Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: once again Bob is denying the issue, he significantly misrepresented the condition of car and his offer to reimburse me is not even the amount it cost me to resolve one of the myriad of issues noted let alone a fair and reasonable offer given the significant expense incurred to bring car to condition he represented it to be. I have posted pictures on the Revdex.com website in previous replies and offered to send to Bob directly but he never wanted to see them. I appreciate the Revdex.com's efforts but have engaged an attorney to resolve this issue.
Sincerely,[redacted]
In regards to the complaint about the 1966 Volvo 122S:
On December 8th 2015 I received an email from the customer that the car had been delivered tohim and that it "looks great" and "started right up". My reply was "Great! Let me know what youthink after the test drive". His later replies indicated...
that it "drives nice" and "handles well". Laterthat day he emailed me again to let me know that the headlights were not functioning properly andthat the trunk lid had trouble staying up, also stating that "I'd expect some stuff like this". (Seeattached email thread)
In a later phone conversation I offered to reimburse him for any expenses related to that.The following week the customer emailed me that he "ended up going to see a mechanic" and"As noted before, I'm fine with all that as I expected some minor issues and these fall into thatcategory". I replied "Ok, good, and as I've said I would be happy to reimburse you via paypal foryour expense". His reply was "Thanks again Bob for offer but no worries".
On May 13th 2016 (over 5 months later) I received an email from the customer with a detailed listof repairs that he had commissioned to the vehicle, many of which I disagreed with the necessityof. This was the first time he had made contact with me in over 5 months so it struck me as asurprise that he was having any problems with the car above what he originally mentioned.
Further, he stated:"I sent you this note hoping that you might be interested in offering to split the cost of the repairs toprevent my experience from being shared with the classic car community you deal with ascustomers and the Revdex.com. I'm sure you understand that a negative reviewsupported by before and after pictures and supported with receipts from a reputable mechanic andVolvo expert would not help your reputation or future sales. "
Not only did I feel that the customer's mechanic had effectively deconstructed the car looking forproblems, but also that I was kept unaware of the majority of the problems listed, aside from thetwo he mentioned to me. Further, his threatening tone to tarnish my reputation amounted to what Iconsider blackmail. My response was an offer to pay for the line items related to the original twoproblems he mentioned, which amounted to $150. I am still willing to pay that amount.
The customer signed a bill of sale upon purchase which clearly stated that "The vehicle is beingtransferred on an "as-is" basis, with no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the condition of thevehicle". In addition, the customer signed a FTC Buyer's Guide, mandated by federal law, whichstates that the vehicle is sold "As-is, No Warranty" and further states that "You will pay all costs forrepairs. The dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statementsabout the vehicle".
Bob W[redacted]Owner, Cascadia Classic LLC4601 NE Killingsworth St.Portland, OR 97218503-891-7702
[redacted]Please see attached documents[redacted]
In regards to the complaint ID [redacted]:The customer states that he may seek relief through legal action, under the premise of fraud or grossnegligence. In either case, I am prepared to provide proof of the quality of materials used (new OEM Volvoparts in many instances) as well as cataloged receipts from the vendors who worked on the car. The issuewill come down to "intent to defraud", which is clearly not the case here. I employed professionals who didthe work to the best of their abilities and I have the necessary proof to back that up.If the customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of that work then we have a difference of opinion. I wassatisfied with the work done and reflected my opinion of such in my marketing of the car. My impression isthat the customer employed a mechanic to rectify the 2 issues he first mentioned to me, and the mechanicproceeded to then deconstruct the car - and bill accordingly. Many of the issues noted in his invoice Idisagree with, for they were working properly when the car was sold to the customer. I was never given theopportunity to speak with the customer's mechanic, and was never even informed that this type of work wasbeing commissioned in the first place.The FTC Buyer's Guide which the customer reviewed and signed states that ''The dealer assumes noresponsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle". If the customer'sstandards are higher than mine, then a pre-purchase inspection should have been initiated. In mymarketing materials I clearly stated that "You and/or your representative are welcome and encouraged toinspect the car before the close of auction".I did state in my marketing materials that the car is "show quality'' and "bone stock", I did not use the phrase"like new car" as the customer has suggested. The only cars that are "like new" are new cars. The car thatthe customer bought is 50 years old, and while it is a show quality example, there were some flaws that Idefinitely made note of in the marketing materials. Additionally, there were over 80 high resolution photosshowing every detail of the car, undercarriage included.My business maintains a 100% feedback rating comprised of 1,048 sales on eBay (see attachment), and Istrive to ensure that my customers are satisfied. It's unfortunate that this customer is unhappy with hispurchase, and I tried twice to offer reimbursement for the issues that he mentioned to me upon receiving thecar. Being presented with a list of work he commissioned 5 months after that sale is not something I cantake responsibility for, especially when I was kept uniformed about it that entire time.Bob W[redacted]Owner, Cascadia Classic LLC4601 NE Killingsworth St.Portland, OR 97218503-891-7702
While Bob from Cascadia Classics accurately noted, I originally thought the car was in good shape with minimal issues. However, in trying to get resolution to these issues, I soon found out that my initial impression of the car’s condition has unfortunately been proven very wrong.
