a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. Some states, however, do not require any culpable mental state on the part of the defendant when selling a vehicle or vehicle part with a removed or altered VIN.

    For example, in State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998), the defendant sold a vehicle that was subsequently found to have an altered VIN. The defendant claimed the state was required to establish that he had knowledge of the VIN alteration at the time the sale occurred. The court held that while knowledge was required for possessing a vehicle with an altered VIN, the statute's plain language indicated that knowledge was not required when selling a vehicle with an altered VIN.

    Most state courts held that knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is required before the defendant can be convicted of altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10[a] ). However, a few courts have concluded that from a plain reading of the applicable statute, knowledge of the altered or removed VIN is not required when altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN ( § 10 ). Courts singled out a number of particular circumstances as tending to establish knowledge of an altered or removed VIN on the part of the defendant. For instance, knowledge was found to exist where there is physical evidence of the VIN alteration as well as proof the defendant tried to sell the vehicle or had possession of the vehicle for a long period of time ( § 10[c] ). Knowledge was also proved by evidence that the defendant was warned of a missing or altered VIN and did not correct the defect or where the police found evidence of a "chop shop" and other dismantled vehicle parts in the defendant's possession ( § 10[c] ). To the contrary, courts found the defendant did not have knowledge of an altered or removed VIN where, although there was evidence of possession or sale of the vehicle, there was no direct or physical evidence the defendant altered or removed the VIN ( § 10[d] ). Knowledge was also not proved where the defendant merely leased a building to a person operating a "chop shop" and did not know what was happening inside the building ( § 10[d] ).

    Along with the culpable mental state requirement, courts also addressed the criminal conduct involved in altering or removing a VIN or possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN. For example, state courts found that a VIN was altered or removed even if the concealed VIN was not removed or the vehicle bore an additional VIN not affixed by the manufacturer ( § 12[a] ).

    Delaware:

    In Tackett v. State, 416 A.2d 1225 (Del. 1980), the court held that two statutes: (1) the possession of a vehicle with a removed VIN (Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6709); and (2) the possession of a vehicle with knowledge that the VIN is falsified with intent to misrepresent the identity (Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6705(d)) were not unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that the standard for judging the certainty of a criminal statute is whether it is specific enough to give notice to a person of ordinary intelligence of the conduct prohibited. Consequently, the court found Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6705(d) clearly comports with constitutional standards of specificity in that the statute unambiguously describes both the conduct prohibited and the requisite states of mind. The court also found that Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6709 was not vague as applied to this case because the indictment charged that the defendant knew of the altered VINs; the defendant was in the auto repair business and a former employee of a major automaker, giving rise to a fair inference that he was familiar with confidential VINs; and the defendant's knowledge that the VINs had been altered was charged and proven.

    New York:

    The court held in People v. Giese, 95 Misc. 2d 792, 408 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1978), order aff'd without published op, 68 A.D.2d 1019, 414 N.Y.S.2d 947 (2d Dep't 1979), that federal law (Federal Safety Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381 et seq. (Repl.; see 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 30101 et seq.)) did not preempt N.Y. Penal Law § 170.70, which makes it illegal to possess a VIN that has been removed from a vehicle or vehicle part to which the VIN was affixed by the manufacturer in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle and Information Cost Savings Act. The court noted that the promulgation of the safety standards cannot be said to be so pervasive of the area to prevent the state of New York from enacting and enforcing laws with respect to the illegal possession of VIN plates in order to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft. Consequently, the court held that such legislation was not in conflict with the purpose or language of the Federal Safety Act.

    Maryland:

    In interpreting Md. Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, § 73 (1957), which prohibits a person from knowingly possessing or selling a vehicle or vehicle part with an altered or removed VIN, for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of the vehicle or vehicle part, the court in Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969), concluded that "knowingly" as used in the statute means "having knowledge." A person thus may be found to have knowledge by evidence establishing that one has actual or direct knowledge of the VIN removal or alteration. For example, explained the court, actual knowledge is when one removes or alters the number personally, while direct knowledge is when one admits to knowing that the number has been removed or altered, and has no reasonable nonculpable explanation as to why it has been removed or altered.

    Missouri:

    The court in State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998), held that the plain language of Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 301.390.1, 301.390.6 (1994) does not require criminal intent when selling a vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The statute's language prohibits a person from selling or offering for sale, or knowingly having the custody or possession of a motor vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The court said that the legislature clearly and deliberately wrote the statute so that "knowingly" refers only to the crime of custody or possession, and not to the crime of selling or offering for sale. The requirement that the defendant know the VIN was altered or removed in order to be convicted thus applies only to the crime of custody or possession, and not to the crime of sale.

    Knowledge found:

    The courts in the following cases held that the defendant knowingly altered or removed a vehicle identification number (VIN) or sold or possessed a vehicle or vehicle part knowing it had an altered or removed VIN.

