It took me waaaay longer than it should have to realize that didn't read 'the worst Chili Red cases'. I've got MINIs on the brain and need sleep badly.

 

OK - you you retained an attorney and will or have filed. Did you try speaking with MINI Corporate first? If so, what did they say? Also, did your attorney tell you that MINI only has to disclose the damage if the total damage is more than 3% of the car's value?
From what you described it was probably just a few minor scratches -which I'm sure happens all the time to new cars regardless of the brand. We all love our cars here, but this sounds a little excessive don't you think?

 

I support tort reform as a concept, but the alleged facts of this case are not even close to the numerous examples of those that are truly frivolous
This guy just seems to want to be paid for the diminished value caused by the accident... like it or not, diminished value is real thing... I assure you the industry will use it against you when you go to trade in your car after it has been damaged and repaired.
Funny thing here is that many of the criticisms of the owner are based on the supposed fact that the damage was minor. But no one really knows the extent of the damage... why.... because it was apparently not disclosed before it was covered up... it's not the accident...it's the non disclosure.. maybe it was minor, maybe not... he paid a premium for a new car, not a car that was in an accident of an unknown severity. It would be very little effort to disclose repaints to new car buyers. I don't see a big burden on the industry here. In a case like this, they should just pay the owner the diminsihed value, that's not too much to ask. Any stonewalling or wrongful denial can make the industry seem like an arrogant big bully to some people and make a ridiculous big verdict more likely.

 

Well, again, I hope he can thicken up his skin a bit and keep us informed on what he finds out, we can all learn something from this no matter which way it goes or how we feel about the OP and his methods.............

 

Just throwing this out there -

I've done quite a bit of body work on numerous cars, from late model BMW's to 40's Olds coupes. On nearly every last one, from 1980 to present, I've found evidence of at least one ding that was repaired before the customer bought it. How can you tell? Different bondo/glaze, different paint structure and finish, and a nearly flawless repair including no paint layering. Most damage post-customer is fairly obvious. When I bought my Delta, it had plenty of scrapes and dings, and when I stripped it to metal, I found two different colors of bondo - one was over the paint, the other was under. Later I found out that it was very common for GM to repair a 1/4 panel in this way if it became damaged in handling than to completely reskin the panel or scrap the car. I'd assume that even now car companies are doing this. With all the vehicles that are transported, it would be foolish to think that they all arrive damage free, and if a car has one or two "parking lot" dings, it wouldn't be proper to send the car back for total reconditioning. If your paint is only .03 thicker than the rest of the car? Seriously? Methinks that you either took it to a shady dealer, or you didn't stand up for yourself, because if you only have that much bondo on your car, that was definitely a parking lot ding done before pickup. Take it back to them, tell them you want $25-27K or you're walking.

Best bet would be to take it to another state and sell it to a MINI dealership.


JMO.

 

I'm not surprised at your attitude toward this situation, given that you work the other side.

Several years ago, a friend of mine was denied rust-through warranty coverage on a Mopar product. The reason for the denial? They found the area that had rust-through had been repainted/repaired, something he had no prior knowledge of.

The company's position was a factory paint job seals an area off against rust, but once it's been hit, there's a much higher chance of failure.

Since the appraisal business takes the same attitude, MINI should be on the hook for the diminished value.....

 

This is completely wrong. Know it or not, the dealer IS responsible for the condition of the car when it sells it to you. Their recourse is to Mini/BMW, but that is their problem, not the buyer's. It is not the consumer's obligation to figure out where the damage occurred, if it was incurred prior to the delivery.

 

So, you'd have no problem if you found out your $1,000 television had been dropped, broken and repaired, even though, had you known, you would have gotten it for $500?

 

I don't think your example is appropriate, even tho Carmax values his car at 1/2 of what he paid, they are not the only arbiter of it's value. That's the part that bothers me, why didn't he get any bids anywhere else? If he had gottena buy bid close to what he wanted, would this thread be here?

 

[quote=itburns;1929518]It's not a defect, there is nothing defective about the car.

As long as the car was never sold (registered) prior to the OP buying it, it is a new unit, and the manufacturer can "repair" anything about it ....

