Ginetta-g56-gt4 - Lawrence Tomlinson of Ginetta and the LNT Care Development Group sued for Fraud.

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF HALIFAX

PLAINTIFF NAME,
Plaintiff,

v. Case No. __CL25000234-00________

Ginetta North America, A/K/A Ginetta USA;

Lawrence Tomlinson;

Clive Seddon;

Ginetta Limited;

LNT Automotive Limited;

TMI AutoTech, Inc.;

SERVE: Registered Agent
                   RJ Lackey, P.C.
                   126 S Market St
                   Ste 201
                   Danville, VA, 24541;

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF NAME, by counsel, and moves for judgment against the Defendants, Ginetta North America, et al, on the grounds and in the amount as hereinafter set forth:

PARTIES

Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF NAME, is a resident of the State of Georgia.
Defendant, TMI AutoTech, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that is owned by Ginetta North America, which is a corporation formed under the laws of the United Kingdom with a principal place of business in Virginia.
Ginetta North America is owned by Ginetta Limited, who is a subsidiary of LNT Automotive Limited. Ginetta Limited and LNT Automotive Limited are corporations formed under the Laws of the United Kingdom with a principal place of business in the United Kingdom.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to § 17.1-513. Jurisdiction of circuit courts., as this is a civil case within the court's original and general jurisdiction.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to § 8.01-328.1 as Defendant transacts business in this Commonwealth by selling cars out of its Virginia facility and has caused injury in this Commonwealth by breach of warranty in the sale of goods outside this Commonwealth when it might reasonably have expected such person to use, consume, or be affected by the goods in this Commonwealth.
Halifax County Circuit Court has venue due to Ginetta operating a facility in Halifax County, Virginia.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 23^rd, 2020, Plaintiff contacted Defendant, Ginetta Limited, about the purchase of a new Ginetta G56 GT4 car.
On November 23, 2020, the parties agreed that the purchase price for the car would be 145,000GBP, approximately $182,627.50 at the then exchange rate.
On November 24^th, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiff an invoice for a new 2021 Ginetta G55 GT4 car.
The invoice contained a typographic error and the car to be purchased was a new G56
On December 1^st, 2020, Plaintiff paid a deposit of 45,000GBP, approximately $56,677.50.
On March 25, 2021, Jamie Robinson, a representative of Defendant, stated the price was being increased to 155,000GBP approximately $195,22.50, due to alleged upgrades to the car.
On May 12^th, 2021, Matt Lowe, the CEO of LNT Automotive Limited wrote a letter to Plaintiff, calling the car was a Ginetta G56 GT4 Ultimate.
On April 21^st, 2021, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendants for the purchase of a new Ginetta G56 GT4 Ultimate (“The Car”).
The Car would have the following specifications and warranties (“The Specification”):
1. The Car would be a standard production Ginetta GT4 with the following upgrades and delivery mechanism (b) through (p).
2. The Car would be new using new components.
3. The Car would be a race car designed for driving at maximum output on a racetrack.
4. The Car would be built in a robust manner such that it would not prematurely fail.
5. The Car’s expected replacement intervals of the individual components are described in the G56 GT4 User Manual, Section Component Lifting on pages 46 and 47 and are included as Addendum One.
6. The Car’s engine will have a 60-hour warranty as shown on Ginetta’s web site and included as Addendum Two.
7. The Car will produce 520 BHP.
8. The Car will have aluminum floors.
9. The Car will have 11-inch-wide wheels.
10. The Car will have side exit exhaust pipes.
11. The Car will have an enhanced rear aero.
12. The Car will have enhanced front aero.
13. The Car will have a VBox camera system with two cameras.
14. The Car build quality and fixtures/fittings shall equal or surpass Plaintiff’s 2018 Ginetta G55 GT4 car.
15. The Car shall be delivered (“handover”) at VIR (Virgina International Raceway).
16. The Car will have an upcharge of 10,000GBP for the upgrades and delivery described in section (g) through (o) above.
On or around late August or early September 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant mutually agreed that The Car would be delivered by the Defendants to the Plaintiff through the Defendant’s USA place of business in South Boston, VA located approximately 23 miles from VIR.
On May 19^th, 2021, Defendants acknowledged a 32,500GBP (approximately $40,000) payment by Plaintiff to complete the 50% deposit for The Car as agreed by Plaintiff and Defendants.
On July 23^rd 2021, Defendants acknowledged a 77,500GBP (approximately $107,143.77) payment by Plaintiff to complete the purchase of The Car as agreed by Plaintiff and Defendants.
The complete purchase price of The Car built to The Specification, excluding import tariffs, was 155,000GBP.
The Plaintiff had paid the Defendant the full purchase price of The Car by July 23^rd, 2021.
On September 2^nd, 2021, Plaintiff paid TMI AutoTech, Inc. $6,513.51 to cover any additional expenses Defendant had incurred such that The Car would be delivered to the Plaintiff at the Defendants place of business in the USA.
On September 2^nd, 2021, Plaintiff accepted delivery of The Car in South Boston, Virginia at Defendant’s place of business in the USA.