    Georgia:

    In Martin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 275, 287 S.E.2d 244 (1981), the court found that a man who rebuilt and sold a vehicle with parts containing altered or removed VINs knowingly concealed or misrepresented the identity of the vehicle under Ga. Code Ann. § 68-9916(a). Since the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act requires that the certificate of title for any vehicle that has been rebuilt, reconditioned, or remanufactured must so state on the face of the title, and the certificate of title that the man obtained for the vehicle did not disclose on its face that the vehicle had been rebuilt, the court found there was enough evidence to conclude that he knew the vehicle contained an altered or removed VIN.

    The court in Ramey v. State, 239 Ga. App. 620, 521 S.E.2d 663 (1999), denied a directed verdict of acquittal when the court found enough circumstantial evidence that the car dealer sold the stolen vehicle knowing it had an altered VIN, which is prohibited under Ga. Code Ann. § 40-4-22(a). Because the car's true VIN was damaged and then concealed, and a false VIN plate applied loosely to the door, changes that a person in the business of buying and selling cars should have noticed, and the VIN stamped on the false plate and used by the dealer for the bill of sale did not match the car and could not have been assigned to that year vehicle, the court found sufficient evidence to show the dealer had guilty knowledge of the altered VIN.

    Illinois:

    Enough circumstantial evidence was found by the court in People v. Kilgore, 33 Ill. App. 3d 557, 338 N.E.2d 124 (2d Dist. 1975), to sustain the defendant's conviction under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 95 1/2, P 4-103(b) (1973), for knowingly possessing a vehicle with an altered or removed VIN. The court found that the combination of circumstances, which included the payment of $ 500 for a car valued at more than $ 2,000; the falsified VIN on the bill of sale in defendant's possession; the defendant's explanation that he purchased a burned out car and added value thereafter, which was refuted by the actual condition of the car; the fact the defendant did not present invoices or receipts corroborating his story that he bought parts to repair the car; and his failure to complete the title application or apply for plates in the time available, supported the conviction.

    Kansas:

    In State v. Holland, 141 Kan. 307, 40 P.2d 469 (1935), the court held there was enough evidence to uphold a conviction of possessing a vehicle, whose VIN was altered or removed in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-116(b). The evidence included testimony of the VIN alteration or removal, which showed that several VINs had been ground off and other VINs were stenciled on. In addition, it was found that the defendant had been in the possession of the vehicle for 15 months and therefore had enough time to gain knowledge of the change in the numbers.

    Massachusetts:

    In Com. v. Perreault, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1072, 435 N.E.2d 635 (1982), the court found was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of violating Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 266, § 139(b)-(c), which prohibits the possession or sale of a vehicle or vehicle part knowing the VIN has been altered or removed. Because the defendant testified that the true VIN numbers were no longer on the cars and an auto theft investigator testified as to what the VINs were as they appeared on the stolen vehicles and what the VINs should have been, the court concluded that the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of proving that the defendant knew the vehicles had altered or removed VINs.

    Ohio:

    In State v. Halczyszak, 1990 WL 32605 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1990), the court upheld a conviction under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4549.62(D)(1), after it was found that salvage yard owners knowingly possessed a vehicle in which the VIN was altered. The court found that the case record revealed that the owners knowingly and purposely altered the body of an older vehicle by attaching the VIN from a newer vehicle. In addition, one of the salvage yard owners further demonstrated this knowledge by stating to the police that she believed they could transfer the VIN from one car to another.

    Missouri:

    According to the court in State v. Wakefield, 682 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1984), there was sufficient evidence to convict the owner of a salvage yard and repair shop of removing or defacing a vehicle's VIN in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.400 (1978). The court held there was enough evidence in the record that permitted the inference that at some time the owner, or his employees, mounted the body of a stolen 1978 vehicle on the frame and transmission of a 1980 vehicle, which the defendant had acquired as salvage. The public VIN was removed from the 1980 salvage vehicle and was affixed by homemade rosette rivets to the body of the 1978 vehicle. Thereafter, the reconstituted vehicle was sold as a 1980 model vehicle. The court found the above evidence was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction under the statute.
    Here are cites to individual state laws and cases:

    JURISDICTIONAL TABLE OF CASES and STATUTES

    UNITED STATES CODE

    18 U.S.C.A. § 2321 See --§ 2[a]
    18 U.S.C.A. § 511 See --§ 2[a] --§ 5

    ALABAMA

    Alabama Code 32-8-86(a), (c) See --§ 10[a]
    Alabama Code 32-8-86(b), (d), (e) See --§ 11[a]
    Alabama Code 32-8-86(c) See --§ 10[d]

    State v. Honda, 387 So. 2d 219 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980--§ 10[d]
    State v. Self, 492 So. 2d 319 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)--§§ 10[a],11[a]

    ARKANSAS

    Hall v. State, 171 Ark. 787, 286 S.W. 1026 (1926)--§ 10
    Ogburn v. State, 168 Ark. 396, 270 S.W. 945 (1925)--§ 13

    CALIFORNIA

    California Veh. Code 10752(a) See --§§ 3 11[a]
    California Veh. Code 10802 See --§ 12

