COB series VIN ?

[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

[Trevor Legate]

By coincidence I photographed the car being built at Brooklands during 2005. (see page 61 of the '40 Years' book.) But clearly I'm not in possession of all the facts.

But I do know that COB6036 (1964, as built in Thames Ditton) no longer exists

[FatBoy]

Originally Posted by Trevor Legate

But I do know that COB6036 (1964, as built in Thames Ditton) no longer exists

Having read the thread, I thought that although the original car was badly damaged, the rebuilt car contained the majority original parts. Is that not the case?

Paul

[london]

Paul

I understand that the car built by Steve Gray in 2005 does have the original chassis and various other original parts. The argument is whether you can recreate the original car when the title of that original car has already been transferred to a new body and chassis.

However as Trevor notes, it could be argued that neither the car based on the new body/ chassis built in 1983 nor the 2005 car that was built from original discarded 1964 parts are the original 1964 car.

Ned


As stated, each case has to be dealt with on its individual merits. However, I wonder whether this legal case means that the issue is less clear cut now than it was previously.



Mark

[FatBoy]

Hi Mark,

It doesn't appear that the "legal title" is disputable as that was transferred to the new car.
I'm not qualified to pass judgement on the legitimacy of any claim of "originality" by Mr. Gray, I was just joining the conversation as an interested bystander.
However, It would seem to me that, title aside, the old car has a greater claim to "originality" than then new one simply because it includes original parts, which presumably the new car doesn't.
Again, I'm not passing judgement, simply expressing a point of view that may or may not be valid.
Either way, the car I saw looked very nice with a lovely patina.

Paul

[london]

I too have no axe to grind on this one. An interesting topic though and as you say a lovely car!

[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

[nikbj68]

A couple of possibilities spring to mind.
It`s possible that to 'scratch rebuild' may generate greater profit for the company charged with the task, and bear in mind that although Autokraft were at the time the official 'AC Cars', they were not the actual manufacturer of the original Cobra.
Pure supposition on my part.
Secondly, Steve Gray, now the current official AC Cars` manufacture/service department as AC Heritage, would not put a car on the road that wasn`t mechanically sound. Period.
If the integrity of the chassis was in doubt, I am 100% certain that he would not have built a Cobra around it, nor would he be happy to race that Cobra on a regular basis, as he has done since 2005 or thereabouts, I`m sure his first outing was the Oldtimer GP at the Nurburgring, where he was awarded 'Drive of the Day', going from 93rd to 53rd.
Regardless of legal issues, I have no doubt that the UK 6036 is mechanically perfect.

[london]

Steve Gray's COB 6036 will be one of 30 1962-66 Cobras running in the Shelby Cup at the Goodwood Revival in September, so nothing wrong with the chassis!

We meet a Goodwood Shelby Cup contender on the Brooklands banking

[Trevor Legate]

Well that's that then. End of the saga.

Is it just me or is this bit like living in the twilight zone....

[london]

Originally Posted by Trevor Legate

Well that's that then. End of the saga.

Hardly!

The AC Owners Club is currently taking legal advice on the principles of its Register policy and will be publishing a response in due course which could have an impact, at least on the UK side of the Pond, on what is or is not deemed to be 'original'.

[Trevor Legate]

Excuse me while I fall about laughing. I'll take my withering sarcasm elsewhere.

[Nedsel]

I remain concerned about the legal implications of a policy that grants validity to a chassis based solely on the area where the VIN is stamped, even if the rest of it has been replaced or built around this area, and seems to allow no room for consideration of the legal ownership represented by the title that should accompany the chassis, which can tell a story about legal ownership that reaches well beyond anything a mute chunk of metal can imply. To ignore the legal chain of ownership in its entirety is madness.

[Trevor Legate]

I'll drink to the above! Well said. The time is fast approaching when all Cobras will undergo the 'new broom' treatment (four new heads and two new handles) due to metal fatigue and countless other factors. The ravages of time will dictate that major components will have to be replaced before the owner finds a plie of ferrous oxide on the floor of his garage. If 'original' cars then appear built around a discarded ashtray, then madness will ensue. A proven, continuous chain of ownership must take precedent. This is how we end up with several race cars that are all the same car.

[A-Snake]

Originally Posted by Trevor Legate

I'll drink to the above! Well said. The time is fast approaching when all Cobras will undergo the 'new broom' treatment (four new heads and two new handles) due to metal fatigue and countless other factors. The ravages of time will dictate that major components will have to be replaced before the owner finds a plie of ferrous oxide on the floor of his garage. If 'original' cars then appear built around a discarded ashtray, then madness will ensue. A proven, continuous chain of ownership must take precedent. This is how we end up with several race cars that are all the same car.

+1 Well said.

Luckily only 427 Cobras can be built from discarded ashtrays