Upon receipt, The Car was missing multiple parts including wheels, VBox camera system, splitter and the wrong floor was installed.
Some of the missing parts were delivered in late 2021 and early 2022.
Plaintiff had to install parts at his own expense.
Plaintiff had to resolve VBox camera setup at his own expense with VBox manufacturer.
After receiving The Car, Plaintiff had the power of The Car measured and The Car only produced 413BHP.
Plaintiff also discovered other defects as follows:
1. The Car vibrated excessively.
2. The low fuel level alarm did not work properly.
3. The indicators did not work properly
4. The Car had an oil leak.
5. The brakes did not work properly.
6. There was excessive heat from the exhaust heating the frame rails to the extent that they would burn the driver if the driver touched the rails.
7. The air conditioner did not work.
8. The combination of the non-working air conditioner and the heat from the exhausts caused a dangerously high cabin temperature reaching over 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
Plaintiff initially informed Defendants of the known issues with The Car on September 15^th, 2021.
By late October 2021, the oil leak had become significantly worse and Plaintiff informed Defendant of same on October 31^st, 2021.
Defendants arranged for The Car to be picked up on December 17^th, 2021, and to be returned to TMI AutoTech to repair the oil leak.
On January 28^th, 2022, three months after contacting Defendant regarding the oil leak, the Plaintiff discovered that the oil leak had still not been repaired by the Defendant.
Defendant had had multiple attempts at repairing the oil leak while The Car was at the Defendants USA place of business.
On January 28^th, 2022, Plaintiff requested Defendant return The Car to Plaintiff and send Plaintiff a replacement engine to cure the oil leak, vibration and lack of power.
Defendant returned The Car to Plaintiff, in an alleged repaired state, on the week commencing February 14^th, 2022.
Defendant refused to provide a replacement engine.
On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff informed Defendants of other issues: there was a dry break filler missing, the VBox was not working, the side pipes were overheating the cabin, the brakes were ineffective, and the wheels were bent.
On May 21^st, 2022, Plaintiff discovered that The Car was not starting properly, and The Car had a misfire.
On May 21^st, 2022, the air conditioner compressor bracket broke due to incorrect assembly from the alleged repair by the Defendants.
On May 21^st, 2022, the Plaintiff discovered The Car was still leaking oil.
On May 22^nd, 2022, Plaintiff informed the Defendants that The Car was still leaking oil.
The Defendants failed to repair the oil leak.
The Defendants failed to address the ineffective brakes.
The Defendants failed to supply the missing dry break filler.
The Defendants failed to remedy the excessive heat from the side pipes.
The Defendants failed to remedy the ineffective brakes.
The Defendants failed to address the excessive vibration.
The Defendants sent a UK VBox that did not work in the USA.
Plaintiff returned the incorrect VBox to the Defendants, purchased the correct VBox and installed himself.
On or around July of 2022, Plaintiff replaced the original steel prop shaft with a balanced carbon fiber prop shaft in an attempt to reduce vibration.
On or around August of 2022 the transaxle mounting plates broke because The Car was assembled with mounting plates that did not fit properly.
Plaintiff notified Defendant of same on August 22^nd
On September 17^th, 2022, the brakes boiled while driving The Car through the pits.
Plaintiff notified Defendant of same on September 20^th
On November 26^th, 2022, the brakes locked in the on position and spun The Car off the track.
On December 4^th, 2022, Plaintiff notified Defendant of same.
On December 5^th Defendant admitted that they have had brake lock problems.
Defendant did nothing to address the sticking and seizing brakes.
When supplying The Car, Defendant fitted the braking system from their LMP3 car to The Car.
The Car’s braking system was supplied with a 6 piston rear calipers and a 6 piston front calipers.
The Car is a GT car.
No other GT car produced for the 2021 season or newer competing in national or international events is supplied as standard using six piston rear and six piston front calipers.
Most other GT cars produced for the 2021 season or newer competing in national or international events are supplied as standard using four piston rear and six piston front calipers.
On or around the spring of 2023 Defendants developed new components so their GT4 car could use four piston rear and six piston front calipers.
Using a six piston rear and a six piston front caliper design on a GT car is a flawed design.
Defendants knew Plaintiff was suffering problems with the brakes on The Car.
Defendants did not offer to correct the faulty brakes with their newly developed components.
On or around the December and January period of 2022 and 2023 Plaintiff, at his own expense, designed and fitted a new braking system to The Car to replace the existing system supplied by the Defendant.
The system comprised, new rotors, rotor mounts, brake calipers, brake master cylinders and wheels.
The original wheels supplied by the Defendant were too small in diameter to support appropriate size rotors for a 520 BHP GT race car.
There have been no further braking issues with The Car since the Plaintiff replaced the complete brake system.
On February 18^th 2023 the transaxle stuck in first gear.