    People v. Joiner, 84 Cal. App. 4th 946, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270 (5th Dist. 2000) --§ 12
    People v. Suk, 220 Cal. App. 3d 952, 269 Cal. Rptr. 676 (2d Dist. 1990) --§§ 3 11[a]

    COLORADO

    Colorado Rev. Stat. Ann. 18-5-305 See --§ 8
    Colorado Rev. Stat. Ann. 42-5-102(2) See --§§ 3 8 10[a]
    Colorado Rev. Stat. Ann. 42-6-117 See --§ 3

    People v. Bossert, 722 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1986) --§§ 3 8
    People v. Sequin, 199 Colo. 381, 609 P.2d 622 (1980) --§§ 3 10[a]

    DELAWARE

    Delaware Code Ann. tit. 21, 6705(d) See --§ 3
    Delaware Code Ann. tit. 21, 6709 See --§ 3

    State v. Derrickson, 31 Del. 342, 114 A. 286 (Gen. Sess. 1921) --§ 11[a]
    Tackett v. State, 416 A.2d 1225 (Del. 1980) --§ 3

    FLORIDA

    Florida Stat. Ann. 319.33(1)(d) See --§§ 7 10[a] 10[d] 11 12[a] 12

    City of Margate v. Singh, 778 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001) --§ 12
    Cooper v. State, 585 So. 2d 489 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1991) --§ 12[a]
    Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1999) --§ 10[d]
    Rogers v. State, 656 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1995) --§ 7
    Stark v. State, 316 So. 2d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1975) --§§ 10[a] 10[d]
    State v. Copher, 395 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1981) --§ 11
    State v. Kennedy, 390 So. 2d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980) --§ 12

    GEORGIA

    Georgia Code Ann. 40-4-22(a) See --§ 10[c]
    Georgia Code Ann. 68-9916 (a)-(c) See --§§ 10[a] 11[c]
    Georgia Code Ann. 68-9916(a) See --§ 10[c]

    Dooley v. State, 145 Ga. App. 539, 244 S.E.2d 55 (1978) --§ 10[a]
    Greer v. State, 113 Ga. App. 342, 147 S.E.2d 877 (1966) --§ 10[c]
    Hubbard v. State, 239 Ga. App. 632, 521 S.E.2d 678 (1999) --§ 10[c]
    Martin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 275, 287 S.E.2d 244 (1981) --§ 10[c]
    McCannon v. State, 161 Ga. App. 685, 288 S.E.2d 663 (1982) --§ 10[c]
    McJunkin v. State, 160 Ga. App. 30, 285 S.E.2d 756 (1981) --§ 11[c]
    Ramey v. State, 239 Ga. App. 620, 521 S.E.2d 663 (1999) --§ 10[c]

    ILLINOIS

    625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4-103(a)(2) See --§ 11[a]
    625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4-103(a)(4) See --§§ 11[a] 11[d]
    625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/4-103(a)(5) See --§§ 3 8

    People v. Billardello, 319 Ill. 124, 149 N.E. 781, 42 A.L.R. 1146 (1925) --§ 10
    People v. DePalma, 256 Ill. App. 3d 206, 194 Ill. Dec. 594, 627 N.E.2d 1236 (2d Dist. 1994) --§§ 11[a] 11[d]
    People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627, 122 N.E. 155 (1919) --§ 10
    People v. Johnson, 288 Ill. 442, 123 N.E. 543, 4 A.L.R. 1535 (1919) --§ 10
    People v. Kaye, 264 Ill. App. 3d 369, 201 Ill. Dec. 450, 636 N.E.2d 882 (1st Dist. 1994) --§ 10[c]
    People v. Kilgore, 33 Ill. App. 3d 557, 338 N.E.2d 124 (2d Dist. 1975) --§§ 2 10[c]
    People v. Mayhall, 291 Ill. App. 3d 650, 225 Ill. Dec. 699, 684 N.E.2d 174 (5th Dist. 1997) --§ 11[a]
    People v. Neville, 42 Ill. App. 3d 9, 355 N.E.2d 179 (4th Dist. 1976) --§ 3
    People v. Pronger, 48 Ill. App. 2d 477, 199 N.E.2d 239 (1st Dist. 1964) --§ 11[a]
    People v. Steffens, 208 Ill. App. 3d 252, 153 Ill. Dec. 135, 566 N.E.2d 985 (4th Dist. 1991) --§§ 3 8

    INDIANA

    Indiana Code Ann. 9-1-5-3 See --§ 12

    Payne v. State, 396 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1979) --§ 12

    KANSAS

    Kansas Stat. Ann. 8-116(b) See --§§ 10[a] 10[c]

    State v. Holland, 141 Kan. 307, 40 P.2d 469 (1935) --§§ 10[a] 10[c]

    LOUISIANA

    Louisiana Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:207 See --§ 11[c]

    State v. Slaughter, 451 So. 2d 59 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984) --§§ 2 11[c]

    MARYLAND

    Maryland Ann. Code art. 27, 389 (b) See --§ 10[c]
    Maryland Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, 73 See --§§ 10[a] 10[c]

    Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969) --§§ 2 10[a] 10[c]
    Spears v. State, 38 Md. App. 700, 382 A.2d 616 (1978) --§ 10[c]