I wanted to believe that initial problems were limited to relatively easy fixes such as replacing headlight bulbs, tightening a few screws in terms of door pulls, trunk lid not staying open, or replacing tail light bulbs. However, I was not able to personally address any of these issues and the resolution of these issues was much more complicated. These initial issues noted also prevented me from being able to legally operate the car (no headlights, no taillights) and certainly prevented me from enjoying the "like a new car" condition that was represented to me numerous times by Bob. I also noted more and more issues such as the leaking windshield, the side window vent leaks, as well as mechanical issues including overheating of engine, leaking of coolant from car, etc.(see invoice for detailed list of issues noted by independent mechanic), as I had more time with the car.
In January 2016 I was able to find an independent, qualified mechanic who specializes in classic Volvos restoration and repair. As a result, I asked the mechanic to address the known issues but also inspect the condition of the car as compared to all the representations made by Bob in his advertisements on the car’s condition (see attached ads). The mechanic then showed me the various issues that included rust in floor of car (see attached pictures as example of rust found—other pictures are available documenting work and independent mechanic has stated that they will explain the condition of the car as they worked on it) and trunk; issues with heater; rust in battery tray; electrical shorts in headlights and taillights --use of improper screws included drywall screws; rusted coolant pipes that were leaking; water pump not working; steering box improperly installed and not safe; need for new bushings; manifold leak; wiper motor not working; seat cushion condition; heater tubes not installed properly and not correct heater tubes used; generator only attached with one improper bolt; etc.… He showed me each area where the condition was not as represented by Bob and was either dangerous, not functional or that would lead to future problems (such as rust). Attached is the invoice of work he performed at considerable cost to me to get car to condition as represented by Bob (“bone stock restoration,” “like new car,” “show quality condition,” etc.….).
Took me from time I received car in December 2015 to mid-January 2016 to find qualified mechanic and to get on his schedule. Then mechanic had car until mid-April 2016 to get issues addressed. In meantime, I was without use of car from December to April. I did not contact Bob in the interim as the condition issues kept accumulating and I wanted a complete list of all issues and cost to resolve the issues before next contact with Bob.
In consulting with an attorney from Oregon, he noted that Oregon State statute protects consumers from misrepresentations made by seller especially when the misrepresentations are as significant as I have noted on the list of repairs as compared to the specific language used in ads that Bob used to sell the car. The attorney noted that the misrepresentations could be interpreted as either deliberate which would constitute fraud or are the result of gross negligence in the work that was represented by Bob as being done to the car. However, in either scenario, there have certainly been significant damages incurred by the buyer including potentially punitive damages.
I paid a market premium for this car based on Bob’s representations and assurances. My contact with Bob once car repairs were completed was to allow him the opportunity to stand up and accept responsibility as a business person who stands behind his representations. I generously offered to split the cost of the repairs which was roughly $3500. Bob can either accept that offer to settle at half of costof issues or accept future consequences which can include legal action for entire cost of all repairs which could also include per Oregon statute, potential punitive damages as well as my legal fees.Outlining legal and ethical recourses available to a customer is not "blackmail". It is simply stating recourse so both parties understand impact of their actions. Oregon statute outlines available recourse as does the dispute process offered by Revdex.com and web sites that Bob uses to advertise his cars.
