|
I went to a dealer to buy a used minivan. After reaching an acceptable price
on the car, they told me the loan couldn't be financed for the 4.99%
originally offerred because of my credit report (bankruptcy in mid 2000)
which I had told them about before discussing the car price. However they
gave me 6.75% rate and the specific payment for that rate which I accepted.
I signed the paperwork that showed all the numbers, including cost, rate,
monthly payment, we had agreed to. When they failed to give me my copies of
the documents signed, I asked why. They said they had not yet decided which
lender they were going to use but would mail the papers the next day.
A week went by....no papers.During this time, I'm driving the "new" minivan
and they have my trade-in. Finally, after 10 days, the salesman called and
said I needed to drop back by to sign a paper missed the first time. When I
went by, they had increased the rate to almost 9% saying no-one would take
my loan at the 6.75%. When I asked them why they never intimated that the
finace rate was "contingent", they told me that ALL car deals are done that
way.
My question is, is there a legal way to expose this type of deception or do
I just take my lumps? Is this really a standard practice....if so is it
legal for them not to advise that the deal could change? By-the-way....I did
not sign the last high rate papers and took the minivan and got my trade-in
back. Now I'm waiting on my $1000 down payment (which I made their sales
manager sign a paper saying it would be returned to me with no reductions).
I'm not after money in this...I just want this dealership stopped from being
dishonest!!!
Mike
|
| |
| |
"Mike Lewis" <jmpj@cableone.net> wrote in
news:dmt0vvcc3aqajfocn2thmi4ui4fmirp3j1@4ax.com:
I went to a dealer to buy a used minivan. After reaching an acceptable
<story of sleazy dealer tactics snipped>
I'm not after money in this...I just want this dealership stopped from
being dishonest!!!
Hahahaha! If you can figure this out, patent it and you'll never need to
work another day in your life!
Some car dealers may be honest, but many are not, and I doubt there's
anything you can do that will make much of a dent in that. The best you can
do is protect yourself... there are some good lessons learned in this
experience.
If you get out of this deal with your money and your original car, consider
yourself very fortunate. My suggestion to you would be to explore financing
from your bank, or, better, credit union. That way you can work out details
and problems without the pressure of a car salesman, and without the stress
of making a deal on the car at the same time. Your bargaining position with
the salesman can also be stronger if you've already got financing lined up.
|
| |
| |
[cc'd to previous poster; follow-ups in newsgroup suggested]
In article <dmt0vvcc3aqajfocn2thmi4ui4fmirp3j1@4ax.com> in
misc.legal.moderated, Mike Lewis wrote:
[Dealer and customer signed sales agreement quoting specific
interest rate; dealer later tried to raise it.]
My question is, is there a legal way to expose this type of deception or do
I just take my lumps? Is this really a standard practice....if so is it
legal for them not to advise that the deal could change? By-the-way....I did
not sign the last high rate papers and took the minivan and got my trade-in
back. Now I'm waiting on my $1000 down payment (which I made their sales
manager sign a paper saying it would be returned to me with no reductions).
You had two options: insisting that the dealer honor the contract,
or agreeing with the dealer to cancel the sale. The second one
(which you chose) probably involves fewer hassles.
You could report the dealer to your state's attorney general, but
it's _very_ unlikely anything would be done since you have no actual
loss. But it's still probably a good idea to report it, since that's
the only way the AG's office can build up records of a pattern of
behavior.
For the future, it should set off big alarm bells when any vendor
refuses to give you a copy of the sales agreement, or tries to
prevent you from reading it before signing.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
"Mike Lewis" <jmpj@cableone.net> wrote:
I went to a dealer to buy a used minivan. After reaching an
acceptable price on the car, they told me the loan couldn't be
financed for the 4.99% originally offerred because of my credit
report (bankruptcy in mid 2000) which I had told them about
before discussing the car price. However they gave me 6.75% rate
and the specific payment for that rate which I accepted.
