How much does a bad repaint hurt value on a s2000? A shop painted my Sons car as a "favor"

Datsun1500 wrote: I do understand to a lot of us it is "just" a S2000, but... He is 21 years old, and this was his "dream car" He specifically wanted an 04 or 05, black on black. The 03 and earlier was a different generation, and the 06 and up has different seats. I am guessing he looked for at least 6-8 months before he found one with reasonable miles, good price, etc. He found it, put money down, and got a good loan, all in his name. He's a good kid, owns his own house, with no co-signer, etc. He paid to have the wheels re-furbished, a few dings taken out, and was a week away from it looking as close to new as possible. They took that away, and can't give it back. It might not be my dream car, or yours, but it was/is his. At the moment I can find more 356's for sale than 04-05 Black S2000's...

You indeed have my sympathy. And your son is much more responsible than mine.

ZOO wrote:

Cotton wrote:

ZOO wrote: Bad paint is all about bad prep. Great paint is all about great prep. And lots of labour. His car could be returned to a better than before state, if someone is willing to pay the bills.

You can have excellent prep, then have some jackass with a cheap spray gun spraying cheap materials and come out with garbage paint. Been there.... Now you want to cut and buff it for hours on hours, hope you don't burn through, etc and you might be able to make it look decent, but in my experience buy good equipment, spray with quality materials and life gets much easier when doing this type of thing.

I think that's what I am getting at -- the situation on this particular S2000 may not be entirely lost if someone is willing to step up and do it right.

I would have no problem with an S2K with a premium, done right repaint. That being said, your son should not ahve to just "settle" for something he does not want.

In reply to Datsun1500:

You just really, really ahve my sympathy more than you know. I love both of my boys very deeply and I would be astonishingly hurt and angry if someone did this to one of my two sons.

....and I had a similar situation come up with work I paid a shop to do about 7 months ago. A shop I ahve used for twenty eyars is getting no more of my business. It is a tough thing.

16vCorey wrote: And just curious, but why to so many have the impression that a repaint automatically kills it's value? I know a few painters that when they're done with it you'd never know it wasn't original. And if that exact car is so hard to find, why not have a competent painter strip it and repaint it?

Totally agree. I had a new silver Miata that wasn't involved in an actual accident, but got covered with debris from one and scratched up. It had less than 10k so the insurance company ponied up for an entire re-spray by a very good shop in town. They disassembled the car, including the hardtop, and did it right. When it was returned it was vastly better than the OEM paint. The paint was so deep and nice I was almost worried when I drove it. When it I sold it, the guy who bought said it was by far the nicest one he had looked at, and that I think was mainly down to the quality of the paint.

So, what would be the ideal outcome, Datsun? You can't rewind the clock. The shop owner has offered to replace the car. But all you're telling us is what's not possible and not acceptable.

It sounds like you are both pretty close to the same page. Give it the weekend and sit down with him and talk about it.

honestly.... does your son want to keep this car? If he does, I would just tell the shop to make the car "right" and go from there. Maybe a few extra bits if the owner is really feeling guilty.. but ask for too much and bad feelings will develop, let it go for a little "less" and you might make a friend for life

I think getting the shop to make it right has the advantage that you already know the car is good, so you don't suddenly end up with somebody else's pile o' problems. A good bodyshop will be able to make it as good as new or better.

Plus, if they start having a go at the bondo and it's all crumpled and really bad underneath, I would suggest that both you and the shop owner inspect the car at this point and if a repair is not feasible, switch to plan B.

if it's really crumpled under there.. I think a lawsuit against Maaco may be in order.

Good point. That's plan L, I guess.

The problem is that your son's contract is with the shop that then subbed out the job to Maaco, so I don't think you'd have any legal standing against them as is. Only the shop would (but IANAL).

Datsun1500 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: if it's really crumpled under there.. I think a lawsuit against Maaco may be in order.

I don't think I could, I think I'd have to go against the shop and they go against maaco, chain of command... Plus, I'm not a "sue you" guy

I think you and the shop owner could go after Maaco together. You have both have tangible losses due to Macco's wrong doing. This would also probably get Macco's insurance settle a lot faster. I think you should team up. I know I have said this before but if this was in MA chapter 93a is specifically to handle this kind of thing. Any company found guilty under Chapter 93a has to pay triple damages plus legal fees of the plaintiff.

