At first annual, have found illegal engine modifications

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Greg Ellis said:

Just checking if you saw this earlier in this discussion. 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/225165

The OP says this was him.

I did not see that. Thanks!

[Ftlausa]

I respectfully disagree with the posters who suggest you have no legal recourse.  I think you have recourse against the seller and the person who conducted the pre-buy depending upon who represented what along the way.  You may have a cause of action against the seller for fraud in the inducement which could allow you to reverse the transaction and recovery your damages; and you may have a cause of action against the person who conducted the pre-buy for negligence.  The person who conducted the pre-buy explicitly or by implication represented that they were an expert and you paid them for that expertise and relied upon that expertise.  If they failed to identify obvious defects, then they have liability.  

I would recommend consulting with a contract or aviation attorney in your area to discuss the specific facts.     

[hypertech]

20 hours ago, bradp said:

Just send to Jewel or Aero engines of Winchester (or similar).  You’ll get some piece of mind from a good engine shop without the $$$ of sending to Lycoming.  Seems like a no-brainer if insurance is paying for accessories / labor to split case and R&R.  You could get a lot of piece of mind without so much cost delta if a lot of the work has already been done.  

 

Except don't send it to Aero engines of Winchester anymore.  They were bought out and are no longer the shop they used to be.  

[M20F]

2 hours ago, Ftlausa said:

I respectfully disagree with the posters who suggest you have no legal recourse.  I think you have recourse against the seller and the person who conducted the pre-buy depending upon who represented what along the way.  You may have a cause of action against the seller for fraud in the inducement which could allow you to reverse the transaction and recovery your damages; and you may have a cause of action against the person who conducted the pre-buy for negligence.  The person who conducted the pre-buy explicitly or by implication represented that they were an expert and you paid them for that expertise and relied upon that expertise.  If they failed to identify obvious defects, then they have liability.  

I would recommend consulting with a contract or aviation attorney in your area to discuss the specific facts.     

The bill of sale is going to protect the seller in all likelihood.  Everyone I have ever seen will have a clause covering this.  

You then have to prove what would have been reasonable to find on a PPI.  The prop governor hose looked good in my cursory inspection.  Given it was not an annual inspection, I did not review to the level required of one to note it was an automotive part.  

This is why several people (and I agree and post this all the time). You always do a pre-purchase annual.  You also generally ask the seller to cover airworthy items.  AOPA has a sample of this language on their website.  Now you know exactly what the reasonable finds were because they are clearly defined under law no less. You also have a signature by a certified AI warranting the inspection.  Now you have teeth. 

So I see little recourse here for the buyers poor decision making.  I hope others learn from it, people purchase an asset for $10’s if not $100’s of thousand dollars and can’t  be bothered to sink a couple grand into an annual  

Caveat emptor.  

[salty]

My reason for my position is mostly based on the fact that most of the complaints are largely subjective. There are thousands of planes out there with annuals that have the things described here. If they were a big deal to you, you should have checked them yourself. But it’s a personal threshold more than anything else  

Life is too short for that. Fix it to your satisfaction and go have some fun. JMO

Edited August 6, 2019 by salty

[DonMuncy]

To the OP. I practiced law for 35 years before my retirement. If you go to an attorney, he will try to figure out (1) the likelihood of winning the suit, (2) the probable amount of damages, and (3) the likely cost (how much time it takes) to pursue it. He would then calculate if his share of the recovery (typically 1/3) times the % likelihood of winning would make it worthwhile to take the case on a contingency. If it is not, he may offer to pursue it for you, with you paying the hourly rate. If you were smart you would go through these same calculations to decide if you want to gamble your money on the case. Of course, if the odds  are pretty good on recovering, there is always the possibility of settling the case before expending too much time or money in it. Naturally, the seller (or his lawyer) and the PPI inspector (or his lawyer) would run all these numbers in reverse to see whether to settle or fight. And of course, settlement implies less than the full amount. You have seen the responses of some of the others here as to the possible defenses the seller and IA would potentially have. You now have some idea of how much it is going to cost to fix everything. With these ideas in mind, you should have some inkling as to how far to go, or whether to lick your wounds and move on. Naturally, you might decide to make a call or two, write a letter of two, pay a lawyer to do that, and if you get something back, OK. If nothing, decide whether to drop it. I would caution you; once you jump into the fight, there is a real tendency to refuse to drop it. So decide early how you are going to play it.

