Quote:
Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy
The format isn't conducive to a good inspection. Would you buy a car from a private party without driving it or hearing it run? It is what it is, but I certainly wouldn't gamble my money like that.
|
I agree on that. I didn't know that no inspection, or proof of function was allowed before bidding on a lot.
I wouldn't say that misrepresentation of lots by the sellers are necessarily the fault of Barrett-Jackson though, but denying buyers a reasonable effort to inspect what they're buying is a problem. I certainly wouldn't put money on the barrel if I couldn't sample the goods within.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pavulon
So all liberty and no accountability seems to be a reasonable way to do business?
|
Don't put your words in my posts.
Barrett-Jackson should hold sellers to a higher standard of truth in advertising, and allow buyers to check out what they're buying. Knowing now that it wasn't allowed, I believe that it should be in order to prevent fraud. However, Barrett-Jackson didn't restore, or otherwise own the cars sold at their auctions, so are they on the hook for how the cars sold are described? I thought that description, and provinence was done by the sellers of vehicles, but I actually am not sure who comes up with these descriptions.