Am I missing something?

[hep1966]

https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbt...opics/499221/1

[Lynn]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hep1966</div><div class="ubbcode-body">https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbt...opics/499221/1 </div></div>

It is unfortunate that no one replied to your question in that thread. I don't remember seeing it. I assume that every one else felt like the car was fully explained in the for sale section. It was. It left the factory as a 350 SS car. The ZL-1 engine was installed later. There was never an attempt to pass the car off as anything it was not. Definitely not on par with the current discussion of taking a vin from a destroyed ZL-1 body and putting the vin plate on another body.

Apparently, you did not ever see the ad and therefore did not have a chance to connect the dots.

And I have to agree with Charlie about the attempt to disclose on the rebodied ZL-1. Most auction houses DON'T go out of their way to disclose. I was talking to Roy Sinor a few weeks ago about a well known faked car up for auction. Roy asked the auctioneer why he didn't disclose facts about an obviously faked car when he (the auctioneer) KNOWS the car to be a fake. The response:

&quot;Why would I shoot myself in the foot?&quot;

[Steve Shauger]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hep1966</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Depending on who the owner is, things are overlooked. There was a post a while back about a guy getting a photo from the original owner of his factory 427 Camaro. The picture clearly shows 350 emblems on the fender. All questions about it are ignored. No explanation. </div></div>

The above is a silly statement. The car was never represented as a factory 427. Take a look at his for sale ad, and read and look at the documents.BTW I've never spoken to the owner of the car but what it was is clear as day and never misrepresented.

https://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbt...opics/536149/1

[John]

... He clearly states that the 427 motor was installed later.... and he has the original 350 motor.

... Pretty clear to me .

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]

[hep1966]

In the thread I linked to, questions were asked and unanswered.

The ad thread is clear.

[ds1]

My understanding years ago that swapping bodies was not illegal as long as you disclose it. Additionally the Dynacorn bodies are considered and approved by GM as a restoration part. So here is some big fuel for a debate. Just remember there was a time when resources were not out there, so options were few. I hear it all the time when friends are restoring an older maintained car &quot;Why would someone do this to a car&quot; Just consider the options we had for restoration and that restoration and cars were fun and a hobby, not BIG BUSINESS as they are now. Dan

[Jack_Tar]

As long as everything is fully disclosed and someone is not trying to sell a car as something that it is not, all is good. If someone tries to sell a rebody as an all original sheet metal car with the bornwith drive train, the gloves come off.

[black69]

back to the original car that started this thread, I have to say, did anyone ever think how hard it would be to insure? If you bought it for say $400K, and insured it for that amount, and had a claim for total loss, they (the insurance company) would have you over a barrel. They could make the case it was a toxic vehicle, and pay you nothing is my guess.

I wonder what MK would say? I just don't think it can be insured with predictable total loss coverage. Big time buyer beware.

[njsteve]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ds1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My understanding years ago that swapping bodies was not illegal as long as you disclose it. Additionally the Dynacorn bodies are considered and approved by GM as a restoration part. Dan </div></div>

As for the first sentence: Not to rehash, but you are quite incorrect from a criminal law standpoint.

As for the second sentence: just because GM declares it a replacement part, that doesn't over-rule 100 years of motor vehicle laws. Regardless of what side of the VIN swapping debate you are on, this is the problem with old laws not keeping up with the advance of technology. There needs to be an update of the federal and state laws concerning the issue of replacement bodies.

I'll use an example in the legal field: it is similar to the problem with the old wire tapping laws that were established in the 1920's that were still in effect in the 21st century.

Back in the old days, when the cops wanted to listen in on a land-line telephone conversation, they got their court order from a judge and then literally put a jumper wire (a tap) on a telephone line and listened.

With the advent of the mobile phones in the latter half of the 20th century, the same 1920's legal and technical requirements were still in effect. A bad guy could buy a dozen phones at Walmart and make a single call on each and throw it away. But the existing laws required the cops to follow the original land line method of obtaining a wiretap which took them weeks of paperwork for a phone that they knew was no longer being used. Only after the 9/11 attacks were the laws finally updated to take into account the advance of technology over the ensuing 80 years.

So, back to our previously scheduled program: until SEMA or some other powerful entity takes up the issue and gets a final answer from Congress, it is still illegal. And since the statute of limitations has long since passed on the original race car conversion, there isn't a liability issue there for the original act, but the car is still besmirched and could be subject to seizure by a DMV or law enforcement agency at any time. I wouldn't want to buy a car like that, that has the Sword of Damocles hanging over it.

[bulletpruf]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: njsteve</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ds1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My understanding years ago that swapping bodies was not illegal as long as you disclose it. Additionally the Dynacorn bodies are considered and approved by GM as a restoration part. Dan </div></div>

As for the first sentence: Not to rehash, but you are quite incorrect from a criminal law standpoint.

As for the second sentence: just because GM declares it a replacement part, that doesn't over-rule 100 years of motor vehicle laws. Regardless of what side of the VIN swapping debate you are on, this is the problem with old laws not keeping up with the advance of technology. There needs to be an update of the federal and state laws concerning the issue of replacement bodies.

</div></div>

Agreed. Disclosure is a good thing, but swapping the VIN tags from one body to another like what apparently happened to the car in question is simply illegal.

What you can do in some states - if the VIN needs to be removed from a vehicle to repair it, you can do so, but you need to have someone from the state police there to watch, verify, and fill out some sort of paperwork. I believe this is how one could try to legally take a VIN from an existing vehicle and attach it to a Dynacorn body -- you would have to say that it's necessary as a repair (i.e., the completely rusted 69 T/A in the other thread). With the police there to verify and document, this might work. A cleaner way to do this would be to use the firewall from the original car and graft it into the new body, without removing the VIN.

Bottom line - you have to concern yourself with the federal law and state law. And state laws differ from state to state.

My $.02.

Scott