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

The bill of sale is going to protect the seller in all likelihood.  Everyone I have ever seen will have a clause covering this.  

You then have to prove what would have been reasonable to find on a PPI.  The prop governor hose looked good in my cursory inspection.  Given it was not an annual inspection, I did not review to the level required of one to note it was an automotive part.  

This is why several people (and I agree and post this all the time). You always do a pre-purchase annual.  You also generally ask the seller to cover airworthy items.  AOPA has a sample of this language on their website.  Now you know exactly what the reasonable finds were because they are clearly defined under law no less. You also have a signature by a certified AI warranting the inspection.  Now you have teeth. 

So I see little recourse here for the buyers poor decision making.  I hope others learn from it, people purchase an asset for $10’s if not $100’s of thousand dollars and can’t  be bothered to sink a couple grand into an annual  

Caveat emptor.  

Absolutely agree a Pre-purchase is almost always s smart thing to do. But its certainly not an annual inspection, in fact in FAA terms, it not an inspection at all and has no defined scope other than whatever the owner and A&P agree too based on prioritizing a list of things to do limited to how much time the prospective owner wants to pay for such an inspection. The goal is to find costly issues that a prospective owner would want to walk away from like spar corrosion or other expensive repairs that would necessitate at least re-negotiation  such a ferrous metal in the oil filter. Its certainly not intended to protect the new owner from seeing any required maintenance in the near term - n annual doesn't do that either. It certainly not to look for minor maintenance items that don't cost thousands of dollars to repair like hoses where a full set maybe about $500. Such a limited inspection is never warranteed, nor is an annual inspection that the inspection didn't find something that showed up tomorrow. 

I agree an annual inspection is a great idea; but only after the closing on the purchase. Doing an annual before closing can go sideways when the prospective owner come realize since that only the legal owner can direct maintenance decisions and that the shops only legal recourse is with the legal owner.   

Edited August 6, 2019 by kortopates

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, salty said:

My reason for my position is mostly based on the fact that most of the complaints are largely subjective. There are thousands of planes out there with annuals that have the things described here. If they were a big deal to you, you should have checked them yourself. But it’s a personal threshold, you’re going to have a hard time winning a suit. 

Airworthiness is definable.  The first step before being concerned with things like negligence or fraud is to determine if the aircraft was indeed unairworthy when the OP took possession of it.  A detailed explanation of the items found to be unairworthy would be a good start.  In five pages, I've not seen any evidence of an unairworthy part on the airplane. First the governor line was non AD compliant because it was a soft line. Then it was not the AD but that it was not an approved part (no pics). Then a random image of a small diameter rubber hose that could be the drain hose from sniffle valve or fuel pump drain was posted (no fittings shown) as "NAPA Bullshit".  NAPA bullshit would be entirely serviceable  as a drain line and legalI don't know that there is more to this story, but my horse sense tells me there is more.  