Between the months of June 2023 and May of 2024 Plaintiff replaced the engine, oil system, cooling system and electronics such that The Car did not leak oil, cooled properly when producing 520 BHP and produced 520 BHP per The Specification.
On June 21^st, 2023, in an attempt to significantly reduce Plaintiff’s work and expense, Plaintiff contacted Jamie Robinson, requesting help from Defendants to configure The Car software if the Plaintiff were to purchase a replacement engine that would meet The Specification, i.e. produce 520 BHP, vibrate less and not leak oil.
On June 21^st, 2023, Jamie Robinson emailed the then head of engine development, Anthony Thompson-Hayes asking for help configuring the proposed new engine.
The Defendants Technical Department, headed by Clive Seddon, ignored Plaintiffs request for help and did not help Plaintiff with any part of the engine, oil system, cooling system or software configuration required for the engine replacement.
The Defendants did not help Plaintiff configure The Car software to match the new engine.
The Defendants did not allow the Plaintiff to have access to The Car software such that Plaintiff could modify the existing software to support the new engine.
For the above reasons, Plaintiff was forced to replace The Car ECU (Electronic Control Unit) and build a new configuration package for the whole car (The Car) from scratch, significantly increasing the cost of replacing the engine with an engine that met The Specification.
Around December 2024, Plaintiff discovered that The Car’s transaxle tripod bearing housing was made using two major components and bolted together.
Around December 2024, Plaintiff discovered that three of the bolts holding the two components together had sheared (broken).
Around December 2024, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants now supply their GT4 cars with a re-designed single component.
The two-piece design is a flawed design.
The two-piece design is an unreliable design.
Defendants neither notified Plaintiff of their change in design or offered Plaintiff the option to upgrade his components to the new design.
On August 22^nd, 2022, Plaintiff emailed Defendants informing them of the broken transaxle brackets and also asked plaintiff in capital letters “ANYTHING ELSE I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT HAS BEEN REVISED”.
On September 9^th, 2022, Defendants responded regarding the broken brackets and admitted there was a “QC” problem with The Car’s chassis.
QC means quality control.
On September 9^th, 2022, Defendants responded stating they have been evolving “the product” for future updates and improvements and will communicate said improvements to Plaintiff.
“The product” is a Ginetta G56 GT4.
Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff of the revision to the tripod bearing housing.
Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff of any other upgrades or improvements to “the product”.
Around December 2024, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant installed a used and reconditioned transaxle (gearbox and differential combined into one unit) actuator known as an “IVA” on Plaintiff’s car when The Car was manufactured and delivered to Plaintiff as an allegedly new car on September 2^nd, 2021.
Plaintiff discovered that this IVA was new in 2016 and reconditioned by the IVA manufacturer (Megaline and Xtrac) in 2017.
Around December 2024, Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants also installed an old transaxle manufactured in 2017 onto Plaintiff’s car when it was manufactured and delivered to Plaintiff as an allegedly new car on September 2^nd, 2021.
Around December 2024, Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants fitted cylinder heads manufactured in 2016 to The Car.
Around December 2024, Plaintiff discovered that the fuel cell lift pumps had failed and had caused two earlier fuel spillages while the car was driving, but had remained undiagnosed.
On December 16^th, 2024, Plaintiff informed Defendants of same.
On December 16^th, 2024, Plaintiff requested the Defendants allow the Plaintiff to access The Car’s PDM (Power Distribution Modules) such that Plaintiff could remedy the lift pump and fuel spillage failures.
Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff access to the PDMs.
On or around February 2025, Plaintiff has embarked on a project to re-engineer the PDM configurations such that he can address the lift pump failure and fuel spillage.
By not providing access, Defendants have caused Plaintiff further expense than if they were to provide access.
Plaintiff spent $184,678.37 in labor and materials to repair or replace parts that were broken or did not work, and to install a new engine.
Plaintiff spent $46,840.00 to replace the old components in the Car that Defendant installed with new components that Plaintiff purchased.
Plaintiff spent $6,109.78 in abandoned meetings.
Plaintiff anticipates $8,320.00 in future expenses.
Plaintiff has sustained a total damage of $245,888.15.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count 1 – Breach of Contract.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-107 as if fully set forth herein.
Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a valid contract for the sale of a car.
Plaintiff performed his obligations under the contract by paying the full purchase price for The Car.
Defendant breached the contract by providing Plaintiff with a defective car that does not conform to the terms of their agreement.
As a result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

