Shelby sued by Plasan

[SGT/SC#0471]

The question was a sincere one. I'm honestly asking how much a KR hood costs from SAI. Doesn't anyone know?

 

 

There was a thread about it on several forums including this one...

 

I think it was about 12k for a replacement CF one....

[kahmann]

^So I've read $25k, $19k, $9k, and now $12k. Either way, doesn't that markup seem a little distorted to you?

I understand that SAI is a business. They can certainly charge whatever they want. However, these aren't money making parts. These are parts that are only available as replacements to people who have already spent $100k on their limited KR's. Doesn't it seem a little short sighted and predatory to mark these kinds of parts up by 300%-1000% to those who have already forked over that kind of dough to begin with and genuinely need a replacement part?

 

Ken

[SGT/SC#0471]

^So I've read $25k, $19k, $9k, and now $12k. Either way, doesn't that markup seem a little distorted to you?

I understand that SAI is a business. They can certainly charge whatever they want. However, these aren't money making parts. These are parts that are only available as replacements to people who have already spent $100k on their limited KR's. Doesn't it seem a little short sighted and predatory to mark these kinds of parts up by 300%-1000% to those who have already forked over that kind of dough to begin with and genuinely need a replacement part?

 

Ken

 

 

 

No, beacause your assuming that SAI would still pay the same amount for one now.

I'd bet they would pay a lot more.

 

When your buying 1700+ hoods the price is steeply discounted.

 

I have a friend who is in the high end custom fiberglass business on yachts, he made me some CF engine intakes for a boat I used to have as a favor. Materials are cheap, having him work on your boat is very expensive...you want to play you got to pay. Then the boatyard marks that up to the yacht owner. That simple. Ferrari gets 500 bucks for a distributor cap and there is 2 of them...examples of this is everywhere, my favorite is cummins marine, those guys are into markups...

 

I hear you though, I have a SGT in my garage too...and one of my best friends is a certified Ferrari wrench...who will wrench on anything I own for free...

 

 

The deal with the replacement KR hood was that is was originally alot more than SAI discounted it due to people complaining...search for the thread I am sure its still on the forum here.

 

 

Cheers Ken!

[kb67]

As was said early in the thread SA can tell their side of the story if they want to. You know saying we can't discuss this at the moment won't do any damage to them. As far as price its up to them it may have taken more time on some of the hoods due to imperfections or rework time so I'd hazard a guess of about $7k a hood with a 20% markup. Folks knew what they where paying for up front until something breaks then its a problem but thats true of anything thats limited thats what was asked for something special. Only after you realize that no one decided to carry any spares so you end up paying alot of money getting it back together then its a bigger problem having that special super duper carbon fiber hood.

[clark17357]

Ken,

 

Why your thread has survived when two others were removed is anyone's guess. Given what I do for a living, I sent an e-mail to plaintiff's counsel to see if I can learn how much money is claimed to be owed. In reading the law suit, it is pretty vague in terms of damages claimed other than it is more than $75,000. With any luck, I will get a call tomorrow morning. We will see.

 

Jim

[Mike Porter Mw]

What does SAI charge for a replacement KR hood nowadays?

 

Nothing, because they can't get one until they pay for the 1,747 they already received??

 

A point about the quality that seems to be raised above............I just want to be clear, are folks suggesting that possibly the hoods were not of top quality (not typical of Plasan products I understand) and that possibly due to that, they decided to not pay?? Seems odd to me then that they would still use a allegedly subpar product on the car and still sell for the original markups. I think this argument is FOS. Product ordered, product delivered, product used and not returned = pay the dang bill. Pure and simple. The Knight Rider hoods? Again ordered, delivered, used = pay the dang bill. I wonder how the whole SAi -----> Shelby American fits into this puzzle. Likely there's lots of info not inclued in the filing, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Mr. Black]

Nothing, because they can't get one until they pay for the 1,747 they already received??

 

 

 

 

You are a beddy beddy bad man Mike Porter......

[BLOWN]

Maybe Amy can shed some light on this.