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, DonMuncy said:

To the OP. I practiced law for 35 years before my retirement. If you go to an attorney, he will try to figure out (1) the likelihood of winning the suit, (2) the probable amount of damages, and (3) the likely cost (how much time it takes) to pursue it. He would then calculate if his share of the recovery (typically 1/3) times the % likelihood of winning would make it worthwhile to take the case on a contingency. If it is not, he may offer to pursue it for you, with you paying the hourly rate. If you were smart you would go through these same calculations to decide if you want to gamble your money on the case. Of course, if the odds  are pretty good on recovering, there is always the possibility of settling the case before expending too much time or money in it. Naturally, the seller (or his lawyer) and the PPI inspector (or his lawyer) would run all these numbers in reverse to see whether to settle or fight. And of course, settlement implies less than the full amount. You have seen the responses of some of the others here as to the possible defenses the seller and IA would potentially have. You now have some idea of how much it is going to cost to fix everything. With these ideas in mind, you should have some inkling as to how far to go, or whether to lick your wounds and move on. Naturally, you might decide to make a call or two, write a letter of two, pay a lawyer to do that, and if you get something back, OK. If nothing, decide whether to drop it. I would caution you; once you jump into the fight, there is a real tendency to refuse to drop it. So decide early how you are going to play it.

Interesting.  I'm not a lawyer but I would not have guessed there was a lawyer on the planet that would take this on contingency.

[Bravoman]

5 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Interesting.  I'm not a lawyer but I would not have guessed there was a lawyer on the planet that would take this on contingency.

 I agree with you. I am a lawyer who works strictly on contingency and do not think this situation is particularly amenable to a contingency fee arrangement. 

[salty]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Interesting.  I'm not a lawyer but I would not have guessed there was a lawyer on the planet that would take this on contingency.

 

Just now, Bravoman said:

 I agree with you. I am a lawyer who works strictly on contingency and do not think this situation is particularly amenable to a contingency fee arrangement. 

I got the feeling don was trying to let the OP come to that conclusion himself. 

[Ftlausa]

4 hours ago, M20F said:

The bill of sale is going to protect the seller in all likelihood.  Everyone I have ever seen will have a clause covering this.  

You then have to prove what would have been reasonable to find on a PPI.  The prop governor hose looked good in my cursory inspection.  Given it was not an annual inspection, I did not review to the level required of one to note it was an automotive part.  

This is why several people (and I agree and post this all the time). You always do a pre-purchase annual.  You also generally ask the seller to cover airworthy items.  AOPA has a sample of this language on their website.  Now you know exactly what the reasonable finds were because they are clearly defined under law no less. You also have a signature by a certified AI warranting the inspection.  Now you have teeth. 

So I see little recourse here for the buyers poor decision making.  I hope others learn from it, people purchase an asset for $10’s if not $100’s of thousand dollars and can’t  be bothered to sink a couple grand into an annual  

Caveat emptor.  

You cannot contract away fraud if there was a misrepresentation of the condition of the airplane.  No waiver or language in a bill of sale can cure a misrepresentation.  Also, if there was a latent defect in the airplane (i.e., the owner concealed a material airworthiness variance with the aircraft, alone or in cahoots with the A&P), then you may have never had a valid contract to begin with and can seek recission of the contract.  Caveat emptor is a handy phrase for making sure you are covering your arse, but it is not a blanket prohibition on seeking legal recourse.  

I do this for a living, so I have more than a passing familiarity with these legal principals.  I just voided a $50 million commercial contract at an arbitration based upon fraud in the inducement.    The facts obviously matter, but there are lots options available for remedying a wrong when it comes to contracts and sales of goods. 

[Ftlausa]

2 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

To the OP. I practiced law for 35 years before my retirement. If you go to an attorney, he will try to figure out (1) the likelihood of winning the suit, (2) the probable amount of damages, and (3) the likely cost (how much time it takes) to pursue it. He would then calculate if his share of the recovery (typically 1/3) times the % likelihood of winning would make it worthwhile to take the case on a contingency. If it is not, he may offer to pursue it for you, with you paying the hourly rate. If you were smart you would go through these same calculations to decide if you want to gamble your money on the case. Of course, if the odds  are pretty good on recovering, there is always the possibility of settling the case before expending too much time or money in it. Naturally, the seller (or his lawyer) and the PPI inspector (or his lawyer) would run all these numbers in reverse to see whether to settle or fight. And of course, settlement implies less than the full amount. You have seen the responses of some of the others here as to the possible defenses the seller and IA would potentially have. You now have some idea of how much it is going to cost to fix everything. With these ideas in mind, you should have some inkling as to how far to go, or whether to lick your wounds and move on. Naturally, you might decide to make a call or two, write a letter of two, pay a lawyer to do that, and if you get something back, OK. If nothing, decide whether to drop it. I would caution you; once you jump into the fight, there is a real tendency to refuse to drop it. So decide early how you are going to play it.

