Dealership Doesn't like the deal it makes, so it takes the car back!

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: mugs
There has to be more to this story...

There's hundreds of complaints about this dealership at ripoff report

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: mugs
There has to be more to this story...

There's hundreds of complaints about this dealership at ripoff report

link?

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: mugs
There has to be more to this story...

There's hundreds of complaints about this dealership at ripoff report

link?

Text

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: mugs
There has to be more to this story...

There's hundreds of complaints about this dealership at ripoff report

link?

Text

My family has been in the car business for over 60 (think far longer then that but pretty sure aboutTt 60) we took great pride in being a honest and fair dealership.

stories like this piss me off. any dealership that uses such tactics should be slapped down hard by the government and the car manufactures.

 

[altonb1]

The size of the dealership implies they must do a lot of business, but it is absurd how shady they seem....

 

[yukichigai]

Okay, let's clear this one up:

THE CAR WAS NOT REPOSSESSED. THE SALE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

This popped up on FARK a while ago, and various links were discovered which shed more light on the story.

The key part of this story is how he paid: by check. Yes, it was a "cash" sale, but all that means is "money up front." The dude paid for it all at one time, with a reasonably immediate form of payment. Note that I said reasonably. This is where the catch comes in.

See, when you buy anything with a check it usually takes the business at least a day to process it and send it off to the bank, and if you're very, very lucky they may actually verify the check and put the money in the business account within, say, 18 hours of the customer writing the thing. However, the probability of that happening is like the probability of a Geo Metro hitting 100mph on the open highway. More often than not there's about 3 days before the check is properly cashed. In this case the dealership hadn't cashed the check yet, hadn't even finished processing it. (Hell, it was probably when they were processing it that they found it) Since they hadn't taken the money yet, as it were, they were still able to cancel the sale before it was finalized. Sure, the dude had a contract, but if you check that fine print I guarantee it has a clause in there about "receipt of payment." Legally, the car didn't belong to the guy yet. Kinda. It's a weird black hole of legal logic.

Anyway, while this is technically legal it is sure as hell underhanded. Even if the story is as they claim then the salesman is the one who needed to bear the brunt, not the owner. I'd say he has good grounds for a civil suit.

And yeah, the magic black hole of logic I described needs to be closed.

 

[Baked]

Looks like the POS prosecutor got paid off by the dealership and bent the law for them. What a dick weed.

 

[AgentJean]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Okay, let's clear this one up:

THE CAR WAS NOT REPOSSESSED. THE SALE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

This popped up on FARK a while ago, and various links were discovered which shed more light on the story.

The key part of this story is how he paid: by check. Yes, it was a "cash" sale, but all that means is "money up front." The dude paid for it all at one time, with a reasonably immediate form of payment. Note that I said reasonably. This is where the catch comes in.

See, when you buy anything with a check it usually takes the business at least a day to process it and send it off to the bank, and if you're very, very lucky they may actually verify the check and put the money in the business account within, say, 18 hours of the customer writing the thing. However, the probability of that happening is like the probability of a Geo Metro hitting 100mph on the open highway. More often than not there's about 3 days before the check is properly cashed. In this case the dealership hadn't cashed the check yet, hadn't even finished processing it. (Hell, it was probably when they were processing it that they found it) Since they hadn't taken the money yet, as it were, they were still able to cancel the sale before it was finalized. Sure, the dude had a contract, but if you check that fine print I guarantee it has a clause in there about "receipt of payment." Legally, the car didn't belong to the guy yet. Kinda. It's a weird black hole of legal logic.

Anyway, while this is technically legal it is sure as hell underhanded. Even if the story is as they claim then the salesman is the one who needed to bear the brunt, not the owner. I'd say he has good grounds for a civil suit.

And yeah, the magic black hole of logic I described needs to be closed.

What would happen if this guy did half cold cash and half check?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Okay, let's clear this one up:

THE CAR WAS NOT REPOSSESSED. THE SALE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

This popped up on FARK a while ago, and various links were discovered which shed more light on the story.

The key part of this story is how he paid: by check. Yes, it was a "cash" sale, but all that means is "money up front." The dude paid for it all at one time, with a reasonably immediate form of payment. Note that I said reasonably. This is where the catch comes in.

