COB series VIN ?

[Nedsel]

The problem with the 2 COX 6036 cars out there is that things don't happen in a vacuum, nor does one event happen all by itself. In the case of this car, there was a serious engine fire which destroyed a good bit of the car. No one could tell for certain how the heat had affected the metallurgy of the chassis, and it was Autokraft which suggested that the car be reconstructed with a new chassis and body. So that is what the owner chose to do. He legally transferred ownership of the VIN - which was his alone - to the new vehicle, which was OK by British law, especially as the new car was constructed by what was then the official AC Factory. At that point in time, the burnt chassis became "parts" and nothing more - even if a VIN could still be discerned on the chassis. COX 6036 is legally the new car today, and the remains of the original car -according to DMV code - is legally something else. Anyone can try to claim the "original car" should be called the correct COX 6036, but to do so ignores the rightful ownership of the VIN, which was legally transferred to the NEW car by its LEGAL owner. This is far from a one-sided interpretation of the situation; this is a simple conclusion based on ALL of the facts rather than the few that some people like to use to support a different position.

[london]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

The problem with the 2 COB 6036 cars out there is that things don't happen in a vacuum, nor does one event happen all by itself. In the case of this car, there was a serious engine fire which destroyed a good bit of the car. No one could tell for certain how the heat had affected the metallurgy of the chassis, and it was Autokraft which suggested that the car be reconstructed with a new chassis and body. So that is what the owner chose to do. He legally transferred ownership of the VIN - which was his alone - to the new vehicle, which was OK by British law, especially as the new car was constructed by what was then the official AC Factory. At that point in time, the burnt chassis became "parts" and nothing more - even if a VIN could still be discerned on the chassis. COB 6036 is legally the new car today, and the remains of the original car -according to DMV code - is legally something else. Anyone can try to claim the "original car" should be called the correct COB 6036, but to do so ignores the rightful ownership of the VIN, which was legally transferred to the NEW car by its LEGAL owner. This is far from a one-sided interpretation of the situation; this is a simple conclusion based on ALL of the facts rather than the few that some people like to use to support a different position.

A recent case in the UK Court of Appeal may cast doubt on this position though.

Leading litigation lawyers specialising in classic car and aircraft cases - Wilmots Litigation

These comments, in particular, on the Solicitor's website are interesting:

'The identity of a car is to be determined by reference to the custom in the classic car trade. It may be derived from a part of the chassis with the original chassis number attached to it.'

'The principles stated by the Court of Appeal are very helpful to the classic car trade and remove the doubt that there used to be about the chassis and chassis number being the identity of a car.'

In the case of Steve Gray's car, the chassis was confirmed by AC Cars as being the original stamped chassis and was inspected by the Police and the UK Driving and Vehicle Licencing Agency before the original 1964 registration number was issued for the car.

[Nedsel]

But again you can't look at things singly. One must also include legal chain of ownership in any VIN dispute. As the rest of the article quoted states: "Nonetheless the individual facts of any case will always determine what the result of the claim is likely to be and this whole area of law is a minefield for the unwary."

[FatBoy]

By coincidence, I was at Brooklands at the weekend and had the opportunity to have a good look at the car in question.

It seems to me that whilst the newer car has the legal right to the COB6036 chassis number, Mr Gray's is still THE original COB6036 and no amount of wrangling is going to change that fact.

Paul

[london]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

But again you can't look at things singly. One must also include legal chain of ownership in any VIN dispute. As the rest of the article quoted states: "Nonetheless the individual facts of any case will always determine what the result of the claim is likely to be and this whole area of law is a minefield for the unwary."

The comments of 'SBB' and 'Shep' on the attached ACOC thread may be of interest:

AC Owners Club - COB 6036 - which is the original?

[xb-60]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

....there was a serious engine fire which destroyed a good bit of the car. No one could tell for certain how the heat had affected the metallurgy of the chassis, and it was Autokraft which suggested that the car be reconstructed with a new chassis and body....

Stumbled on this 'perpetual' thread yet again....
I have a question - if the factory's suggestion was to re-body and re-chassis the burnt-out car because of the extent of the damage that was evident AND the uncertainty of the extent of the heat damage to the chassis, how could the original chassis then be re-used and the car be able to be legally re-registered for road or track use?
Cheers!
Glen

[Nedsel]

Good question, Glen. I have referred to the old chassis as "parts" since it was without an accompanying title, or legal ownership document. Maybe it should have been referred to as "junk," since that is essentially what it was, in spite of the collective thinking of the various solicitors who seem to want to ignore basic title law.

[xb-60]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Good question, Glen. I have referred to the old chassis as "parts" since it was without an accompanying title, or legal ownership document. Maybe it should have been referred to as "junk," since that is essentially what it was, in spite of the collective thinking of the various solicitors who seem to want to ignore basic title law.

Ned, I'm a mechanical engineer. I shudder at the legal implications of building a car on a chassis that the manufacturer has recommended be replaced. One wonders what criteria were looked at when considering registration of a 're-birthed' wreck.
If there is more to this story, I'm all ears.
Cheers,
Glen