[clark17357]

If "light" means truth, I would nothold my breath:)

 

I have never known Amy to do other than tell the truth. She may decline to share information but that is usually in keeping with her need to run SAI first and cater to our desire for information second. She is a class act in my personal experience.

 

Jim

[hotrodric]

I think SAI, or SA, or whoever holds the umbrella in the wind these days will need to make some kind of positioning statement or press release on this. Remember the SAAC fiasco? Lack of a statement on that caused rumors to run wild. Maybe this time around a press release will happen before it's too late.

 

There's always two sides to every story and SA(I) needs to crisply position theirs asap, imo.

 

I sure hope Ford isn't dragged into it somehow -- they already paid dearly whenSAI built the KRs on such a tardy schedule that the next model year GT500 ate the KRs margins.

 

Plasan does superb qulity and lots of hi-tech CF work for many other [big] companies so it wil be interesting to see what Shelby's defense is based on. I noticed in the suit that Plasan has asked for a jury trial.

 

If there's another side to this story I sure hope the other side steps forward rather promptly.

 

 

If the CF parts were the reason the KR's were delayed, and SAI had penlties for late delivery, they would have a claim against Plason. It's that simple.

[twobjshelbys]

Maybe Amy can shed some light on this.

 

 

Amy will be under orders from the SA attorneys to keep mum on the topic (as are all SA employees). They may want to make the room brighter by adding some light but that wouldn't be the right thing to do for the shareholders.

[Mr. Black]

If the CF parts were the reason the KR's were delayed, and SAI had penlties for late delivery, they would have a claim against Plason. It's that simple.

 

 

 

Just sayin' I don't drink Kool Aid:)

[lawdude]

Just sayin' I don't drink Kool Aid:)

 

 

I like Kool Aid.

[Mr. Black]

Amy will be under orders from the SA attorneys to keep mum on the topic. They may want to make the room brighter by adding some light but that wouldn't be the right thing to do for the shareholders.

 

 

Tony, are you not curious as to why there are so many legal battles with this Corp. regardless of the current name?

[shel-b001]

 

 

[dave c]

Tony, are you not curious as to why there are so many legal battles with this Corp. regardless of the current name?

 

Yea it's kinda like new members who come onto this forum and bash Shelby without a dog in the fight. You don't like the Koolaid, don't open the package.

 

Just sayin'

[07SGT4578]

+1 Dave

[hotrodric]

Just sayin' I don't drink Kool Aid:)

 

 

 

Plason admits in their complaint they missed the contractural delivery date and claims they negotiated an extension. This may or may not be accurate depending on who you ask. They are also requesting venue be in their home state and a Jury trial which would be in their favor. IMO a Jury trial for this type of dispute would be a little unusual. I would find it hard to believe the original contract language did not address the method and location for disputes to be settled. Arbirtration would be the normal route.

 

This is a typical dispute over performance and payment, nothing more and does not reflect badly on SAI rgardless of what Mr. Black thinks. It happens many times each day in this country.

 

It is intersting Mr. Black suddenly shows up on this board and is interested in this topic however.

[68fastback]

...not clear to me whether Plasan missed any date vs SAI was running so late building the KRs that the parts weren't needed when originally contracted and SAI might not have wanted them yet (dunno, just sayin'). Whatever the facts are they are what they are regardless of what we do or don't know.

 

I see FMC and it's dealers as the big loser here since the KR builds ran so darn late it backed the KRs into the date of new and KR-like '10 GT500 which, in turn, trashed the KR's sellability ...I've seen new KRs sell for about what a loaded GT500 goes for. No one made the money they expected on those except, it would seem, the upfitter ...but who knows the details?

 

There are no real winners in this imo, but until we know the facts (which may be never -lol) I guess folks will form opinions based on inference from the parties involved, their reputations, and past performance etc. Not a valid way to form opinions on a lawsuit (which has discrete facts whether we know them or not) but it's what the court of public opinion does every time.

 

SAI/SA/CS/?? needs, imo, to issue a positioning statement ...2-3 sentences that acknowledges the dispute and states their position. It will add no new 'facts' (the lawyers won't permit that) but will help neutralize the bad PR which is presently running rampant and permit folks to not dwell unnecessarily on it. As it is it's fodder for rampant speculation ...the SAI/SAAC debacle comes to mind.

