Lawsuits and McLaren F1s don't mix...

[Peloton25]

Buyer Wants $2.6M for Damaged Ferraris

LOS ANGELES (CN) - A car buyer claims a Beverly Hills dealer sold him two rare Ferraris -- a 275 NART Spyder and a McLaren F1 -- for $4.5 million, but both cars were damaged and the dealer never delivered the McLaren.

Bernard Carl says he agreed to buy a Ferrari 275 NART Spyder and a McLaren F1 from Andrew Cohen and John Gillespie of Beverly Hills Sports and Classic Cars.

The yellow Spyder, the last of only 10 ever made, "is like a Picasso in the vintage car market, a piece of art heavily sought after but rarely available for sale," Carl claims in Superior Court.

Spyder owners include Steve McQueen and Ralph Lauren, the complaint states, and the 275 NART Spyder is valued at $7 million.

The McLaren F1 is one of fewer than 70 McLaren road cars produced during the car's production run from 1994 to 1998, the complaint states.

The contract allegedly stipulated that Carl would get new sets of original and authentic tires and rims for both cars. Cohen also agreed to have the cars delivered to Carl's home in Southampton, N.Y., the complaint says. The Spyder was to be imported from Japan. Cohen and Gillespie assured Carl that both cars had been inspected and were in good condition with original parts and no history of damage, the lawsuit states.

After paying in full for both cars, Carl says he received the Spyder, but the McLaren never showed up. To add insult to injury, he says, both cars have suffered substantial damage that has decreased their values and affected their authenticity.

The Spyder was in a collision and the McLaren has had an overheating and fire episode, according to the complaint.

Carl demands $2.6 million in general damages, an order forcing Cohen to deliver the McLaren, punitive damages, interest and costs for breach of contract, recovery of personal property, conversion, fraud, misrepresentation and conspiracy.

Carl is represented by Laurie Hiller.

Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/06/28617.htm

I know which car it is, but I'm looking for more details.

>8^)
ER

[Paulthagerous]

Is it the obvious one? Or a more obscure one?

[Peloton25]

I don't think it would qualify as obvious, but then I don't know everything that you know.

>8^)
ER

[Paulthagerous]

I would consider this the obvious one:

http://www.carsuk.net/mclaren-f1-the...ornia-burn-up/

[Peloton25]

Oh - didn't even think of that one. That car (#067) is being put back together for its owner. It may be completed already - I have not heard.

This story is referring to another car. I'll try to see if I can spill the beans and share some photos. I did know about the lawsuit which was how I discovered the article, but I have zero knowledge on the fire incident described within. In fact reading that article was the first I've heard that particular part of the story.

>8^)
ER

[Paulthagerous]

Originally Posted by Peloton25

Oh - didn't even think of that one. That car (#067) is being put back together for its owner. It may be completed already - I have not heard.

No, it's another car. I'll try to see if I can spill the beans and share some photos. I did know about the lawsuit which was how I discovered the article, but I have zero knowledge on the fire incident described within. In fact reading that article was the first I've heard that particular part of the story.

>8^)
ER

I hope you can see why that was the 'obvious' one to me

If you hadn't heard of this one being damaged, maybe it in actual fact wasn't fire damaged....

[Peloton25]

Yeah - totally get it now. I just didn't make the connection between the fire incident mentioned in the article and your "obvious one" comment. Otherwise it would have been a simple 'nope'.

I've been hearing rumors about this car for several months now, but none have mentioned a fire. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It could have even been something that happened much earlier in its life that we aren't aware of but that the factory has records on.

>8^)
ER

[Peloton25]

Pretty certain this is the Ferrari being referred to:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/car-r...oy-nart-spyder

I looked for comments related to this in the FChat Vintage forum and didn't see any so I started my own thread.

>8^)
ER

[cabrio92]

Hello,

You are not sure about the chassis number ?

Phil

[Peloton25]

I am completely sure of the chassis number - I even knew before our email exchange yesterday.

At this point the only thing I am unsure of is whether it should be mentioned publicly yet.

>8^)
ER

[Peloton25]

Okay - before speculation runs amok here based solely on the article I found, the user Terra on FChat has shared these comments which also conveniently identify the F1's chassis number to all:

The story is completely wrong factually.

Since the 1990s, Bernie Carl owned a 275 GTS/4 NART Spider #11057. It was quietly on the market for some time.

John Gillespie had a British client for a NART Spider. The client ended up purchasing 11057.

Apparently, some trades were injected into the transaction (i.e. perhaps Bernie Carl opted for some sort of a 1031-esque "Like-Kind" Tax Trade due to the large Captial Gains tax exposure from the sale of the NART Spider for circa-$7 million?).

Anyways, the two part-exchanges were a silver 1994 McLaren F1 road car #013 and a yellow 1966 Ferrari 275 GTB Alloy #08067 fitted from new with an outside fuel filler, factory roll bar and six carburetors). The McLaren F1 apparently sits in the Free Trade Zone in Baltimore (i.e. it hasn't officially entered into the stream of U.S. Commerce).

