Jay_Laifman@countrywide.com writes:
>My big disagreement is that this is not "fraud", by the very legal
>definition of fraud, nor in my view automatically unethical. So blame
>me
>for being hyper-technical. You might feel it is wrong for someone to do
>it. That's fine. I'm only saying don't think you can sue someone under
>the cause of action of fraud and win. If you had those other elements,
>like hiding of theft or damage, then yes, you would have a fraud cause
>of
>action. But, not from the simple restoration of a couple cars where the
>VIN from one ends up on another, like Bill had in mind.
My feeling is this, if you sell a vehicle with an altered VIN and do
not tell the buyer, it is fraud, whether there is damage to hide or
not. What is being hidden is the original VIN, what is being hidden is
the fact that the car is not original. OK, I know you don't disagree
with that.
Now, if you sell a car to someone and you tell them it has been altered
but you never cleared it with DMV, well that's probably not fraud
(though the DMV might have a different interpretation) but you have
definitely broken the law, CVC 10750 & 10751.
CNA
|