Excellent advice.  It has to be worth the cost to pursue.  There are, however, some statutes that may allow the recovery of attorneys fees.  In Florida, we have a consumer protection statute that has such a provision.  

What I would probably do is send a couple demand letters and see what people are willing to do.  The professionals have licenses and reputations to consider.  I would also include a request for their insurance coverage (A&P and pre-buy A&P).  That may trigger their insurance carrier getting involved and could get a quick resolution.

Again, it has to be worth the money and aggravation to pursue. 

And no, I would never take a case like this on a contingency unless it was a slam dunk.    

[salty]

12 minutes ago, Ftlausa said:

Excellent advice.  It has to be worth the cost to pursue.  There are, however, some statutes that may allow the recovery of attorneys fees.  In Florida, we have a consumer protection statute that has such a provision.  

What I would probably do is send a couple demand letters and see what people are willing to do.  The professionals have licenses and reputations to consider.  I would also include a request for their insurance coverage (A&P and pre-buy A&P).  That may trigger their insurance carrier getting involved and could get a quick resolution.

Again, it has to be worth the money and aggravation to pursue. 

And no, I would never take a case like this on a contingency unless it was a slam dunk.    

How familiar are you with the issues the OP is complaining about? There’s just no meat on that bone from my vantage point. Your average mechanic is not going to raise an alarm about most if not all of it unless they are looking to pay the kids tuition. I’m not sure how you’d get from there to nullifying a contract. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by salty

[M20F]

18 minutes ago, Ftlausa said:

You cannot contract away fraud if there was a misrepresentation of the condition of the airplane.  No waiver or language in a bill of sale can cure a misrepresentation. 

Fraud as you know is very hard to prove.  The buyer also selected a party of his choosing to carry out an inspection.  I really don’t see how you get anywhere in court on the basis of proving fraud by the seller.  They didn’t represent the plane as anything other then for sale and with a fresh annual.  If the seller signed the annual him/herself then maybe. 

Perhaps a case against the AI and certainly the potential threat of certificate action might get some results with him/her.  In the end I  feel for the buyer but it is more than likely just be an expensive lesson   

 

[Ftlausa]

2 minutes ago, M20F said:

Fraud as you know is very hard to prove.  The buyer also selected a party of his choosing to carry out an inspection.  I really don’t see how you get anywhere in court on the basis of proving fraud by the seller.  They didn’t represent the plane as anything other then for sale and with a fresh annual.  If the seller signed the annual him/herself then maybe. 

Perhaps a case against the AI and certainly the potential threat of certificate action might get some results with him/her.  In the end I  feel for the buyer but it is more than likely just be an expensive lesson   

 

If the log books misrepresent what was done to the plane, or what parts were used, then you have at least a negligent misrepresentation.  If the seller knew the log books were inaccurate and he failed to correct the information provided to the buyer, then you have an intentional misrepresentation, if not fraud.  If the seller falsified the log books, then you have fraud.  Any of those give you a potential legal basis to seek damages and potentially recission.  

It would not be hard to find any number of experts who would say that log book entries are material to evaluating the condition and value of an aircraft in a purchase.

I am not an A&P, so I am not evaluating the merits of the potential case here -- just commenting on what I think was incorrect "legal" advice.  I have seen similar comments made in prior posts, and I don't want my fellow Mooney owners to think there is nothing that can be done legally if a seller does you wrong.    

