Can a company legally ask for money after a contract is signed?

[doze]

What's with all the attacks on OP's mom, this sounds like a scam or a stupid mistake made by the dealer to me. It is likely that the salesman and finance guys at the dealership screwed up some paperwork trying to push a sale through. If it is the dealers mistake then they should eat the cost.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Hey, this story has American car company written all over it. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Except that your eyesight is about as 20/20 as Mr. Magoo's

Actually domestic dealerships usually far exceed foreign dealerships in service.

This my be because domestics in the past had a larger share of problems and so were forced to have a greater amount of service interaction with their customers. Not something to be exactly proud of.

This all might also depend on region, I've had good service from both domestic and import dealerships. But i'm in socal which is highly competitive all around for the car market so take it as it is.

 

[mugs]

I'm not sure that the OP's mother deliberately lied or misled the dealership like some people are saying... she was entitled to a discount but was given a bigger discount than she was entitled to. She probably didn't know how much the discount was going to be going in.

However, the dealership acted in good faith. They let her use the discount without proof so that she wouldn't have to come back to buy the car. They got screwed as a result of this. That's not fair to them.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the OP's mother has a car that is no longer new. They can't very well cancel the deal. Is the difference between the discounts so much that she would not have bought the car without the larger discount? I'm guessing not. I don't know what the legal answer to the question here is, but I think it's right and fair that they should compromise and share the cost of the mistake.

Edit: Unless the OP's mother was aware that she was not entitled to the discount she was being given, in which case screw her. That's very possible and maybe even likely. I mean, she couldn't have just gone in and said "I'm entitled to a discount but I'm not sure what it is..." and they reply "oh, must be an employee discount." She would have had to be more specific about what the discount was, so I'm not sure where the confusion would have come from.

 

[SoulAssassin]

So I think everyone is in agreement that the day she walked into the dealership she was not entitled to the discount she received, correct? That being said the "right thing to do" would be toget the discount she was supposed to receive. You can try to play hardball and see if they'll just leave you alone but they probably know their right and will continue to pursue it. In the end not only could you have to pay the actual price you're supposed to have but you could have legal fees to deal with as well.

IMHO, let it simmer for a week or so and if they continue to push the issue then try to settle with them by asking for the right discount.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: BG4533
About a month ago my mother signed a lease for a new car. When talking price she told the dealership she had some special discount but did not have the information present. They apparently guessed the discount code, based the price on it, and she signed the contract with it. She has already made one regular lease payment for the car.
No they didn't "guess" the discount code. No doubt they entered exactly what your lying mother told them.

The dealer has now come back saying she had no right to use the code she did and she owes the dealership itself a decent amount of money. They have quickly become very aggressive and are resorting to legal threats.
Resorting to legal threats? What would you rather have them do? She lied on her application
My opinion is that the dealership made the mistake and it is theirs alone. You've already pointed out how your mom either made a mistake or committed fraud so I don't see how you can type that drivel. They are becoming aggressive because they won't get their commision. Resorting to legal threats doesn't sound very aggressive to me. No doubt this is after your fraudulent mother refused to own up to her fraud/mistake. They were responsible for validating the terms of the lease before signing it. May be true, but most likely since your mom gave incorrect information on the application and she's a directly involved party as well- she could be held responsible The lease is a contract between my mother and the leasing company. Yes, but the dealer acted as the leasing company's agent who your mom provided false info to. If for any reason the lease was invalid it would be between the leasing company and my mother and the the dealership would not be involved. Again, the dealership is the leasing company's agent. In the worst case the lease would be null and void. She could sign a new lease and pay the money or let them take back the car. That's not the worst case but the most likely case I seriously doubt it is worth it to the leasing company to pursue this amount of money. Yet it's worth it to your mom to scam a business acting in good faith out of their commision based on her mistake?

What are your opinions on the issue? Your mom is a cheat/fraud with no moral principles. Based on your responses it sounds like she's taught you well If you have any legal documentation to support your opinion please post it.
If someone had legal documentation it would no longer be an opinion would it?
Thanks.