    MASSACHUSETTS

    Massachusetts Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 266, 139(b)-(c) See --§ 10[c]

    Com. v. Gonsalves, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 506, 778 N.E.2d 997 (2002) --§ 10[c]
    Com. v. Perreault, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1072, 435 N.E.2d 635 (1982) --§ 10[c]

    MICHIGAN

    Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 750.415(1) See --§§ 7[a] 17
    Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 750.415(2) See --§§ 6 7 11[c]
    Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 750.415(3) See --§§ 6 11[c] 17

    People v. Battle, 161 Mich. App. 99, 409 N.W.2d 739 (1987) --§ 6
    People v. Brooks, 405 Mich. 225, 274 N.W.2d 430 (1979) --§ 17
    People v. Coon, 200 Mich. App. 244, 503 N.W.2d 746 (1993) --§ 11[c]
    People v. Griffis, 218 Mich. App. 95, 553 N.W.2d 642 (1996) --§ 7
    People v. Oxendine, 201 Mich. App. 372, 506 N.W.2d 885 (1993) --§ 7[a]
    People v. Venticinque, 459 Mich. 90, 586 N.W.2d 732 (1998) --§ 11[c]
    People v. Wilson, 257 Mich. App. 337, 668 N.W.2d 371 (2003) --§ 15

    MISSOURI

    Missouri Ann. Stat. 301.390.1 See --§ 10[c]
    Missouri Ann. Stat. 301.390.1, 301.390.6 See --§ 13
    Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.390 See --§§ 3 10[a] 12[a]
    Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.390.1 See --§ 10[c]
    Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.390.1, 301.390.6 See --§ 10
    Missouri Rev. Stat. 301.400 See --§ 12[a]

    State v. Friedman, 412 S.W.2d 171 (Mo. 1967) --§ 12[a]
    State v. Smith, 972 S.W.2d 476, 107 A.L.R.5th 791 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1998) --§ 10
    State v. Sollars, 706 S.W.2d 485 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1986) --§§ 10[a] 10[c] 12[a]
    State v. Sollars, 747 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. 1988) --§ 3
    State v. Supinski, 779 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1989) --§§ 10[c] 13
    State v. Wakefield, 682 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1984) --§ 12[a]
    State v. Wakefield, 712 S.W.2d 442 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1986) --§ 12[a]

    NEW JERSEY

    New Jersey Stat. Ann. 2C:17-6(b) See --§§ 3 9 18[a]
    New Jersey Stat. Ann. 2C:43-2c See --§ 19
    New Jersey Stat. Ann. 39:10-7 See --§ 19

    State v. Davis, 244 N.J. Super. 180, 581 A.2d 1333 (App. Div. 1990) --§§ 2 3 18[a]
    State v. Gross, 225 N.J. Super. 28, 541 A.2d 714 (App. Div. 1988) --§ 19
    State v. Pontelandolfo, 227 N.J. Super. 419, 547 A.2d 738 (Law Div. 1988) --§ 9

    NEW YORK

    New York Penal Law 170.70 See --§§ 4 5
    New York Penal Law 170.70(1) See --§ 13
    New York Penal Law 170.70(2) See --§ 15
    New York Penal Law 170.70(3) See --§ 10[d]
    New York Penal Law 436-a See --§ 15
    New York Veh. & Traf. Law 65 See --§ 14

    People v. Codrington, 165 Misc. 2d 214, 629 N.Y.S.2d 369 (City Crim. Ct. 1995) --§ 13
    People v. Congress Radio, 133 Misc. 542, 232 N.Y.S. 647 (Gen. Sess. 1929), aff'd without published op, 251 N.Y. 572, 168 N.E. 432 (1929) --§ 15
    People v. Giese, 95 Misc. 2d 792, 408 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup 1978), order aff'd without published op, 68 A.D.2d 1019, 414 N.Y.S.2d 947 (2d Dep't 1979) --§ 5
    People v. McCabe, 157 Misc. 2d 373, 596 N.Y.S.2d 1021 (City Crim. Ct. 1993) --§ 10[d]
    People v. Silver, 39 N.Y.2d 99, 382 N.Y.S.2d 972, 346 N.E.2d 811 (1976) --§ 4
    People v. Sullivan, 137 Misc. 2d 909, 522 N.Y.S.2d 758 (Sup. Ct. 1987) --§ 15
    People v. Von Werne, 41 N.Y.2d 584, 394 N.Y.S.2d 183, 362 N.E.2d 982 (1977) --§§ 2 10[d]
    People, on Complaint of Shanley, v. Stowers, 259 A.D. 528, 19 N.Y.S.2d 921 (1st Dep't 1940) --§ 14

    NORTH CAROLINA

    North Carolina Gen. Stat. 20-109(b)(1) See --§ 16

    State v. Wyrick, 35 N.C. App. 352, 241 S.E.2d 355 (1978) --§ 16

    OHIO

    Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(A) See --§ 11[c]
    Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D) See --§ 10[c]
    Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D)(1) See --§§ 3 10[a] 10[c] 10[d] 11 12 18[a] 18
    Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D)(4) See --§ 18[a]
    Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 4549.62(D)(4)(a) See --§ 18