 

But what do I know?

 

There'll probably be a settlement since a jury trial is unlikely, imo, but may be possible despite contract provisions to the contrary (if such exist) if other evasive activities stand to elevate the dispute from a simple contract case to more than that -- but there's no evidence of such at this point. Still, never underestimate clever lawyers and juries.

[Frank S]

...not clear to me whether Plasan missed any date vs SAI was running so late building the KRs that the parts weren't needed when originally contracted and SAI might not have wanted them yet (dunno, just sayin'). Whatever the facts are they are what they are regardless of what we do or don't know.

 

[ ... ]

 

SAI/SA/CS/?? needs, imo, to issue a positioning statement ...2-3 sentences that acknowledges the dispute and states their position. It will add no new 'facts' (the lawyers won't permit that) but will help neutralize the bad PR which is presently running rampant and permit folks to not dwell unnecessarily on it. As it is it's fodder for rampant speculation ...the SAI/SAAC debacle comes to mind.

 

But what do I know?

 

There'll probably be a settlement since a jury trial is unlikely, imo, but may be possible despite contract provisions to the contrary (if such exist) if other evasive activities stand to elevate the dispute from a simple contract case to more than that -- but there's no evidence of such at this point. Still, never underestimate clever lawyers and juries.

 

 

I'd say that's a decent summary of what's happening. Seems a shame that it looks as if a "lose-lose" situation is developing.

 

I think Mr Black and others who apparently find pleasure in this kind of "negotiation" should take to heart the teachings of Malcolm Gladwell, and realize that after the first few statements, little is added to the field of useful facts and opinions.

 

Mr 68fastback, is the "Arthur C Clark" in your signature the same as the "Arthur C Clarke" whose works are supported by foundations and societies? (Oddly enough, about 3,240,000 entries on Google match your spelling, while about 2,210,000 get it right. Really odd)

 

Cheers!

[computerworks]

As it is it's fodder for rampant speculation ...the SAI/SAAC debacle comes to mind.

 

 

 

"debacle" at the time...but, settled to great mutual satisfaction without the need for the courts, as many of these things go.

 

As in that one, there are always two sides to every story (maybe even 3) and usually a whole lot more facts than what would appear in an internet post of a filing.

 

Apparently, these hood guys were a Ford supplier, part of the KR program at SA.

 

I remember talking to the guys there in Vegas during that program...and that they were constantly backordered on hoods.

At one point they had all 1700 cars in cold storage (indoors) for months in Vegas waiting for them

 

Somewhere I have pics of all the lifts with cars on them, without hoods.

 

And, the filing of the suit says they still want to be paid a delivery bonus?

 

Sometimes, things do need to be brought to the courts to settle an issue or two.

 

(BTW...the name change has absolutely nothing to do with this....Shelby Autos was not brought down in the change...they just wanted to revert to the old company's name, now that it was clear.)

[clark17357]

IMO a Jury trial for this type of dispute would be a little unusual..

 

Hey Ric,

 

It is SOP to request a jury in a complaint. You can always waive it later but, up front, you want to preserve all your rights as a litigant. I agree with you the contract should specify venue.

 

Jim

[Hooper T]

As was said early in the thread SA can tell their side of the story if they want to. You know saying we can't discuss this at the moment won't do any damage to them. As far as price its up to them it may have taken more time on some of the hoods due to imperfections or rework time so I'd hazard a guess of about $7k a hood with a 20% markup. Folks knew what they where paying for up front until something breaks then its a problem but thats true of anything thats limited thats what was asked for something special. Only after you realize that no one decided to carry any spares so you end up paying alot of money getting it back together then its a bigger problem having that special super duper carbon fiber hood.

 

 

Actually they must, they will need to file a Statement of Defense to defend the claim and that will be Public Record also for all to read and form an opinion. The fact that FORD has been named in this action should make things very interesting.

 

The TS Police will not be able to delete that post.

