LE CAR INVESTMENTS: MR DANIE VAN ZYL: UNRELIABLE DEALING

DISAPPOINTMENT AND FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FULL INFORMATION ON ADVERTISED CAR: On the morning of Friday23 June 2023, I saw an adverti*****t in AUTOTRADER for Mercedes Benz SLK 350. The adverti*****t was placed by Le Car Investments, of Mr Dani Van Zyl. I rep**** to the adverti*****t. At about 11:36 Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments called me. He said the car was in Potchefstroom - we are both in Johannesburg - and he would arrange for a viewing. He further told me that he would revert to me and we would go to see the car. I asked him to set a time and revert to me. He agreed to this. Having not heard form him, I sent him an sms at about midday on Saturday 24 June 2023. He rep**** via sms saying the car was sold to a dealer. I queried how this could be, given our discussions the day before. I then called Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments. He told me that "the car was advertised over the whole world". I asked how that could be? He said that the person he was dealing with had "called a whole lot of dealers" and one of these bought the car. He said that as soon as he heard the car was sold, he "called Auto Trader and canceled the ad." Presumably the latter point was made to suggest he was acting with integrity. On my pushing the point, he told me he Ï was not not aware that you want the vehicle? Interested yes but then I had to withdrew [sic]. End of discussion." This is unsatisfactory for various reasons: 1) Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments did NOT actually disclose in our first conversation that there were various dealers vying for the car. It obviously makes a difference to the whole circumstance when in fact Mr Van Zyl has no sole mandate to sell the car. 2) As I pointed out to Mr Van Zyl, had he told me that there was a group of dealers in the market, one would have been in a position to act differently, because the whole situation is different. I HAVE NEVER been placed in a position where the advertising dealer is in fact NOT simply the only one trying to sell the car but is actually competing for a quick buck on the off-chance that he might wangle a sale. 3) Once Mr Van Zyl was informed that he was out of the running in vying for the car, he did not even have the decency to tell me the car was sold - understandably, of course, since he hadn't informed me of the actual dynamic surrounding the marketing of the car. 4) He had told me he would revert to me. He did not. *I* had to contact him. 5) To tell me that he "was not aware that you want the vehicle"[sic]. This simply cannot be true: given the history and the time frame outlined above, no rational person of integrity could possibly deduce that. t Previously I viewed a car being "sold" by Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments. A day after viewing he told me it was sold to somebody else. Then he told me it was actually withdrawn from the market. I would STRONGLY urge anybody trying to investigate a car being sold by Mr Van Zyl of Le Car Investments to do their best to establish if Mr Van Zyl ACTUALLY is in a position to actually negotiate with them over the sale of the car in question.

My own recent experience suggests that Mr Van Zyl does not actually disclose where he actually stands in relation to the sale of a vehicle. In other words, crucial information is withheld. Furthermore, when things inevitably go South , he fails in basic courtesy: he had undertaken to get back to me, but didn't; when *I* got in touch with him, it's nonsense about not knowing I "want the vehicle"[sic].

None of this seems to ne to meet the BASIC standards of fair dealing.