Why don't you do what's right. Your mom messed the form up and the dealership who acted in good faith is getting screwed based on her direct actions. So rather then accepting that you start going off about it being 'their' fault. Look within- tell her to pay the money she owes and move on with life. According to your it's only a small amount anyways.

None of what you've mentioned here sounds anything like a car dealership scam.

Assumptions make an ass outa me and you. Mainly you.

Hope you have a nice time watching reruns of pokemon while sitting in your mom's basement eating chicken wings and browsing ATOT.

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: boomerang
The lawyer is probably the best advice you have gotten here.

If I understand your first post correctly, I would offer some points to consider;

Do NOT return the car. As has been said, the lease contract is between your mother and GMAC. I'm assuming its GMAC. If she returns the car, she will find herself owing the remainder of the payments on top of having no car. This sounds like a dealer ?bluff? to me.

I work for GM. I do not believe the difference between the employee price and a supplier price amounts to that much money. There is not that great of a difference percentage wise to amount to that much, but I do not know for sure.

It's entirely possible that other mistakes were made. A new, young salesman combined with an inattentive manager could have resulted in errors of any kind.

I don't know if that's the case and neither do you. I would not hand over a single dime to those people based on what they said.

Get some representation.

My dad is a recent retiree from GM and the employee discount is decent; I only buy GM cars because of it. The affiliate, though, is probably not too shabby, either. I assume the affiliate discount is through Allision Transmission, Delphi or one of the similar companies. I would expect that the discount offered to them would be comparable, so it may be worth it to talk to a alawyer and more than likely, just pay the difference.

The OP said it is about a $2000 mistake--is that $2000 due NOW or over the course of the lease? Read the lease terms. Either way, it sounds like mistsakes were made by both parties.

 

[ABErickson]

Sounds to me like you need a lawyer.

 

[montanafan]

If your mother wasn't eligible for the discount in the lease, then she shouldn't expect to get it. She does qualify for the other discount though, right? When the dealership says she owes $2000, are they taking into account the discount she is entitled to?

The way the dealership is handling this sounds awfully aggressive. They could have been more cordial about it, but probably someone there got reamed for not verifying the information on the paperwork and they are trying to cover their butt by saying that your mother intentionally lied to them. The way they are handling things may make you mad, but it still doesn't entitle your mother to get the discount she didn't qualify for.

Has she talked to the leasing company about this? It seems like this should be an issue between her and them anyway. Perhaps they will be more willing to negotiate with her and amend the lease to take the discount she was entitled to into account and terms for payment of the difference that she can be satisfied with. If it is GMAC, I dealt with them to change a contract after I had bought a car once and they were very helpful. This was many years ago, but maybe they would be better to deal with than the car dealership.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Contract law is simple and I've been through a dispute with my last lease and I won. Normally I'd side with your mother. However, contract law says that both parties enter the contract in good faith. Your mom used a discount code that turned out to be illegit. She failed to give them her code and in your own words, guessed. By doing so she attempted to defraud the other party. In the case of fraud, the other party is not legally required to uphold their end, thus making the contract void.

The dealership wouldn't be repeatedly threatening taking your mom to court if they didn't have a case.

In my case, the dealership briefly threatened to have their lawyers call me. I told the sales manager to do that so I could explain basic contract law to them. I won. However, I made no attempt to defraud them. The dealership made an error on the lease agreement in my favor, then later wanted me to give it up.

My understanding is the dealership guessed based on her saying she qualified for something, but OP correct me if I am wrong. In that case the dealer is responsible for entering the correct code, right?

But OP if she did in fact qualify for whatever discount she said originally (but not necessarily the code the dealer put in) why can't she just prove she qualifies for that, then if it goes to court the dealer is in the wrong for not putting the correct dicsount code in.