    Forfeiture of 1980 Fruehauf Forty-foot Flatbed Trailer, 49 Ohio App. 3d 68, 550 N.E.2d 188 (6th Dist. Lucas County 1988) --§ 10[c]
    Emanuele v. City of Akron, 1989 WL 84033 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Summit County 1989) --§ 10[a]
    State v. Adams, 1991 WL 216874 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Union County 1991) --§ 3
    State v. Banks, 1991 WL 227028 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 1991), jurisdictional motion overruled, 62 Ohio St. 3d 1471, 580 N.E.2d 1101 (1991) --§ 10[c]
    State v. Bradley, 1997 WL 691510 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Champaign County 1997) --§§ 10[c] 11[c] 18
    State v. Halczyszak, 1990 WL 32605 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1990) --§ 10[c]
    State v. Lawson, 1989 WL 18948 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1989) --§§ 2 10[c]
    State v. McClain, 1987 WL 6702 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Warren County 1987) --§§ 10[d] 18
    State v. Ribovich, 1987 WL 14438 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Medina County 1987) --§ 10[c]
    State v. Rosebrook, 1988 WL 87139 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Marion County 1988), cause dismissed, 41 Ohio St. 3d 703, 534 N.E.2d 1202 (1989) --§§ 3 10[a] 10[c] 10[d] 12
    State v. Rosebrook, 1991 WL 216869 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. Union County 1991) --§ 3
    State v. Shifflett, 1993 WL 372233 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 1993), dismissed, jurisdictional motion overruled, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 634 N.E.2d 1024 (1994) --§§ 11 18
    State v. Shifflett, 1994 WL 37277 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 1994), dismissed, jurisdictional motion overruled, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1477, 634 N.E.2d 1024 (1994) --§§ 2 18[a]

    OKLAHOMA

    Oklahoma Stat. Ann. tit. 47, 1503(C)(1) See --§§ 3 11

    State v. Johnson, 1992 OK CR 72, 877 P.2d 1136 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) --§§ 3 11

    PENNSYLVANIA

    75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7102(b), 7103(b) See --§ 11[c]
    75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103 See --§ 10[c]
    75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103(a) See --§ 10[d]
    75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 7103(b) See --§ 10[d]
    Pennsylvania Stat. Ann. tit. 75, 301 See --§§ 10[c] 10[d]

    Com. v. Cecchini, 315 Pa. Super. 153, 461 A.2d 843 (1983) --§ 10[d]
    Com. v. Grabowski, 306 Pa. Super. 483, 452 A.2d 827 (1982) --§ 10[c]
    Com. v. Lowry, 385 Pa. Super. 236, 560 A.2d 781 (1989) --§ 11[c]
    Com. v. Milewski, 340 Pa. Super. 226, 489 A.2d 925 (1985) --§ 10[d]
    Com. v. Stevenson, 242 Pa. Super. 31, 363 A.2d 1144 (1976) --§ 10[c]
    Com. v. Unkrich, 142 Pa. Super. 591, 16 A.2d 737 (1940) --§§ 10[a] 10[c] 10[d]
    Com. v. White, 259 Pa. Super. 397, 393 A.2d 886 (1978) --§ 10[d]

    SOUTH DAKOTA

    South Dakota Codified Laws 32-4-10 See --§ 10[a]

    Soet v. State, 381 N.W.2d 285 (S.D. 1986) --§ 10[a]

    TEXAS

    Texas Penal Code Ann. 31.11(a)(2)(A) See --§ 10[c]

    Austin v. State, 1995 WL 785161 (Tex. App. Dallas 1995) --§ 10[c]

    VIRGINIA

    Virginia Code Ann. 46.2-1075 See --§§ 10[c] 13

    Stevens v. Commonwealth, 1995 WL 748632 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) --§ 10[c]
    Viar v. Commonwealth, 1995 WL 464265 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) --§§ 10[c] 13

    Is stamping or removing a VIN on an engine block or other part illegal?

    It might be, according to this case:

    The court held in Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194, 259 A.2d 89 (1969), that there was sufficient evidence to sustain an automobile repairman's conviction, under Md. Ann. Code art. 66 1/2, § 73 (1957), of possessing a vehicle knowing the engine VIN had been defaced for the purpose of concealing or misrepresenting the identity of the vehicle. While the evidence clearly showed that the repairman had in his possession a vehicle containing an engine which he admitted had been removed from another vehicle and whose VIN had been covered by a bead of weld, it was not shown that he ever had direct contact with the engine, either in purchasing it, receiving it after it was purchased, or removing it from one car and installing it in the other. Nevertheless, the court recognized that the repairman admitted he knew the provisions of the statute and therefore the court held that he deliberately "shut his eyes" so he would not have knowledge that the VIN on the engine in his possession had been defaced. The court noted that the engine was easily accessible to him while in his possession and it was immaterial, in the face of the statute, that engine numbers may not be required on certificates of title and that the statute does not provide specifically that failure to make a reasonable inspection means knowledge. He thus acted at his peril, concluded the court, and could be deemed as having "knowledge" of the fact that the engine VIN was defaced.