I do work for a major motor vehicle manufacturer, I am not an atty but was in charge of handling the most escallated situations in customer relations ... [END QUOTE]
...

It seems like your company's position is that whether a repaired product is in new condition is determined primarily by its title status ... Frankly, while that may be the policy your company imposes upon its customers, I doubt all courts would find it that simple.

 

There may be variances in the car's valuation, but that doesn't absolve the dealor or manufacturer of it's obligations to provide disclosures required by law.

 

Exactly. Carmax would have found something - even if they made it up - to bring down what they were going to offer for the car. Then they turn around and charge top dollar when they sell it. That's just their business model...

Selling this car on his own, as a private sale, would probably return a FAIR market value for the car, regardless of the re-paint. But the car depreciated as soon as he drove it off the lot...

 

FWIW, CarMax offered me $9,500 for my fully loaded 2003 Cooper that I ended up selling for $13,000 private party though I paid $25,000 for it.

 

This whole thing makes me worry about my car. It was at the VDC for about 2 weeks, when I asked my MA if there was any damage, he said no, it's just a scheduling issue. When I waxed the car for the first time, I did find a "dab" of touch-up paint on the passenger fender. Other than that it looks fine.

 

You guys might be interested in a parallel thread on a Texas forum:

http://www.metroplexmini.org/forum/s...ad.php?t=22116

Man, I've got to start shopping at your Wally World. Mine wouldn't even reimburse me for a rotten head of lettuce!

 

Same OP here, for anyone that likes to focus on NAM:
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...d.php?t=122860

 

Entirely different issue...not something that should be introduced to this thread...

 

I brought it up because it's another one of those "everyone boycott MINI because something is wrong with MY car" threads.

 

wow! I don't think this thread will ever end.

 

You guys are missing the point. If the car was damaged before delivery and Mini did not disclose it, they violated the law. As the plaintiff in a suit, the OP has evidence to introduce that the violation caused him damage (diminished value). As a defense, Mini could produce independent expert opinion that there was no damage, but the best way for them to do that is offer the plaintiff fair value for the vehicle with no deduction for the repairs.

 

I disagree. The OP isn't saying boycott Mini because his car is damaged. He's saying "watch out" (quotations denote expression, not actual quote of PO) because Mini refuses to acknowledge it damaged and repaired his car --- a BIG difference. I can accept accidents happen. I cannot accept them defauding me.

 

Well, maybe they didn't damage and repair his car?

He claims they did, they say they didn't. After all the court references on this subject, don't you think they would be very careful about their documentation on this matter? And why would they lie about it? What do they have to gain? He has quite a bit to gain, but what do they? At the very least they've lost a good customer and source of revenue. This whole thing smells to me.........but I hope we find out the true answer before it's over. I get the impression the OP didn't like having his integrity questioned and has abandoned the thread.......

 

I am not making judgments about the OP's character; I am simply pointing out that his complaint isn't that the car was damaged, but that Mini concealed that fact and the repair (assuming the OP is not lying, which I have no basis to challenge).

I would like to add that I have been accused of falsifying a complaint before, based on the rediculous assumption of the accuser that Mini wouldn't risk losing customers. Based on that logic, all civil actions should just be thrown out because no one would risk getting sued. I've also been accused of actually being a Mini spy because I disagreed with a complaining poster. Equally as stupid.

 

I think you're missing the point.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The evidence does not point to Mini covering up damage (poor paintwork; high VPC quality control; no motivation to cover up something so minor). Besides, it is reasonable to expect some damage in transit, and it is reasonable for a minor paint flaw to be repaired if it does not affect the appearance (it didn't, as he stated here) or function of the vehicle (it obviously didn't).

The burden of proving diminished value is also on the plaintiff. He has already shot himself in the foot by quoting a wholesale amount well within the wholesale value of the vehicle. So he has suffered no damages, and is not due any retribution.

In addition, without proof, his statements here are potentially libelous and therefore the defendants have no motivation to settle amicably.

 

Sure he is. The manufacturer and the dealer can't both be at fault.