Count 2 – Breach of Warranty under the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-112 as if fully set forth herein.
Defendants made warranties in the form of The Specification related to The Car sold to Plaintiff.
The Car did not conform to those warranties.
Plaintiff reported the nonconformity to Defendants during the warranty period.
Defendants have either refused to fix The Car or have attempted to fix The Car and Defendants have been unable to fix it.
The Car is still defective.
Defendants have refused to remedy the defects.
Defendants have violated the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act.

Count 3 – Breach of Warranty

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-120 as if fully set forth herein.
Defendant provided an express warranty and an implied warranty with the sale of The Car, including the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
The Car sold to Plaintiff was defective and not fit for its ordinary purpose or the purpose for which Plaintiff purchased it.
Defendant breached these warranties by selling a defective car to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff provided notice to Defendants of the breach of warranty within a reasonable time after discovering the defects.
Defendants did not cure the defects.
As a result of Defendants’ breach of warranty, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

Count 4 – Fraud

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-127 as if fully set forth herein.
Defendants made a false representation to Plaintiff.
The false representation was of a material fact.
Defendants made a false representation intentionally and knowingly with the intent to mislead Plaintiff.
Plaintiff relied on the false representation and suffered a damage as a result.

Count 5 – Constructive Fraud – In the alternative

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-132 as if fully set forth herein.
Plaintiff pleads this cause of action in the alternative to Count 4.
Defendants made a false representation of a material fact.
The false representation was made negligently.
Plaintiff relied on the false representation and suffered a damage as a result.

Count 6 – Deception under the Consumer Protection Act

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-137 as if fully set forth herein.
Defendants have engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.
The deceptive acts or practices occurred during the sale of The Car to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff relied on the deceptive acts or practices and suffered a damages as a result.
Defendants willfully violated the Consumer Protection Act by intentionally deceiving Plaintiff so that he would purchase The Car.

JURY DEMAND. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; Incidental and consequential damages; Treble damages; Specific performance requiring Defendant to provide a non-defective replacement car; Reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit; Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

___________________________

By Counsel:
John A. Terry; VA State Bar No. 95028
Law Office of John A. Terry, PLLC
50 Maple Ave
Halifax, VA 24558
(434) 404-3190
(434) 404-3198
john@terrylawpc.com