    BE CAREFUL, EVERYONE. WITH THE VALUE OF OUR CARS RISING, SUCH CONDUCT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS MALICIOUS AND FRAUDULENT.
     
  9. Treblig

    Treblig Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,471
    Likes Received:
    3645
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Location:
    South Texas
    Local Time:
    3:59 PM

    If you sent them an e-mail and had they responded they would be trapped. As it stands they can simply say that the e-mail (from you) must have gone to their "junk mail" folder or was never opened, again releasing them from any liability. Had they responded they would have been trapped (or at least had fewer options)!
    Even in their car description they cleverly (accidentally on purpose) stated that the car was a '68 and a '69 so the '69 doors fall right into their description. I caught that the first time I read it but since they make no absolute claims about the car's authenticity it makes no difference!!

    However....the VIN and fender tag do not lie!!! Once someone makes them acknowledge (preferably in writing) that the VIN and/or fender tag don't match the car they can't "legally" sell it without being liable????

    treblig
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • cannucky

      cannucky The Guy With No Birthday

      Messages:
      5,596
      Likes Received:
      676
      Joined:
      Sep 25, 2008
      Location:
      Portage Du Fort QC
      Local Time:
      1:59 PM
      " The seller shall and will make every reasonable effort to disclose any known defects associated with this vehicle at the buyer's request prior to the close of sale." Everyone seems to have missed this line in the disclaimer , any question by the buyer regarding the car would require full disclosure of all known issues including an incorrect VIN tag .


      Why are Lawyers like Sperm ? Both have a one in three hundred million chance of becoming a human being .
       
    • Blind Squirrel

      Blind Squirrel Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      846
      Likes Received:
      670
      Joined:
      Oct 1, 2015
      Location:
      Pacific NW
      Local Time:
      3:59 PM
      He is saying. It doesn't matter the disclaimer. "IF" it's a fraud - it's a fraud, period. You can't be released from liability in a crime by using a waiver. Someones going to get burnt. Call it to the attention of the states troopers and it will be the dealer. I guarantee it.


      But now on to the vin and fender tag not matching. This doesn't matter. You can sell a car without a fender tag. The vin and the title have to match. Fender tag smender tag.
       
    • Treblig

      Treblig Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      6,471
      Likes Received:
      3645
      Joined:
      Oct 5, 2013
      Location:
      South Texas
      Local Time:
      3:59 PM
      The operative word is "known"... seller shall and will make every reasonable effort to disclose any known defects.

      That's why I was saying that if the dealer doesn't acknowledge "jimharvard's" e-mail they can claim that they had no knowledge. Besides the word "defect" is squishy word. You can replace lots of parts on your car with aftermarket parts but that doesn't make your car "defective" when it comes to selling it?? You can replace the fenders, doors, deck lid, etc and it's still not defective. Does having the wrong VIN make the car defective/undrivable??


      I'm not trying to argue here, just pointing out how "slimy" a person (or dealer) can be.
      treblig
       
    • 451Cuda

      451Cuda Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      1,911
      Likes Received:
      697
      Joined:
      Nov 19, 2008
      Location:
      Port-aux-Français, TF
      Local Time:
      3:59 PM
      The sequence order number should be stamped on two places on that car. If someone local was really bored and felt like "righting a wrong", they might inspect the car and see if they can take pics of those numbers. From that SO, and given we know it's a '68 fastback, there are only a few different possibilities of what the full original vin could be.

      From there a check for stolen vehicle could possibly reunite this car with it's owner, if it was stolen.
       
    • jimharvard

      jimharvard JimHarvard FABO Gold Member

      Messages:
      783
      Likes Received:
      324
      Joined:
      Jan 7, 2007
      Location:
      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
      Local Time:
      4:59 PM
      i think i've made this discussion way too complicated. as to the subject red barracuda, there is only ONE issue - is the VIN number on this car "correct." the entire discussion about the "disclaimer" is not relevant because vehicle VIN numbers are covered as a separate and distinct area of law under the statutes of Indiana.

      here is what the state of indiana says about vehicle VIN numbers:

      FindLaw
      Codes and Statutes
      Indiana Code
      Title 9 Article 18 Chapter 8Section 9-18-8-13

      Ind. Code § 9-18-8-13 : Indiana Code - Section 9-18-8-13:

      Sale of vehicle with destroyed, removed, altered, covered, or defaced identification number; infraction

      Search Ind. Code § 9-18-8-13 : Indiana Code - Section 9-18-8-13:

      Sale of vehicle with destroyed, removed, altered, covered, or defaced identification number; infraction



      A person who knowingly sells or offers for sale a motor vehicle that has had the original or special identification number:

      (1) destroyed;
      (2) removed;
      (3) altered;
      (4) covered; or
      (5) defaced;

      commits a Class D felony.

      As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.6.