I signed the paperwork that showed all the numbers, including
cost, rate, monthly payment, we had agreed to. When they failed
to give me my copies of the documents signed, I asked why. They
said they had not yet decided which lender they were going to
use but would mail the papers the next day.
A week went by....no papers.During this time, I'm driving the
"new" minivan and they have my trade-in. Finally, after 10 days,
the salesman called and said I needed to drop back by to sign a
paper missed the first time. When I went by, they had increased
the rate to almost 9% saying no-one would take my loan at the
6.75%. When I asked them why they never intimated that the
finace rate was "contingent", they told me that ALL car deals
are done that way.
My question is, is there a legal way to expose this type of
deception or do I just take my lumps? Is this really a standard
practice....if so is it legal for them not to advise that the
deal could change? By-the-way....I did not sign the last high
rate papers and took the minivan and got my trade-in back. Now
I'm waiting on my $1000 down payment (which I made their sales
manager sign a paper saying it would be returned to me with no
reductions).
Actually the car dealers hate it when that happens as much as you
do. Why? Because you've been driving their car around for heaven
knows how many miles. And if you don't like the new deal you can
just tell them, "no thank you" and return the car. They'll then
have to return your trade-in or pay you for it. In the mean time
the car you thought you'd bought is worth perhaps thousands less
than it was before.
Yes, they should have advised you that they weren't the lender and
that they hadn't secured a lender yet. But it's a common practice
to do what they did.
It's possible that you could hold them to their original contract.
But the last time I had a case like this, it turned out that was not
an option.
Stu
|
| |
| |
A week went by....no papers.During this time, I'm driving the "new" minivan
and they have my trade-in. Finally, after 10 days, the salesman called and
said I needed to drop back by to sign a paper missed the first time. When I
went by, they had increased the rate to almost 9% saying no-one would take
my loan at the 6.75%. When I asked them why they never intimated that the
finace rate was "contingent", they told me that ALL car deals are done that
way.
My question is, is there a legal way to expose this type of deception or do
I just take my lumps? Is this really a standard practice....if so is it
legal for them not to advise that the deal could change? By-the-way....I did
not sign the last high rate papers and took the minivan and got my trade-in
back. Now I'm waiting on my $1000 down payment (which I made their sales
manager sign a paper saying it would be returned to me with no reductions).
While not ALL car deals are done that way, a fair number of them are.
It's not uncommon for the prospective owner to take the "purchased"
vehicle home and leave the trade-in at the dealership, with the deal
being contingent on obtaining financing. This is more often seen in
the purchase of a pre-owned vehicle, and less likely to be encountered
when buying a new vehicle.
From what you've written, it doesn't sound like the dealership was
trying to scam you. After all, they gave you back your trade-in,
allowed you to return the minivan, and have indicated that they will
refund your entire downpayment amount. What are your damages? They'd
hoped, I'm sure, that the deal would go through at the proposed 6.75%;
they want to sell cars, after all. They probably wanted you to decide
that you liked the minivan too much to give it back, and thus accept a
9% interest rate. But it doesn't sound like they finance the
purchases, and didn't get to decide the final approved rate.
|
| |
| |
In article <0lq3vv47pn6enscl7969ml2j7bf68g9lf0@4ax.com>,
P.J. Hartman <pjhartman@yahoo.com> wrote:
From what you've written, it doesn't sound like the dealership was
trying to scam you. After all, they gave you back your trade-in,
allowed you to return the minivan, and have indicated that they will
refund your entire downpayment amount.
Personally, I'll be a lot more likely to believe that when the entire
downpayment actually _is_ refunded. Why couldn't they write him a
check on the spot?
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <okq3vv0kst2cbvdroavn6n6rerfjtlq3c7@4ax.com> in
misc.legal.moderated, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
[about car dealer "discovering" a week after purchase that financing
didn't go through at the agreed rate]
It's possible that you could hold them to their original contract.
But the last time I had a case like this, it turned out that was not
an option.
Why was it "not an option"? I can see making a decision not to try
to force it because it would take time and effort, but just flat-out
"not an option"?
