Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
1-800-287-1202
BShook@dcdlaw.net
Des Moines, Iowa (1-29-2009) – Jury rules that seller breached contract when he did not disclose a 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 (VIN 124379L524309) did not retain its original engine.
The case began in June 2003 when the Defendant, David Reyes, acquired the Camaro from a co-worker for $15,000.00. When the Defendant acquired the Camaro from his co-worker, he testified that it did not have its original engine and that another engine was given to him by his co-worker at the time of the sale. This other engine was the crux of the case.
The story goes that when the engine in the vehicle began to run poorly and smoke a little, the Defendant had the engine that his co-worker had given him rebuilt. Apparently, his co-worker had located the other engine and choose it because it was date coded appropriately for this particular December 1969 built Camaro. The story goes that the co-worker had the vehicle identification number of the Camaro stamped into this replacement engine, making the replacement engine look identical to the original engine, prior to the Defendant acquiring it.
In April 2004, Defendant placed the newly rebuilt, but non-original, restamped engine in the Camaro and placed the Camaro for sale through the internet auction website, eBay.com. The Defendant placed the vehicle up for auction with a “Buy it Now®” price of $35,000.00, over twice what he paid for the vehicle less than a year earlier. This may not seem to be a big deal, but in this case, the numbers on the non-original engine were stamped so well, that even the Defendant’s own expert witness on cross examination by Attorney Shook, at the trial could not tell they were restamped. No where in the description did the Defendant ever say the vehicle did not have its original engine and he never disclosed this fact.
Specifically, the Defendant advertised the car has being “Numbers Matching DZ302 Original,” “unmolested,” “low mileage,” and “as close to being a true survivor as any you’ll find.” The auction ended with the Plaintiff, Daryl Hansmeier of Davenport, Iowa buying the Camaro for $25,200.00.
It was never disclosed to Plaintiff that the engine in the vehicle was not the original engine, as a matter of fact, the engine restamping was not disclosed to Mr. Hansmeier until February 27, 2007 nearly three years after the sale of the vehicle.
In March 2007, the buyer, Mr. Hansmeier contacted noted classic car fraud attorney, Bryan W. Shook (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania) to help him resolve this matter. An inspection of the Camaro was performed by world-renowned Camaro guru, Jerry MacNeish (Eldersburg, Maryland). Upon inspection, Mr. MacNeish confirmed that while the Camaro was a genuine Z/28 model, it did have a restamped, non-original engine. Mr. MacNeish valued the car at $19,500.00 at the time of purchase, meaning that Mr. Hansmeier paid too much for the vehicle when he purchased it.
Local counsel, David Hellstern of the Kreamer Law Firm in West Des Moines, Iowa and Attorney Shook subsequently filed suit on behalf of the Plaintiff, Daryl Hansmeier and his wife for Breach of Contract, Fraud, Material Misrepresentation and Breach of Warranties.
A three day trial was held at the Polk County Iowa Courthouse on January 26-28, 2009 with the Honorable Chief Judge Arthur Gamble presiding.. The Defendant, Mr. Reyes’, defense was that he and the Plaintiff, Mr. Hansmeier, had different meanings of the terms of the contract, namely the term, “Numbers Matching DZ 302 Original.” The Plaintiff put on the testimony of noted Camaro historian and chief judge of concours judging at the Camaro Nationals in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Jerry MacNeish, who testified that the phrase, “Numbers Matching DZ 302 Original,” means, to someone in the market for a 1969 Camaro Z/28 that they are looking at a vehicle with its original 302 cubic inch engine with it’s original stampings. Mr. MacNeish stated unequivocally that a person without specialized knowledge would not be able to tell that the engine had been restamped and accordingly wouldn’t know that he had been deceived until someone told him.
The jury retired to the deliberation room early in the afternoon of Wednesday, January 28, 2009 and quickly returned a unanimous verdict finding that the seller, David Reyes was liable for breach of contract for failing to deliver to Mr. Hansmeier the 1969 Camaro he promised him, specifically, a 1969 Camaro Z/28 retaining its original, correct, numbers matching engine.
Attorney Bryan W. Shook, is a true car guy, in every sense of the work, he is not only an collector, restorer and hobbyist, but is also and attorney who devotes a large portion of his practice to helping other collectors and hobbyists when they find themselves the victim of receiving something other than how it was advertised. Currently Attorney Shook is involved in automotive deception cases and represents clients in nearly a dozen states. Attorney Shook had this to say about the case, “Let it be known, that misrepresentations in the collector car hobby will not be dealt with lightly, the court system proved this today by a unanimous jury verdict in favor of full disclosure and truthful dealings.”