So your 18K car turns in to a 54K payout. Add in lost wages and all kinds of other tangible losses that a attorney can dream up Ohya and add in the shops losses of business and damaged reputation and I bet you would be reaching a 100K claim rather quickly. Is this fair? Well yes and no. The law is meant to teach big business to not take advantage of the little guy. That is the real purpose of the astronomical awards that can result from being found guilty under this law. IT makes insurance company's stand up and take notice. Like they may make renewal of policy's come with strings attached or at a minimum significant fee increases and or they get dropped all together and would have to go to the Massachusetts state insurance pool that has a whole bunch of other regulations that you have to comply with to get coverage. So in short the law and the big awards are meant as a deterrent and the AG's office here in MA take these types of cases VERY seriously!!!

Yes I have waved the 93a card in front of some big businesses and it cools there jets in a hurry.

Nothing to be gained by wading into this one -- but what the heck!

You may need to hire a lawyer to get this resolved no matter what you're hearing from the business(es) involved. Not necessarily to fight -- but to be sure your interests are represented objectively and with passion. Ultimately, their insurance company will be intimately involved in making the call about what they will/won't do. Any lawyer worth his/her salt will force you to be realistic about what your actual loss is in this situation. Claims that the car needs to be replaced are unreasonable. You haven't lost the entire value of the car. You've (potentially) lost the difference between what the car would sell for with factory paint and what it would sell for with the paint job that's on it and any repaired damage from an alleged wreck caused by Maaco (are they admitting to that yet?). Valuing that difference is going to be a subjective process. Car enthusiasts (you'll likely be the only one at the table) will place a MUCH larger value on that difference than the average attorney/judge/jury --- most of whom would never notice the difference between factory paint and a bad respray/repair. Just look at all the crap you see driving down the road repaired poorly. If the 'dent' that was there before is gone - regardless of the orange peel, poor prep, bad fill, etc. - the average person thinks it's fixed. That's the mentality you'll be up against if push comes to fight.

Shops that work on cars damage their customer's cars every day. While it's a hassle, particularly if they try and deceive you about it, their obligation is to fix what they damaged. Not to replace a car. The missing piece so far in the thread (unless I missed it) is that the OP has some accountability in this also. He picked the shop. He turned the car over to them. The minute that occurred you accepted some risk that something like this could happen. It's unfortunate, it's wrong on the part of the business for it to be handled this way. But it's part of the risk one accepts when we ask others to work on our cars.

So it seems to me the only damages you'll be able to reasonably claim are for the difference in value, and something for inconvenience, lawyer's fees. When it comes to the difference in value, I think you're going to find there's a big gap between your value of that and the opposing side's value of it. One thing is certain - it won't be clear cut at all. All the stuff about triple damages, etc. --- that all assumes it gets fought out in court and that you win. If the shop is willing to repair the car -- I don't know a judge anywhere that's going to have a problem with that. It's when the business fights to the end and insists they shouldn't have to do anything at all that they may end up with the punitive damages in addition to the actual damages. Laws like Chapter 93A in MA don't insure that all those punitive damages have to be paid -- they simply allow the judge to impose them up to that level if he/she feels it's appropriate. And that's only if they LOSE....there are no guarantees once you get that third party (judge/jury) involved.

I offer that only to say keep it in mind before you decide that slugging it out with these guys is the way to go. I agree that having them do the best job they can making it right is your best bet at this point. I'd look into having them subcontract with some other paint shop for the repair of the repair.

Having said all that -- I'm sorry, no other way to say this -- there is no 'high end restoration shop' that uses Maaco for a painting subcontractor. Anyone with half a brain would recognize the lack of quality in the paint very quickly. How long has this place been in business? True high end restoration shops either do their own prep/paint work, or they work closely with high end paint shops. And those high end paint shops aren't Maaco.

