Vxr No 16 For Sale
#221
Posted 03 August 2007 - 11:51 PM
#222
Posted 04 August 2007 - 07:20 AM
#223
Posted 04 August 2007 - 09:10 AM
What a crock of sh** lol
Sounds a big bag of cr** to me!
Dont buy IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love this forum
Well done Tango & Chuno
Should'nt that be tango an cash
#224
Posted 04 August 2007 - 09:11 AM
The scary thing about this for a nieve country bumpkin like me is the lengths some could go to make a totally rebuilt wreck look like a pristine car and scam someone's very hard earned cash out of them. The lack of co-operation shown by the seller, especially in a forum full of VX experts, has made my mind up about the car and its history and I hope that nobody gets their fingers burnt before the car's true history is unveiled.
If you are knowingly trying to selling a damaged repaired car as a mint example then you know what sort of lowlife you are and have been well and truly sussed here.
If you bought the car in potentially the same manner someone might buy it from you now, ie in ignorance, then you have my utmost sympathy and I hope you resolve the situation with your seller.
For god's sake though, allow these very knowledable people to help you get to the bottom of the situation. They only have the "do the right thing" menatality at heart and do it for the love of the Marque. Dragging your heals will only increase the suspicious nature of the car's history and the sale on the whole.
I genuinely hope you are an innocent "private seller" and get the situation sorted very soon.
The quicker we get to the bottom of this, the quicker any potential buyers from other advert sources can be warned as to whether the car's a lemon or a proper belter.
MOz
#225
Posted 04 August 2007 - 10:12 AM
Car is not damaged Can be proved Full price sale Car is not damaged Can't be proved Probable full price sale Car is damaged Can't be proved Possible full price sale to a naive buyer Car is damaged Can be proved Cut price saleThe only way that Imran must sale at a cut price is if the car is damaged and it can be proved.
As it only really matters if it can be proved that it was damaged, I am suspicious of anyone who seems to be hiding a car's history.
More logic...
Paid full price Proven damaged Sell for cut price Loss Paid full price Proven not damaged Sell for full price Break even Paid cut price Proven damaged Sell for cut price Break even Paid cut price Proven not damaged Sell for full price ProfitAgain, the only way to make a loss would be if the car was proven to be damaged. While no one actually knows, a profit is still possible.
If the car isn't saleable to anyone here, it could always be sold to a garage. It may be that it would mean a 5%/10% cut in the price, but it would still be achieving something near the £20k asking price.
Unless of course, there is something about the car that a garage/mechanic would spot
#226
Posted 04 August 2007 - 10:41 AM
#227
Posted 04 August 2007 - 03:13 PM
#228
Posted 04 August 2007 - 03:25 PM
#229
Posted 04 August 2007 - 04:39 PM
#230
Posted 04 August 2007 - 04:42 PM
With respect, that's rubish Dave...... NO
Previous owner information is publicly available (for a fee) YES so where's the issue? There is not
Imi can refuse if he wishes (and probably will). Agreed
I can't believe you're seeking to protect the instigator of the most blatent sacm this forum has ever seen. I'm not
Are you on some Liberty mission?...NO
#231
Posted 04 August 2007 - 04:47 PM
#232
Posted 04 August 2007 - 05:38 PM
Edited by Dave, 04 August 2007 - 05:56 PM.
#233
Posted 04 August 2007 - 05:46 PM
#234 Guest_Bletch (Guest)
Posted 04 August 2007 - 05:54 PM
I am not sure he is going to do that thoughDave, we know the answers to those questions, but don't wish to alienate anybody or put them in an aawkward position..
It would be FAR simpler for Imran just to own up.
#235
Posted 04 August 2007 - 05:54 PM
Dave, we know the answers to those questions, but don't wish to alienate anybody or put them in an aawkward position..
It would be FAR simpler for Imran just to own up.
arrrhhhh haaa as I suspected. (now that was not difficult)
So it is behond resonable doubt. (or on the balance of probability)
So he is GUILTY....thanks Cocopops......thats made my mind up...no point now getting him to admit it now.
Equally I think Imran knows who he sent the photos to
Edited by Dave, 04 August 2007 - 06:02 PM.
#236
Posted 04 August 2007 - 06:10 PM
#237
Posted 04 August 2007 - 06:15 PM
Foxy
Anyway back on topic...
Chuno knows who sent the photos - YES
The person who sent them to him thinks they are from Iram - YES
If that person can state (or honesty thinks) that they came from Iram...can that person say so.
Imran has knowingly tried to conceal the facts.
Please tell me were i have concealed any facts? and who is this Iram person? why cant you (chuno) just say who sent those pics to you.
#238
Posted 04 August 2007 - 06:16 PM
#239
Posted 04 August 2007 - 06:21 PM
Why does it matter who sent the pics?why cant you (chuno) just say who sent those pics to you.
#240
Posted 04 August 2007 - 06:28 PM
Why does it matter who sent the pics?why cant you (chuno) just say who sent those pics to you.
Because they are not from my brothers garage so i would like to know where they were taken and where they came from to get to the bottom of this, at least then we can know if the car is my car?
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users