I would never buy a plane without doing a very thorough pre-buy (mine have probably come close to annuals), but if a seller gave me materially inaccurate log books, he is gonna have some serious explaining to do, and may be taking back the plane.    

[salty]

3 minutes ago, Ftlausa said:

If the log books misrepresent what was done to the plane, or what parts were used, then you have at least a negligent misrepresentation.  If the seller knew the log books were inaccurate and he failed to correct the information provided to the buyer, then you have an intentional misrepresentation, if not fraud.  If the seller falsified the log books, then you have fraud.  Any of those give you a potential legal basis to seek damages and potentially recission.  

It would not be hard to find any number of experts who would say that log book entries are material to evaluating the condition and value of an aircraft in a purchase.

I am not an A&P, so I am not evaluating the merits of the potential case here -- just commenting on what I think was incorrect "legal" advice.  I have seen similar comments made in prior posts, and I don't want my fellow Mooney owners to think there is nothing that can be done legally if a seller does you wrong.    

I would never buy a plane without doing a very thorough pre-buy (mine have probably come close to annuals), but if a seller gave me materially inaccurate log books, he is gonna have some serious explaining to do, and may be taking back the plane.    

How do you prove a log entry was fraudulent? How do you prove the owner did, or did not do something after the last entry? I’m not seeing a clear way to prove fraud. I’m not even seeing where there was any fraud let alone how to prove it. 

[Ftlausa]

1 minute ago, salty said:

How do you prove a log entry was fraudulent? How do you prove the owner did, or did not do something after the last entry? I’m not seeing a clear way to prove fraud. I’m not even seeing where there was any fraud let alone how to prove it. 

If the log book says they used an FAA approved part, and they didn't that would seem pretty easy to prove.  If the log book didn't document a repair or modification that was done to the plane, that would also seem pretty easy to prove.  If the log book said a SB or AD was complied with and it wasn't, again that seem pretty easy to prove.  

Log book entries list who did the repair or modification, so you have a road map to your witnesses.  I see a clear path to proving a misrepresentation or fraud -- probably more so than in many other breach of contract cases.  If you don't see it as clearly, I hope it never happens to you.  

This will conclude my commentary on this subject.  I have to get back to paying clients who value and pay for my advice.  : - )

[Guest]

Are there any additional pictures?  The ones on page 2 don’t open on my iPad.

Clarence

[Ron McBride]

The last post by the complaining owner was on page 2 on July 31.  Where is he or she? 

 

[salty]

33 minutes ago, N803RM said:

The last post by the complaining owner was on page 2 on July 31.  Where is he or she? 

 

Hopefully out flying 

[mike_elliott]

Studying for the Bar

 

[McMooney]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 9:33 AM, Shadrach said:

That's sound advice but not practical if you and your mx are in SE Michigan and the plane is 1300 miles away in SW Florida.  This is why I try to keep my purchases as local as possible.

this is how I purchased 7106V,  on condition it passed annual.

[bradp]

Maybe his best course of action is to ask for his pre purchase costs back and see where he gets with a letter to the owner. Maybe the owner was clueless who knows.  Maybe there’s some honor or honesty to be found somewhere in this. 

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Ftlausa said:

If the log book says they used an FAA approved part, and they didn't that would seem pretty easy to prove.  If the log book didn't document a repair or modification that was done to the plane, that would also seem pretty easy to prove.  If the log book said a SB or AD was complied with and it wasn't, again that seem pretty easy to prove.  

Log book entries list who did the repair or modification, so you have a road map to your witnesses.  I see a clear path to proving a misrepresentation or fraud -- probably more so than in many other breach of contract cases.  If you don't see it as clearly, I hope it never happens to you.  

This will conclude my commentary on this subject.  I have to get back to paying clients who value and pay for my advice.  : - )

How do you prove the last person who’s name is in the logs was the last person to work on an aircraft? Are you suggesting that there is no possibility of unclogged maintenance occurring after that mechanics log entry?