[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by Brian Baker

Actually John, it is part of the case. Read paragraphs 5 and 19 of the latest court decision:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/do...-ohio-1922.pdf

Be patient, this page takes a bit to download.

Someone explain this to me in Laymans terms. I'm confused????? Thanks.

Paragraph 5: Kauffman Racing contacted Roberts, inquiring as to whom had undertaken the modifications of the engine block. Roberts admitted Central Virginia Machine had worked on the part. Kauffman Racing advised Roberts it would not buy back the engine block as the defects of which he complained were the result of modifications made subsequent to the sale and delivery of the part, and not by the manufacturer of the block itself.

So the complaint with the block was ?????????????????????

[Brian Baker]

Ken, that's why I said to read paragraph 19 along with paragraph 5.