      See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/9/18/8/9-18-8-13#sthash.qWXSlvgs.dpuf


      if a person living in Indianapolis owns a wrecked and rusted 68 barracuda "two door coup" with a good title and also owns a very nice 68 barracuda fastback. under indiana law, that person cannot legally take the dash out of the coup and put it in the fastback and sell the fastback using the coup title. such an act would constitute "altering" and/or "removing" of the "original or special identification number" of the fastback barracuda. you could certainly rebuild one car using the parts from the other car. HOWEVER, you can NEVER "transfer" a "VIN" number from one car to another without some kind of official/Court permission. that entire area of the law is covered under the various states' statutes on "reconstructed" or "custom" built vehicles.

      hopefully, someone at the noted dealership is going to find out about the questions being raised in this discussion and have the indiana authorities look into this vehicle. if they do not do that, they are taking a great risk.



      the above statute and a couple of other sections under the Indiana motor vehicle code is the reason why i would advise gateway classic cars to IMMEDIATELY remove this car from "for sale" status and to call the Indiana State Police to come and examine this vehicle.

      this car IS NOT being sold by a doughnut shop. it is being sold by AN AUTO DEALERSHIP that specializes in "collector cars." as such, i'm pretty sure individuals at this auto dealership are not going to be able to say: "gee, we don't know anything about automobile VIN numbers or the state requirements for registering and titling a car."
       
    • ssba

      ssba Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      2,293
      Likes Received:
      350
      Joined:
      Dec 29, 2009
      Location:
      rensselaer in
      Local Time:
      3:59 PM
      The last thing that needs to be done is getting the state police involved.
      The result of such action will be the destruction of someone's life that
      didn't commit the crime and the end of a classic car that someone could be
      enjoying.
      I agree the dealership should not be selling this car. Just call them and tell them.
      This car is not worth the damage it is capable of by people who's only care is how many people they can take down over it and how much money they can gain by doing so.
      This world is so fu($xed up by these greedy people. Rather than trying to
      help the person avoid problems over the car they set out to trap and hang
      them with it. To take something as great and fun as a barracuda and
      turn it to s#!+!!! is so wrong.
       
    • 451Cuda

      451Cuda Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      1,911
      Likes Received:
      697
      Joined:
      Nov 19, 2008
      Location:
      Port-aux-Français, TF
      Local Time:
      3:59 PM
      My thinking is there could be a shady reason why this has a different dash. But maybe not, a lot could have happened in years past.

      But like you say there's also the correctness issue and that will always be a problem with the Mopar crowd. The buyer of this car will get tired of answering suspicious questions at shows or cruises about the wrong body code on the vin.
       
    • Blind Squirrel

      Blind Squirrel Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      846
      Likes Received:
      670
      Joined:
      Oct 1, 2015
      Location:
      Pacific NW
      Local Time:
      3:59 PM
      Huh?
       
    • ssba

      ssba Well-Known Member

      Messages:
      2,293
      Likes Received:
      350
      Joined:
      Dec 29, 2009
      Location:
      rensselaer in
      Local Time:
      3:59 PM
      The chances of them making the responsible person pay is not good.
      They will go after who they can and they dont even know what that letter in a vin
      means. This is a witch hunt.
       
    • jimharvard

      jimharvard JimHarvard FABO Gold Member

      Messages:
      783
      Likes Received:
      324
      Joined:
      Jan 7, 2007
      Location:
      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
      Local Time:
      4:59 PM
      just for the record:

      1. my goal of bringing this car to the FABO community's attention was to perhaps educate younger car enthusiasts about the issue of VIN numbers when it comes to cars and "state authorities."

      2. i also wanted to discuss how it is possible to change a VIN number on a 67-69 Barracuda.

      3. as to the car dealership, i have no desire to get them into trouble or "to drop a dime on them" (you "kids" out there won't know what that phrase means but ask someone over 60 - it has to do with prehistoric "pay phones" that used to take "dimes" to make them work.)

      4. finally, i wanted all FABO members to just be careful when they buy an old mopar that they will fall in love with. the last thing that anyone would want to happen would be to buy a car, spend hundreds of hours of time and lots of money restoring it - only to find out that either "the Man is going to come and take my car away" OR "the Man ain't going to give me license plates for this thing!"


      with all the comments and views that this thread has generated, i think i've at least gotten these issues out for folks to think about...
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • jimharvard

        jimharvard JimHarvard FABO Gold Member

        Messages:
        783
        Likes Received:
        324
        Joined:
        Jan 7, 2007
        Location:
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
        Local Time:
        4:59 PM
        here's a bit of irony...

        nwdart here on FABO has just posted a thread titled "A56 Cuda." his discussion is about how to get a VIN number for a cuda "parts car" that he purchased that has a dash from another car in it.

        his post kinda reveals the problems that can result when a "dash swap" happens to a great old barracuda.
         
      • jeryst

        jeryst Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        521
        Likes Received:
        1
        Joined:
        Jan 10, 2007
        Location:
        Western PA
        Local Time:
        5:59 PM
        Quite a few years ago, I took a challenger dash to Carlisle to sell. I got it along with some other parts and didnt need it. It was from a desire able car and still had the VIN plate attached. As per pa law, I cut the VIN tag in half.

