2. DISAPPOINTED BUYER LOSES SUIT OVER BONA FIDES OF ANTIQUE CAR
2. The possession of a Formula One classic Lotus model is the purview of those for whom the dollar value is nought. Unless you are a museum keeper, and then it is more a matter of stewardship than ownership. And, by that time, all issues of provenance have been worked out well in advance of cash on the barrelhead. Any questions left open after you have signed on the dotted line are the “risks of conscious ignorance.” And that’s not a “mutual mistake”—sorry—even if you wanted to call it “fraud”.
By the time the dead champion’s mechanic’s letter arrived, it was already too late.
Chrome had heard that there was a kit model being bandied about as Falco’s original 1962 title machine. The internet is a great way to pick up on these things, if at times a bit difficult to use when you choose the wrong search parameters. He apologized for the time it took, adding at the end that the last time he’d seen the car it was still in the widow’s garage in Bern, Switzerland. And badly in need of a tune-up.
It was not Werner Von Heisenberg who was quoted in the courtroom, but it might as well have been. The court, in granting Summary Judgment, stated that, by having his own mechanic verify the authenticity of the Switzerland car, the owner accepted “uncertainty as part of the deal.” Perhaps ignorance is bliss but it cannot be offered as a defense when proof was available, if that was essential to the terms of the contract. In this shifting world of false assumptions one must face the caveat emptor: Beware the Bona Fides!