Okay, over on the Tucker Club’s message board, someone asked about the supposed Tucker convertable that crops up for sale in Hemmings Motor News (asking price around $1 million). Various members of the club have investigated the car in years past and have determined that the car actually is a 4 door Tucker body shell which was bought at the company’s bankruptcy auction by a former Tucker employee who started to turn the car into a convertable, but never finished the job. The present owner, however, swears that he’s got proof that the car was constructed by the Tucker Corporation. (Yet he has so far failed to provide this proof to even prospective buyers of the car, as I will explain.)
One of the respondents to the thread is a wanker who attempted to buy the car not too long ago. Instead of being honest about what the car is, he gave cryptic responses about how he’s an “expert” on this particular car, and while he doesn’t doubt the veracity of the owner’s claims about the car, would strongly advise anyone wishing to buy the car “to seek the services of a lawyer” before buying the car, and implying that what the title of the vehicle says is not to be trusted. (Which would mean that the car’s stolen property or some kind of fraud about its origins is being committed.)
Now, this guy’s a jerk. According to a private conversation I had with one of Club’s directors, when the guy was looking to buy the car, he literally harassed the directors and other members of the club, trying to get them to vouch for the legitimacy of the car. The board’s administrator isn’t going to ban the guy (says that for the moment he’s “gonna go get some popcorn and watch this week’s episode”), and with me being unemployed, I’ve got some idle time on my hands, so I’m smacking this guy around on the boards for entertainment purposes.
Presumably, the guy trying to sell the car for something that it is not, would be guilty of fraud if he ever managed to find someone willing to buy the car (who thinks that it is a lost/forgotten prototype), but how about those folks who know that the car’s origins are being misrepresented and don’t come forward (if asked) to say that its a customized car? Would they be guilty of wrong doing? (I realize that odds of them being prosecuted for it are another matter and I know that any information being offered here by our resident legal eagles could in no way be construed as legal advice, MMMV,and offers are void in most US juridictions.) I’m just looking to scare the guy into either admitting that he knows the thing’s a fake (He says he walked away from the deal for legal reasons other that those connected to the car’s legitamacy. :dubious: ) or shutting the hell up.
Bumpin this, hopefully one of the real lawyers will chime in soon.
My take: How do you know the other folks know it’s being misrepresented? And more importantly, why would they have any duty to come forward, when they are not a party to the transaction? As with anything involving money: caveat emptor
However, given the absolute lack of documentation apparently available, I suspect a hypothetical buyer would have a dickens of a time proving that the car is not what it’s being sold as - and the burden of proof would fall squarely on the buyer if he filed suit.
Anyone that has a million dollars available to spend on a car, would presumably also have the resources required to verify the vehicles authenticity. That being said, how many art collectors have been duped into buying fakes? Or legitimate museums for that matter?
Alex Tremulis, who was the lead designer on the Tucker car stated in the past, categorically, that the company did not have a convertable prototype in development. Any thoughts of a convertable would have been for an early 50s model, according to him. Next, all assets of the Tucker Corporation were sold at a sherriff’s auction in accordance with the bankruptcy proceedings dictated by the Federal courts, those records are public, and do not list a convertable for sale among the many assets of the company. Third, those records do list a 4-door sedan body with the same serial number stampings as those on the supposed convertable being purchased by a former Tucker Corporation employee. Additionally, many of the Tucker Corporation documents survive, and while they haven’t been completely gone through (yet), no one has turned up any documents or blueprints related to a convertable. Finally, we have photosof thecar which show that its a 4 door sedan. Four door convertables were built in that era, though they weren’t common.
I should point out that when folks who know far more about Tuckers than I, have looked at the pics of the convertable, they’ve been able to state, in detail, that a number of the parts in the photo have come from other cars or were owned by various folks over the years. (They know who owned a particular part, when they sold it, who they sold it to, and some times, how much it sold for.) It seems a bit much for all of these folks to be conspiring with one another over the origins of the vehicle (especially when its discovery would bring more attention to the cars as a whole and drive up the value of them).
As for the misrepresentation of the vehicle as being a prototype produced by the Tucker Corporation, I’ve seen the ads in Hemmings Motor News which state that it is a prototype of the Tucker Corporation (and some of them seem to imply that the car is “complete” which it is clearly not). People who’ve talked to the present owner have stated that he’s told them that its a prototype and he’s denied that it was a 4 door sedan being customized by a former employee who bought the body shell at auction.