        You wouldnt believe how many people ran over and stopped to look at the dash, then walked away shaking their head, when they realized the tag was cut.
         
      • d5667

        d5667 Member this?

        Messages:
        9,397
        Likes Received:
        1156
        Joined:
        Oct 21, 2009
        Location:
        Mo libs here
        Local Time:
        3:59 PM
        this is commonplace when dealing with property that has been in multiple hands. How many of you will put your head on the block when you have no idea who has owned this before you? I bought one new in 69 and if I should ever sell it- it will sell "as is"! What would be your solution? Now what would be your solution considering you must right someone else's wrong? Funny how quickly this"hobby" morphs into a legal battle!
         
      • rc_brooks

        rc_brooks Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        85
        Likes Received:
        1
        Joined:
        Feb 27, 2006
        Location:
        So. Indiana
        Local Time:
        4:59 PM
        There are several states you don't even need a title to register a vehcile over 15 years old. I bet there are quite a few vehicles running around like that. I know a few trucks that have a different vin. They own both titles but haven't done a combined vehicle title yet. But they aren't selling it for thousands either.
         
      • jeryst

        jeryst Well-Known Member

        Messages:
        521
        Likes Received:
        1
        Joined:
        Jan 10, 2007
        Location:
        Western PA
        Local Time:
        5:59 PM
        It doesnt matter what the state laws are. Altering a VIN is a federal offense.
        Also, selling a vehicle "as is" does not protect a seller from selling a vehicle with an altered VIN.
        It also does not protect the seller if he intentionally commits fraud or does not disclose known defects.

        A guy I know bought a boat "as is" from a guy who said the boat was in good shape.
        He even went for a ride in it, but the seller would not let him drive, saying that too many people just wanted to take it out and beat it. After the guy bought it and took it out for the first time, he realized that something was wrong with the outdrive. He called the seller and the seller told him that he bought it "as is". The boat had a marina sticker on it, so the buyer took it to the marina to see about getting it fixed. They told him that the seller had brought the boat in and had been told the repairs would cost several thousand dollars. The buyer sued the seller, and the seller was forced to pay for the repairs.

        So, "as is" does not protect you if you intentionally try to defraud someone. The courts are even less lenient with businesses because they are supposed to be experts.

        And even if you buy something "as is", you may still have rights.
         
      • jimharvard

        jimharvard JimHarvard FABO Gold Member

        Messages:
        783
        Likes Received:
        324
        Joined:
        Jan 7, 2007
        Location:
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
        Local Time:
        4:59 PM
        he jeryst...

        thank you for your straight-forward and legally correct comment.

        my intention in starting this discussion was not to beat anyone up with the law or to threaten anyone or to "nit-pick" problems with "used cars." my intention was to alert fellow FABO folks about the problems one might encounter if one does not properly investigate a car before they buy it.

        as to the difference int the states as to "car titles and registration." yes, as to old cars, some states issue titles and some states do not. some states are more strict about registering older cars - some are more lax. HOWEVER, IT IS A CRIME TO ALTER A VEHICLE'S VIN NUMBER in ALL 50 states - under both state and federal law.

        and as to my fellow FABO members who believe that buying a vehicle "as is" will provide a 100% shield to the seller either from a civil suit or criminal prosecution: YOU ARE TAKING A RISK BY BELIEVING THAT!! if you sell a vehicle with a defect that you know about and don't disclose to the buyer, you MIGHT GET SUED once the buyer finds out. that doesn't automatically mean that you as the seller will lose the suit. however, in every state, the buyer would at least be able to file the suit if he has enough money or is really pissed off. and as to a criminal prosecution - well, again, if you have participated in or know about any alteration of the VIN on the car you are selling, and do not disclose that fact - YOU MAY GO TO JAIL!

        i grew up in West Virginia. in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, West Virginia was the "Wild West" as far as vehicles were concerned. you could buy, sell, repair, salvage any car in any condition you wanted. there were scores of "back yard mechanics" and "repair shops" in my hometown. i had one of those "backyard shops." we never did anything illegal but we never really complied with all the "commercial standards" expected of a "real" business either. at that time, the state authorities didn't care about cars with frame damage going down the road sideways (we used to call it "dog-legging"); or "flood damage" cars cleaned up and repaired and resold; or cutting one car up for the VIN numbers to repair another car so you could get a title for it. that was THEN - NOWHERE in the U.S. can you get away with that kind of behavior for very long in the year 2016.

        for my fellow FABO members who still think my concern about the VIN number on the car i've been discussing is "much ado about nothing" - i would just caution you that you may eventually get sued or have the cops stop by your house if you don't think the concerns i've been talking about "are no big deal." none of us want to see great old cars go to the crusher because of a technical "legal problem." however, in almost all cases, "legal problems" on a car can be solved - THE RIGHT WAY!!

        please remember my concerns whether you are buying OR selling an old MOPAR or anything else!
         
      1. This site uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
        By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.