[Hooper T]

Ken,

 

Why your thread has survived when two others were removed is anyone's guess. Given what I do for a living, I sent an e-mail to plaintiff's counsel to see if I can learn how much money is claimed to be owed. In reading the law suit, it is pretty vague in terms of damages claimed other than it is more than $75,000. With any luck, I will get a call tomorrow morning. We will see.

 

Jim

 

 

Yes it is surprising this thread has lasted so long, I think there is a direct correlation between the longevity of ones posts on TS and how much $$$ you spent with them and how much Shelby Bathwater you have consumed. JMO

[hotrodric]

Hey Ric,

 

It is SOP to request a jury in a complaint. You can always waive it later but, up front, you want to preserve all your rights as a litigant. I agree with you the contract should specify venue.

 

Jim

 

 

Jim: Agreed, Lawyers do what Lawyers do. I am not an expert by any stretch, having been in business for 25 years, I have been forced to read and understand contracts to some extent. Performance and Liquidated Damages clauses have always been SOP up here is WA. and I expect elsewhere. Arbitation as the agreed to means to settle disputes is also a typical clause in the contracts I have been involved with. Theres more to the story for sure, and having been on both sides of this type of issue, I just don't like to see any bashing of either party until the results are know.

 

Rick

[StratGirl]

 

Interesting timing by SAI to change back to Shelby American?

 

Statement of Claim-Public Record

 

 

This. If Shelby Automobiles, Inc. no longer exists, who cares if there's a judgment against them for 6 million. Good luck enforcing it.

 

I'm afraid to even imagine what the impact on our warranties could be if they really wanted to push it.

[Hooper T]

I'd say that's a decent summary of what's happening. Seems a shame that it looks as if a "lose-lose" situation is developing.

 

I think Mr Black and others who apparently find pleasure in this kind of "negotiation" should take to heart the teachings of Malcolm Gladwell, and realize that after the first few statements, little is added to the field of useful facts and opinions.

 

Mr 68fastback, is the "Arthur C Clark" in your signature the same as the "Arthur C Clarke" whose works are supported by foundations and societies? (Oddly enough, about 3,240,000 entries on Google match your spelling, while about 2,210,000 get it right. Really odd)

 

Cheers!

 

 

Is a GREAT Canadian!

[Mr.White in Texas]

...not clear to me whether Plasan missed any date vs SAI was running so late building the KRs that the parts weren't needed when originally contracted and SAI might not have wanted them yet (dunno, just sayin'). Whatever the facts are they are what they are regardless of what we do or don't know.

 

I see FMC and it's dealers as the big loser here since the KR builds ran so darn late it backed the KRs into the date of new and KR-like '10 GT500 which, in turn, trashed the KR's sellability ...I've seen new KRs sell for about what a loaded GT500 goes for. No one made the money they expected on those except, it would seem, the upfitter ...but who knows the details?

 

There are no real winners in this imo, but until we know the facts (which may be never -lol) I guess folks will form opinions based on inference from the parties involved, their reputations, and past performance etc. Not a valid way to form opinions on a lawsuit (which has discrete facts whether we know them or not) but it's what the court of public opinion does every time.

 

SAI/SA/CS/?? needs, imo, to issue a positioning statement ...2-3 sentences that acknowledges the dispute and states their position. It will add no new 'facts' (the lawyers won't permit that) but will help neutralize the bad PR which is presently running rampant and permit folks to not dwell unnecessarily on it. As it is it's fodder for rampant speculation ...the SAI/SAAC debacle comes to mind.

 

But what do I know?

 

There'll probably be a settlement since a jury trial is unlikely, imo, but may be possible despite contract provisions to the contrary (if such exist) if other evasive activities stand to elevate the dispute from a simple contract case to more than that -- but there's no evidence of such at this point. Still, never underestimate clever lawyers and juries.

 

Well said.

[kahmann]

Yes it is surprising this thread has lasted so long, I think there is a direct correlation between the longevity of ones posts on TS and how much $$ you spent with them and how much Shelby Bathwater you have consumed. JMO

Ummm huh?

[07-2937]

If I say anything else this post will vanish but I will say that Plasan are not angels in this they NEVER delivered as promised!!!!!!!!