MichaelYount wrote: Having said all that -- I'm sorry, no other way to say this -- there is no 'high end restoration shop' that uses Maaco for a painting subcontractor. Anyone with half a brain would recognize the lack of quality in the paint very quickly. How long has this place been in business? True high end restoration shops either do their own prep/paint work, or they work closely with high end paint shops. And those high end paint shops aren't Maaco.

depends on the Maaco. The one nearest me is an award winner. They have done numerous show cars to a very high standard. But then, it is a case of getting what you pay for. Most people only want the $299 winter special.

Just remembered this, not suggesting this is the outcome but...

when I took auto body in high school the equation for totaling a car is

Cost of Repairs + Salvage value of the vehicle + Depreciation =>~80% then the car is totaled.

If the cost of the repairs of the car is what is being estimated here, that is a very real situation.

Not to put a big negative in all of this, but getting lawyers and insurance companies involved may not be the best situation. Not to mention the original shop, if this gets out about his use of a Maaco, could be DOA. Which the OP doesn't seem to want to happen.

I will say this, the fact he is willing to "step up" and make this right, yet he is willing to,and built his business on, deceiving his entire clientele about what is happening with their cars, is not setting well with me.

I would not lose sleep over the extra $4k for the $20K other car. Think of it as a karma payment for him deceiving his customers. You aren't trying to screw him and he made the offer. If you feel really bad about it, split the difference in cost. Lower miles will look better to a new lender anyway. Put it to bed and move on.

There is my 2¢ for free. Man this whole thing just makes me feel bad for your son.

mad_machine wrote:

MichaelYount wrote: Having said all that -- I'm sorry, no other way to say this -- there is no 'high end restoration shop' that uses Maaco for a painting subcontractor. Anyone with half a brain would recognize the lack of quality in the paint very quickly. How long has this place been in business? True high end restoration shops either do their own prep/paint work, or they work closely with high end paint shops. And those high end paint shops aren't Maaco.

depends on the Maaco. The one nearest me is an award winner. They have done numerous show cars to a very high standard. But then, it is a case of getting what you pay for. Most people only want the $299 winter special.

I'm going to have to go with mad_machine on this one. The Maaco 2 doors down from my office turns out some seriously impressive paint jobs if you throw about $10K at them. I would even rate their $500 special at good to very good depending on the color. Keep in mind, Maaco is a franchise, the franchise owner controls the quality.

rcutclif wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote:

mr2peak wrote: Better Business Bureau

Does the BBB actually provide ANY service whatsoever?

Only to businesses. My understanding is you pay a 'membership' as a business that lets you list yourself as being affiliated. There are obviously different levels. I believe they do ratings and feedback and such on their 'members'... but only companies who have paid them. I believe now that there are online reviews almost everywhere, the BBB is really just an extra advertising tool for companies.

I have had a complaint to the BBB end up greatly helping me get a refund.

So???

I would say a lawyer needs to get involved before I would let them do anything. They would have already lost my trust at this point.

Datsun1500 wrote: It's still going... The shop now says he can make the car "perfect" so I told them to show it to me when it's done, and we will continue the talks from there. At this point I will wait until I see the car presented as a finished product. I am tired of debating the "what ifs" with them. They called me Today and said there were a lot of little dings on the car and asked if I wanted them fixed. I said it went to a PDR guy the day before they got it and there were no dings. The response was "well they never get them all of the way out" and when I replied that I did not see them with the factory paint on the car and if they now show up because of the fresh paint, it's their problem. He started to argue with me and I simply said "show me the car as a finished product and we will go from there, no need to discuss anything until then" This conversation was with the original shops GM, not the owner. That guy seems to think I am trying to pull a fast one?

I'd try to deal with the owner and only with the owner.

Datsun1500 wrote: ...The response was "well they never get them all of the way out" and when I replied that I did not see them with the factory paint on the car and if they now show up because of the fresh paint..

You know, because little dings are so hard to see in a black paint job...

Was the factory paint ever detailed and put in a light tunnel? Because that's one unforgiving environment. If this IS a high end restoration shop, they'll have pretty high standards.

As nice of a guy as you want to be, you really need to consult a lawyer.

Similar transactions regarding a friend's Mustang, a car accident, and a local restoration shop is how he has had a car being "worked on" for 5 years now. He's just now exploring other options. At least for your son's sake, don't put yourselves through that.