Congratulations! Quite a saga. I quietly followed it. However, I think it's important to stand up for oneself. I've been involved in numerous lawsuits over many years, because I wouldn't just roll over. It certainly seems that opposing parties use the fact that the judicial system moves as slowly as it does against you, and it becomes a game of attrition. But, I'm glad you did it, and I'm glad you were successful (despite having some write-off). Hopefully, the other side was paying attention. Although, one never knows whether a big enough message was sent or whether it was received. Without punitive damages, it's just compensatory. And, even when there are punitive damages, parties often make actuarial calculations and take risks. After all, it's a long way to getting a check from a defendant with the presumption of innocence (I know it's CAN and not US law, but I imagine the burdens are similar, as I believe they're both derived from English common law). That said, Ross, FMoV, FNA and SpA ought to all be ashamed of themselves. CW
Certainly, contingent fee agreements have made representation more available to a wider group, but these are normally only agreed to by a counselor if there's a sizable enough award to justify it. But, as a lawyer, I agree that lawsuits are not inexpensive undertakings. Personally, I think we need tort reform to cap liability, but that also sends a problematic message. So, no ideal, easy answer, but, at least, there is a system of grievances in place. As imperfect as it may be. CW
Thank you so much for your kind words and ongoing support! In my view, Ferrari's attitude of being all about profits and share price via exploiting the brand and its followers for all they can, reflects poorly on their character - as does their choice of franchise recipients in FMoV and Brian Ross. Ferrari's collective attitude and actions/in-actions in my case have revealed the nature of their character to the worldwide Ferrari community, and the nature of our character is revealed by our collective response. For that reason and others, I'm proud to be part of the worldwide Ferrari community!
Thank you for the benefit of your experience in these matters, and on the surface each party being responsible for their costs seems like a fair arrangement. However, the cost of legal representation (or mediation) is inextricably linked to accessibility of such services in the first place. In particular, the advantage always goes to the company or more rarely the person who has greater financial resources to obtain/maintain legal representation. With all due respect, it appears that those who designed such a legal system (at least in Canada) were operating at Kohlberg's pre-conventional (lower) stage of moral reasoning in which the guiding principle is "What's in it for me?" rather than the post-conventional (higher) stage of moral reasoning in which the guiding principle is "Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice". In my view, the legal system should provide - at a minimum - equal access to legal representation for the poor and wealthy alike. That fact that it does not, speaks to the motives of those who developed the system in the first place. However, they likely could not have imagined the advent of social media, and its increasing popularity as an inexpensive means of obtaining justice separate from the expensive legal system. This FerrariChat thread represents a level playing field in which I, FMoV, and Brian Ross have equal access to the worldwide Ferrari community. I have repeatedly encouraged and challenged them to come on here and explain themselves to the worldwide Ferrari community. However, they prefer the legal venue where they have the financial advantage in terms of obtaining/maintaining legal representation. This is evidenced by Brian Ross' boast that he has been to court "probably 50 times". Brian Ross and FMoV know that they have no currency here in the court of public opinion.
What is needed is a low cost mediation system, where the two parties (without legal representation) explain their cases and show their evidence to a legally qualified mediator who then decides the case on its merits. The mediator can assist each party as necessary to understand the law and request further information / evidence as he / she thinks appropriate.
Therein the irony of our legal system: if you are very rich, or very poor, you can afford to access justice, but for most of those in between, it is an undertaking about which we have to think very hard before deciding to have a go. People like FoMV (or their insurers) rely on that. Insurance is one option, as is a no win / no fee arrangement, and there is the small claims court for minor sums, but for a claim like Lawrence's, it is the same here as in Canada - the winners are always the lawyers and fighting for your principles can be very expensive.
how insanely annoying it must have been with them being so stubborn this thread is among the top 3 results in google associated with their name too.
That's not mediation. That's neutral case evaluation/arbitration. Mediators mediate. There is nothing preventing parties from doing this. (So why they don't is beyond me). Forcing it would deminish your rights. (And it would have to be reviewable so it would just be one more step in the chain up to the appellate level).
Thank you very much! A friend and fellow Ferrari aficionado recommended Eurolux Motors International in Surrey BC. I had my Ferrari serviced there in the spring, and found them to be knowledgeable and professional. It's about 45 to 60 minutes from Vancouver, and in my opinion worth the drive. I certainly feel more comfortable dealing with them then Ferrari Maserati of Vancouver!
There is some merit in debating the fairness of various legal interventions, but in my case I suspect it would not have made much if any difference. The evidence clearly shows that FMoV and Brian Ross were only interested in making more money from me - even after negligently damaging my Ferrari. Mr. Francesconi (FNA) played the role of mediator to help arrive at the May 2016 settlement agreement, but Brian Ross deliberately sabotaged that deal by surreptitiously switching the settlement agreement. Based on the evidence of FMoV and Brian Ross' deceitful actions, it is easy to see how people might think they are simply criminals hiding behind the Ferrari name.
I'm guessing they would not be. I'm afraid there is not a lot of sympathy among the general public for the "first world problems" of Ferrari owners - even if they were egregiously mistreated by nefarious Ferrari dealerships/owners.
It was definitely Insanely annoying dealing with FMoV and Brian Ross. In my view, they will never become more than their own greediness. It is fitting that this thread is among the top 3 results in Google associated with their name. The worldwide Ferrari community has a right to know about their nefarious business practices.