As a seller, Bob should also recognize that any future consumers would also be very interested in my unfortunate experience that is well documented by his representations of condition as compared to independent mechanic’s assessment of condition as supported by pictures and invoice of cost to repair numerous deficiencies. Also, potential customers I am sure would be interested in Bob’s refusal to a very generous offer to split costs and how he does not stand behind his work/representations.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: once again Bob is denying the issue, he significantly misrepresented the condition of car and his offer to reimburse me is not even the amount it cost me to resolve one of the myriad of issues noted let alone a fair and reasonable offer given the significant expense incurred to bring car to condition he represented it to be. I have posted pictures on the Revdex.com website in previous replies and offered to send to Bob directly but he never wanted to see them. I appreciate the Revdex.com's efforts but have engaged an attorney to resolve this issue.
Sincerely,[redacted]
In regards to the complaint about the 1966 Volvo 122S:
On December 8th 2015 I received an email from the customer that the car had been delivered tohim and that it "looks great" and "started right up". My reply was "Great! Let me know what youthink after the test drive". His later replies indicated...
that it "drives nice" and "handles well". Laterthat day he emailed me again to let me know that the headlights were not functioning properly andthat the trunk lid had trouble staying up, also stating that "I'd expect some stuff like this". (Seeattached email thread)
In a later phone conversation I offered to reimburse him for any expenses related to that.The following week the customer emailed me that he "ended up going to see a mechanic" and"As noted before, I'm fine with all that as I expected some minor issues and these fall into thatcategory". I replied "Ok, good, and as I've said I would be happy to reimburse you via paypal foryour expense". His reply was "Thanks again Bob for offer but no worries".
On May 13th 2016 (over 5 months later) I received an email from the customer with a detailed listof repairs that he had commissioned to the vehicle, many of which I disagreed with the necessityof. This was the first time he had made contact with me in over 5 months so it struck me as asurprise that he was having any problems with the car above what he originally mentioned.
Further, he stated:"I sent you this note hoping that you might be interested in offering to split the cost of the repairs toprevent my experience from being shared with the classic car community you deal with ascustomers and the Revdex.com. I'm sure you understand that a negative reviewsupported by before and after pictures and supported with receipts from a reputable mechanic andVolvo expert would not help your reputation or future sales. "
Not only did I feel that the customer's mechanic had effectively deconstructed the car looking forproblems, but also that I was kept unaware of the majority of the problems listed, aside from thetwo he mentioned to me. Further, his threatening tone to tarnish my reputation amounted to what Iconsider blackmail. My response was an offer to pay for the line items related to the original twoproblems he mentioned, which amounted to $150. I am still willing to pay that amount.
The customer signed a bill of sale upon purchase which clearly stated that "The vehicle is beingtransferred on an "as-is" basis, with no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the condition of thevehicle". In addition, the customer signed a FTC Buyer's Guide, mandated by federal law, whichstates that the vehicle is sold "As-is, No Warranty" and further states that "You will pay all costs forrepairs. The dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statementsabout the vehicle".
Bob W[redacted]Owner, Cascadia Classic LLC4601 NE Killingsworth St.Portland, OR 97218503-891-7702
[redacted]Please see attached documents[redacted]
In regards to the complaint ID [redacted]:The customer states that he may seek relief through legal action, under the premise of fraud or grossnegligence. In either case, I am prepared to provide proof of the quality of materials used (new OEM Volvoparts in many instances) as well as cataloged receipts from the vendors who worked on the car. The issuewill come down to "intent to defraud", which is clearly not the case here. I employed professionals who didthe work to the best of their abilities and I have the necessary proof to back that up.If the customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of that work then we have a difference of opinion. I wassatisfied with the work done and reflected my opinion of such in my marketing of the car. My impression isthat the customer employed a mechanic to rectify the 2 issues he first mentioned to me, and the mechanicproceeded to then deconstruct the car - and bill accordingly. Many of the issues noted in his invoice Idisagree with, for they were working properly when the car was sold to the customer. I was never given theopportunity to speak with the customer's mechanic, and was never even informed that this type of work wasbeing commissioned in the first place.The FTC Buyer's Guide which the customer reviewed and signed states that ''The dealer assumes noresponsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle". If the customer'sstandards are higher than mine, then a pre-purchase inspection should have been initiated. In mymarketing materials I clearly stated that "You and/or your representative are welcome and encouraged toinspect the car before the close of auction".I did state in my marketing materials that the car is "show quality'' and "bone stock", I did not use the phrase"like new car" as the customer has suggested. The only cars that are "like new" are new cars. The car thatthe customer bought is 50 years old, and while it is a show quality example, there were some flaws that Idefinitely made note of in the marketing materials. Additionally, there were over 80 high resolution photosshowing every detail of the car, undercarriage included.My business maintains a 100% feedback rating comprised of 1,048 sales on eBay (see attachment), and Istrive to ensure that my customers are satisfied. It's unfortunate that this customer is unhappy with hispurchase, and I tried twice to offer reimbursement for the issues that he mentioned to me upon receiving thecar. Being presented with a list of work he commissioned 5 months after that sale is not something I cantake responsibility for, especially when I was kept uniformed about it that entire time.Bob W[redacted]Owner, Cascadia Classic LLC4601 NE Killingsworth St.Portland, OR 97218503-891-7702
While Bob from Cascadia Classics accurately noted, I originally thought the car was in good shape with minimal issues. However, in trying to get resolution to these issues, I soon found out that my initial impression of the car’s condition has unfortunately been proven very wrong.