Some people have posited/theorized that the aforementioned lawsuit might be related to Bernie Carl's general displeasure for what he believes to be a rather large discrepancy between what Cohen/Gillespie's actual acquisition costs were for the McLaren F1 and 275 GTB Alloy were, versus the respective values which were assigned to them in the Tax Trade structure, etc.

That clears things up tremendously.

I guess ELIZABETH BANICKI who is credited with that earlier article needs to work on her fact checking skills.

>8^)
ER

[hurstg01]

#013 is a lovely car [I am slightly biased as that was the first F1 I sat in ] its such a shame the red stripe on the ventline has gone....

[bcarldc]

I am the owner of the cars involved in this thread.

In mid-2009, I accepted a trade of Ferrari 275GTB 6C (08046) and McLaren F1 (013) against my 275 GTB/S NART Spyder (11057). A very specific part of the sale contract was an agreement that I would receive a right of first refusal to repurchase the NART (11057). The trade was organized through a well-known California dealer -- Andy Cohen.

I delivered the NART Spyder as required by my contract. However, I did not receive the promised right of first refusal or the two trades.

When it became clear that the right of first refusal would not be available in the form required by the sales contract, I demanded that the transaction be unwound, my NART Spyder be returned to me, the buyer be fully reimbursed and the deal be cancelled altogether. I then learned that the NART had already been delivered to its buyer, he had already paid duty and taxes on the car and the car was not recoverable.

When I spoke to the buyer directly, he insisted that he had dealt with a John Gillespie and not Mr. Cohen, that he had never seen or agreed to the right of first refusal language in the contract, that he was not prepared to honor that term of that contract and that he was not prepared to unwind the transaction.

Despite having already received a receipt and bill of sale for both the 275 GTB and the McLaren from Andy Cohen -- acknowledging that I had fully paid for both cars -- Mr. Cohen and his partner, Mr. Gillespie, threatened to refuse to turn the two two trade cars over to me unless I agreed to waive the right of first refusal. I refused. I ultimately had to file suit in California to secure possession of the cars. Pursuant to a California Court order, I have gotten both title to and possession of both cars.

The 275 GTB has now been resold to its prior owner and is now back in good hands. The McLaren has been imported in my name and is in a free trade zone in Baltimore, Maryland. I have also secured a "show & display" waiver for the McLaren based on my proven ownership of the vehicle. If, as has been reported to me, Mr. Gillespie is still claiming a continuing ownership interest in this car or any right to present it for sale, he is liar.

The McLaren involved is s/n 013. It is not the car that suffered serious damage in the heavily reported fire referred to on this site. That car is a different vehicle and is the subject of an article in this month's Sports Car Market Magazine.

My car (013) has had only one untoward incident in its short life, virtually all of which was spent in a museum in Japan. While the car was briefly in Europe in 2007, the catalytic converters overheated in traffic. The cats were badly damaged and the heat caused paint blistering and damage to the engine cover. The car was returned to the McLaren factory where the catalytic converters were replaced, the rear body work repainted and all the mechanical aspects of the car fully checked out by the McLaren factory's mechanics.

The lawsuit has continued. I am seeking to recover the value of the promised, but never delivered right of first refusal; the damages I sustained as a result of the year it took me to get possession of the two trade cars; the value of certain accessories and parts the sellers had promised to deliver with the cars but never provided; the failure of the sellers to live up to their contractual obligation to pay the import duty and conversion costs to make the McLaren fully US road legal; and damages for misrepresentations made in the contract including as to the accident history of the 275 GTB (08046) and the service history of the McLaren (013).

[Sami Aaltonen]

Welcome to the Forum!
Appreciate very much sharing this detail information!

[Peloton25]

Hello Mr Carl - thank you for joining us and taking the time to set the record straight. As you can plainly see from the article I linked to, the full story wasn't even close to being presented there; instead it just added to the confusion.

I'm sorry to hear of a fellow enthusiast who is able to pursue his passions getting wrapped up in such a mess, and a very expensive one at that. BHCC and Andy Cohen have had an interesting history with a few strong supporters in the face of other less than favorable reviews I have seen. It seems all is not right with his business practices and that of his associates from time to time and I hope you are able to be made whole (or as near as can be) through the legal process you are currently pursuing.

One question - there are quite a few brokers who do appear to be offering chassis #013 on the market these days. Are those brokers acting on behalf of you, or is it your intention to keep the F1 now?

I also appreciate the extra detail you supplied about the cat overheating incident. That was reported to be the same problem which occured with the other car you mention - #067 - but of course with much more drastic results. In the case of #013 it explains why Gordon Murray's signature went missing from the brake balance foil where it had been for so many years. It was last spotted on the car when it was listed through AutoSalonSingen in Germany in August 2007 and had disappeared upon its return to BingoSports inventory in Japan in June 2008. It seemed odd that anyone would have chosen to remove that. Here's an older photo of it if you aren't familiar:



The other thing that has gone missing from #013 were the red stripes on the ventlines of the door. They were only decals, but served to offer a fairly unique touch that set the car apart from the multitude of other silver F1s in the world. If you admire them too it would be nice to see them make a return.



>8^)
ER