<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Vaught:
Quote:
"I never made any claim of impartiality. You pissed on my friend's grave and I took it personally."
I concur on that statement. Randy Williams was a good man and this BS has served nothing constructive. The "Inner Circle" knew of the valid title and never gave it a second thought about any wrong doing. Don's posting makes it worldwide knowledge now. FORMAL APOLOGY time, Sonny!
Quote:
"It would still be interesting to be able to document the cars history when DeNick owned it and lost it, and perhaps in doing so, it would shed some light on why these dealerships entered the practice of titling the cars in their names before resale."
Brian, at least in Michigan where my uncle's dealerships were, the Dealer HAD TO POSSESS the title of any vehicle on his lot, by law, and if an state investigator found a vehicle on his lot without one there was hell to pay.
I kept a 65 GTO and a 66 GTO (I owned) at my uncles Pontiac dealership for a few days and had to remove the cars when it became obvious that they were not there for repair but because I was "storing" them on his lot. I kept them inside the dealership for a couple of days until I found a new home for them to stay at.
Hope this helps.
Tom V.
I love this sig by CRAZY RAY:
"If you act like an ass don't be insulted if people ride you." Words of Wisdom, Sonny!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tom, I just thought of something else that pigeon hole's the ***** out of Scott's theory on why dealerships don't (and won't) title a car in their own name, particularly where a used vehicle is concerned.
All retail businesses, regardless of state, pay some sort of inventory tax. In the case of a car lot, how else would they provide proof of posession for inventory?