Dispute: Statement of events

August 22,2015 my son contact PMP Auto group regarding the purchase of a used stock engine. The owner of PMP, responded via text message (see attached) providing details of the engine including mileage, compression test/leak down test to verify integrity of the used engine. My son was very specific and asked on numerous occasions for the owner to verify that the engine was stock only. He verified the engine was stock and it is also noted on the receipt. The engine was then purchased by my son on August 24,2015. The engine was installed by Zach Sharpe an employee with Monroe Muffler Lancaster, an ASE certified shop. The engine began to show signs of failure 10 days after the installation. My son contacted PMP and they agreed to inspect the engine, see return receipt. Upon removal and disassembly of the engine, by a professional, it was determined that it was not a stock engine as specified and it did have modifications that were not compatible with the tune in the vehicles computer system. This is also noted on the return receipt as the TGV valve concern. My son immediately contacted the seller regarding his finding. The seller admitted that he does not inspect every engine in detail prior to selling them. He assured my son and our certified technician, Jennifer Gehman (please see attached credentials) that he would either repair the engine and or replace it at no cost. He has since revoked his offer and refuses to refund the $2500 that was paid for the engine. I contacted Mr. Donato directly and he basically laughed at me and told me "good luck at ever seeing your money again"

My son returned the engine on 10/15/2015. The owner is continuing to claim that this is a warranty issue and that the engine is outside of the original warranty period. The engine was installed by a certified ASE shop as outlined in the warranty instructions which inturn would extend the warranty to 60 days instead of 30. I have argued that this is NOT a warranty issue and it was fraudulent misrepresentation as well as deceptive trade practice on the part of the seller. Upon further investigation I have found numerous forums and reviews that this seller has a history of this behavior. Had the engine been stock as promised there would not be a service issue. The engine failure is a direct result of the misrepresentation by the seller. The vehicle in question has aftermarket modifications including upgraded turbo, high pressure fuel rails and 1000 cc injectors, the vehicle's computer was professional and specifically tuned to stock standards and any deviation from this would throw the computer into limp mode which in turn could severely damage the engine. I have filed a formal complaint with the PA Attorney Generals office and I would recommend anyone with a similar experience do the same.