>This is all I'm saying, in a nutshell. If someone wants to
>change the VIN on their car they must first inform the DMV
>and obtain their permission to do so. That's it. Now, if a
>person decides NOT to do that and make changes, then any
>action that follows, by definition is illegal; even if they
>inform a potential buyer of the change because
>they did not first inform and gain permission from the DMV.
In a nutshell, I am not disagreeing. That would be the prudent thing to
do. The state also has a very strong argument to interpret the language in
their favor. And, at the same time, I also know that you probably don't
have much of an issue with the DMV giving you much trouble on adding a VIN
to a VINless car. I've seen it done before. Technically every car that
has not been registered for 5 years is a VINless car. Again, the home
restorer is not the person they are looking to get with these laws.
My big disagreement is that this is not "fraud", by the very legal
definition of fraud, nor in my view automatically unethical. So blame me
for being hyper-technical. You might feel it is wrong for someone to do
it. That's fine. I'm only saying don't think you can sue someone under
the cause of action of fraud and win. If you had those other elements,
like hiding of theft or damage, then yes, you would have a fraud cause of
action. But, not from the simple restoration of a couple cars where the
VIN from one ends up on another, like Bill had in mind.
>OK, maybe speeding is not immoral in itself, but there
>are ramifications to speeding that you fail to take into
>account.
But I did take those into account. I specifically gave an example of going
100 where kids are present. I agree with you. Note also that with the
wildly shorter braking distances it's arguable that speeds that were
dangerous before are now relatively safer and the speed limit can go up.
I'm not suggesting that should happen. There are too many accidents as is,
and people's reaction times are still at issue. I'm just pointing out how
violating a posted speed limit is not necessarily immoral.
>Please do not misread me, I do not intend any insult or
>malice toward anyone (printed media is so inadequate!).
Ditto.
Jay
|