I wanted to believe that initial problems were limited to relatively easy fixes such as replacing headlight bulbs, tightening a few screws in terms of door pulls, trunk lid not staying open, or replacing tail light bulbs. However, I was not able to personally address any of these issues and the resolution of these issues was much more complicated. These initial issues noted also prevented me from being able to legally operate the car (no headlights, no taillights) and certainly prevented me from enjoying the "like a new car" condition that was represented to me numerous times by Bob. I also noted more and more issues such as the leaking windshield, the side window vent leaks, as well as mechanical issues including overheating of engine, leaking of coolant from car, etc.(see invoice for detailed list of issues noted by independent mechanic), as I had more time with the car.
In January 2016 I was able to find an independent, qualified mechanic who specializes in classic Volvos restoration and repair. As a result, I asked the mechanic to address the known issues but also inspect the condition of the car as compared to all the representations made by Bob in his advertisements on the car’s condition (see attached ads). The mechanic then showed me the various issues that included rust in floor of car (see attached pictures as example of rust found—other pictures are available documenting work and independent mechanic has stated that they will explain the condition of the car as they worked on it) and trunk; issues with heater; rust in battery tray; electrical shorts in headlights and taillights --use of improper screws included drywall screws; rusted coolant pipes that were leaking; water pump not working; steering box improperly installed and not safe; need for new bushings; manifold leak; wiper motor not working; seat cushion condition; heater tubes not installed properly and not correct heater tubes used; generator only attached with one improper bolt; etc.… He showed me each area where the condition was not as represented by Bob and was either dangerous, not functional or that would lead to future problems (such as rust). Attached is the invoice of work he performed at considerable cost to me to get car to condition as represented by Bob (“bone stock restoration,” “like new car,” “show quality condition,” etc.….).
Took me from time I received car in December 2015 to mid-January 2016 to find qualified mechanic and to get on his schedule. Then mechanic had car until mid-April 2016 to get issues addressed. In meantime, I was without use of car from December to April. I did not contact Bob in the interim as the condition issues kept accumulating and I wanted a complete list of all issues and cost to resolve the issues before next contact with Bob.
In consulting with an attorney from Oregon, he noted that Oregon State statute protects consumers from misrepresentations made by seller especially when the misrepresentations are as significant as I have noted on the list of repairs as compared to the specific language used in ads that Bob used to sell the car. The attorney noted that the misrepresentations could be interpreted as either deliberate which would constitute fraud or are the result of gross negligence in the work that was represented by Bob as being done to the car. However, in either scenario, there have certainly been significant damages incurred by the buyer including potentially punitive damages.
I paid a market premium for this car based on Bob’s representations and assurances. My contact with Bob once car repairs were completed was to allow him the opportunity to stand up and accept responsibility as a business person who stands behind his representations. I generously offered to split the cost of the repairs which was roughly $3500. Bob can either accept that offer to settle at half of costof issues or accept future consequences which can include legal action for entire cost of all repairs which could also include per Oregon statute, potential punitive damages as well as my legal fees.Outlining legal and ethical recourses available to a customer is not "blackmail". It is simply stating recourse so both parties understand impact of their actions. Oregon statute outlines available recourse as does the dispute process offered by Revdex.com and web sites that Bob uses to advertise his cars.
As a seller, Bob should also recognize that any future consumers would also be very interested in my unfortunate experience that is well documented by his representations of condition as compared to independent mechanic’s assessment of condition as supported by pictures and invoice of cost to repair numerous deficiencies. Also, potential customers I am sure would be interested in Bob’s refusal to a very generous offer to split costs and how he does not stand behind his work/representations.
[redacted]Please see attached documents[redacted]