I'm curious about the story, if necessary with identifying details
altered.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:16:05 -0500, "Stuart O. Bronstein"
<spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
Actually the car dealers hate it when that happens as much as you
do. Why? Because you've been driving their car around for heaven
knows how many miles. And if you don't like the new deal you can
just tell them, "no thank you" and return the car. They'll then
have to return your trade-in or pay you for it. In the mean time
the car you thought you'd bought is worth perhaps thousands less
than it was before.
. . . .
It's possible that you could hold them to their original contract.
But the last time I had a case like this, it turned out that was not
an option.
I've seen contracts that include a clause allowing the dealer to
charge for mileage if a revised loan is declined. IMHO, that would be
appropriate, so long as the dealer didn't misrepresent the likelihood
that the buyer could get a loan.
Daniel Reitman
|
| |
| |
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
[about car dealer "discovering" a week after purchase that
financing didn't go through at the agreed rate]
Why was it "not an option"? I can see making a decision not to
try to force it because it would take time and effort, but just
flat-out "not an option"?
I really don't recall. Perhaps the contract had a specific provision
that the sale was contingent on finding financing. That's the only
thing I can think of at the moment that would require that outcome.
Stu
|
| |
| |
In article <0lq3vv47pn6enscl7969ml2j7bf68g9lf0@4ax.com>, P.J. Hartman <pjhartman@yahoo.com> wrote: Personally, I'll be a lot more likely to believe that when the entire downpayment actually _is_ refunded. Why couldn't they write him a check on the spot?
took it for deposit immediately....even though this practice my be
techically ok legally, its the reason consumers end up on the short end of
the stick so often. Our option is take the lumps or spend money for lawyer
fees with no guarantee of relief. There should be an easier way for all
consumers to complain that really impacts the pirates!!!
mike
|
| |
| |
[about car dealer "discovering" a week after purchase that
financing didn't go through at the agreed rate]
It's possible that you could hold them to their original
contract. But the last time I had a case like this, it turned
out that was not an option.
Why was it "not an option"? I can see making a decision not to
try to force it because it would take time and effort, but just
flat-out "not an option"?
I really don't recall. Perhaps the contract had a specific provision
that the sale was contingent on finding financing. That's the only
thing I can think of at the moment that would require that outcome.
Most of the auto sales contracts here contain such language (to deal with
just the type of situation the OP was involved in).
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* lawyer@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
|
| |
| |
In article <booivv43206gnl8aip3nsep460cm5s9g96@4ax.com> in
misc.legal.moderated, Mike Lewis wrote:
[Car dealership waited a week after sale, tried to get OP to sign
new agreement at higher interest rate. When OP quite properly
refused, dealer offered to return trade-in and down payment if OP
returned car.]
I got the check in the mail yesterday and
took it for deposit immediately....even though this practice my be
techically ok legally, its the reason consumers end up on the short end of
the stick so often. Our option is take the lumps or spend money for lawyer
fees with no guarantee of relief. There should be an easier way for all
consumers to complain that really impacts the pirates!!!
Maybe you missed what I said before. Since you have no actual loss
here, no tort has been committed. There may or may not have been the
crime of bait-and-switch, offering a product (loan) one has no
intention of actually selling, with the purpose of switching the
consume to a more costly product. The dealership may or may not have
_tried_ something, but since they backed down when you objected you
have no proof of what their intentions were.
This is why it is important to report these incidents to your state
attorney general or consumer-protection office. One such incident
proves nothing; a few would help to establish a pattern of bad-faith
dealing on the part of the dealer (if that's what's going on). Bait-
and-switch, as I understand it, is a crime whether or not the dealer
actually succeeds in the "switch", but deceptive intent is an
element of the crime. Only with such a pattern can such intent be
demonstrated, as far as I'm aware.
You might also contact the consumer watchdog reporter if your local
media have one. A news story could prompt others who have been
through this to come forward -- again, if there are any such. At
least, it may make other potential victims aware of their rights.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
|