I agree with both of you regarding this situation, especially the bit concerning the contract based on good faith for both parties. The devil is in the details.

My take on all of this is the woman is probably innocent (assuming lack of premeditated intent to deceive) and the dealership should eat the costs.

Here is my reasoning.

She knew she had a discount but was probably not prepared to purchase right away. Most people want to test drive a car, physically see the vehicle, then go home and think about it. Car purchases or leases are major transactions and people naturally want time to think about them before commitment. Dealerships do not want a customer to leave the lot and think about the purchase because the customer will then make the purchase elsewhere when they investigate the inventory on a different lot.

The woman was unprepared for a purchase but found something she liked. The dealership pushed the sale and she conceded. While the dealership "ran the numbers" on the car, she remembered she had the benefit of some type of discount program. She tells this to the dealership and they ask her which program she is part of. She probably is not aware of the different discount programs GM has; dealer, employee, supplier, affiliate, or something else. She just knows she has some discount program. The dealership could have given her the numbers and let her go home and return with the proper information. Instead the dealership applied one of the discount programs, probably the best one with the lowest numbers to entice her into the purchase. It turns out the woman did not have the program the dealership assumed and now the dealership wants more money. Unfortunately, the dealership already let the woman leave with a car at a certain price based on a statement by the woman she had a discount program, which she does have, and the dealership assumed she had a different discount program.

This is clearly the dealership's fault due to their assumption of the specific discount program the woman had available to her. The dealership cannot make one deal and then change it later and they should have let her go home and return with the proper information before completing the contract. The dealership should eat the cost due to their incorrect assumption and their high pressure sales tactics. Especially since the woman cannot be considered to possess a complete understanding of all of GM's discount programs. That is the dealership's responsibility.

It may be possible for the woman to countersue the dealership for fraud, dishonest intent, or some such position and reverse this situation back onto the dealership. It really all depends on which party is considered to have committed willfull deceit and a court usually sides with the person against the big company. Again, since the woman cannot be held to have a complete understanding of all of GM's discount programs while the GM dealership, by definition, is understood to have professional and detailed knowledge of their own discount programs.

These programs do have certain stipulations requiring specific conditions are met and it is the dealership's responsibility to ensure these conditions are met. I believe the details of the transaction will show the dealership to have committed willful deceit on the woman, their customer.

 

[BG4533]

I thought some people might be interested in a quick update here.

My mother called the leasing company directly to talk to them about the matter. The first thing they determined is that the difference for the discounts was about $200, not $2000 like the dealer tried to bill my mother for. After that the company said the dealer had no right to ask for money in the manner they did. They suggested that my mother take the car to another dealership for service and said they would handle the matter.

A few days after the call my mother received a letter from the dealership apoligizing for the confusion and saying nothing was owed.

I guess the dealership got a bit greedy in the end. The funny thing is if they would have asked for the true difference my mother probably would have just paid them to get them to go away.

 

[FoBoT]

w0w, thanks for the update

sounds like a big mix up

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: dirtboy


The dealership wouldn't be repeatedly threatening taking your mom to court if they didn't have a case.

Yes the would. Most dealers are scum bags that will do anything to make a buck. Most of the time that they try this method it's just one of the sales guys that pretends to be a lawyer. Believe it or not, most people don't have a lawyer on retainer or can't afford one and the dealers know this. If they can milk an extra $1,000 from someone they will.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Hey, this story has American car company written all over it. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Except that your eyesight is about as 20/20 as Mr. Magoo's


Actually domestic dealerships usually far exceed foreign dealerships in service.

This my be because domestics in the past had a larger share of problems and so were forced to have a greater amount of service interaction with their customers. Not something to be exactly proud of.

He said it was a Pontiac dealer. Guess that makes me right and you...well, here's a towel so you can wipe the egg off your face.

<--Passes Squisher a towel.

 

[Anonemous]

wow, the lack of reading comprehension and assumptions in this thread...

so I guess the people who sided with the dealer would pay the money without questioning it...