See, when you buy anything with a check it usually takes the business at least a day to process it and send it off to the bank, and if you're very, very lucky they may actually verify the check and put the money in the business account within, say, 18 hours of the customer writing the thing. However, the probability of that happening is like the probability of a Geo Metro hitting 100mph on the open highway. More often than not there's about 3 days before the check is properly cashed. In this case the dealership hadn't cashed the check yet, hadn't even finished processing it. (Hell, it was probably when they were processing it that they found it) Since they hadn't taken the money yet, as it were, they were still able to cancel the sale before it was finalized. Sure, the dude had a contract, but if you check that fine print I guarantee it has a clause in there about "receipt of payment." Legally, the car didn't belong to the guy yet. Kinda. It's a weird black hole of legal logic.

Anyway, while this is technically legal it is sure as hell underhanded. Even if the story is as they claim then the salesman is the one who needed to bear the brunt, not the owner. I'd say he has good grounds for a civil suit.

And yeah, the magic black hole of logic I described needs to be closed.

So what's happened to the buyer's car that he traded-in.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: her209
So what's happened to the buyer's car that he traded-in.

Ahh yes, I left out the interesting part. Not only did he get the trade-in back, the dealership even gave him $500 for the trouble. I mean, still, the whole thing was underhanded and sneaky, but of all the stories that could have been published this guy's is not the worst. Not by a long shot. At least he came out technically ahead.

 

[dirtboy]

This almost happened to me when I bought my last car. The dealer made a mistake when they wrote up the lease, one that was in my favor. I didn't notice it, but when they put the lease together to sell, they quickly realized they couldn't sell it. They called me saying I made a mistake and that they wanted the car back.

I told sales manager to take the phone and go into the sales office. So he did. I told him there was a yellow sign on the wall and I asked him to read it to me... the sign said that California is a "no cooling off state" and that all sales are final. I hung up the phone.

Later on they conceded and gave me a better lease to get me to resign, but not before I had the fax the new contract and a took the fax in to match the contract they had waiting for me.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Okay, let's clear this one up:

THE CAR WAS NOT REPOSSESSED. THE SALE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

This popped up on FARK a while ago, and various links were discovered which shed more light on the story.

The key part of this story is how he paid: by check. Yes, it was a "cash" sale, but all that means is "money up front." The dude paid for it all at one time, with a reasonably immediate form of payment. Note that I said reasonably. This is where the catch comes in.

See, when you buy anything with a check it usually takes the business at least a day to process it and send it off to the bank, and if you're very, very lucky they may actually verify the check and put the money in the business account within, say, 18 hours of the customer writing the thing. However, the probability of that happening is like the probability of a Geo Metro hitting 100mph on the open highway. More often than not there's about 3 days before the check is properly cashed. In this case the dealership hadn't cashed the check yet, hadn't even finished processing it. (Hell, it was probably when they were processing it that they found it) Since they hadn't taken the money yet, as it were, they were still able to cancel the sale before it was finalized. Sure, the dude had a contract, but if you check that fine print I guarantee it has a clause in there about "receipt of payment." Legally, the car didn't belong to the guy yet. Kinda. It's a weird black hole of legal logic.

Anyway, while this is technically legal it is sure as hell underhanded. Even if the story is as they claim then the salesman is the one who needed to bear the brunt, not the owner. I'd say he has good grounds for a civil suit.

And yeah, the magic black hole of logic I described needs to be closed.

That would never hold up in court. Basic contract law would show that the buyer made payment. The check being cashed has nothing to do with it.

Someone needs a better lawyer.

 

[Eeezee]

Here's the part I like the most

First they call him and say that he has to pay $10,000 more than what he had paid. Then they steal his truck. Then they call him the next day and now it's $11,000 more that he has to pay. WTF?

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Okay, let's clear this one up:

THE CAR WAS NOT REPOSSESSED. THE SALE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

This popped up on FARK a while ago, and various links were discovered which shed more light on the story.

The key part of this story is how he paid: by check. Yes, it was a "cash" sale, but all that means is "money up front." The dude paid for it all at one time, with a reasonably immediate form of payment. Note that I said reasonably. This is where the catch comes in.

See, when you buy anything with a check it usually takes the business at least a day to process it and send it off to the bank, and if you're very, very lucky they may actually verify the check and put the money in the business account within, say, 18 hours of the customer writing the thing. However, the probability of that happening is like the probability of a Geo Metro hitting 100mph on the open highway. More often than not there's about 3 days before the check is properly cashed. In this case the dealership hadn't cashed the check yet, hadn't even finished processing it. (Hell, it was probably when they were processing it that they found it) Since they hadn't taken the money yet, as it were, they were still able to cancel the sale before it was finalized. Sure, the dude had a contract, but if you check that fine print I guarantee it has a clause in there about "receipt of payment." Legally, the car didn't belong to the guy yet. Kinda. It's a weird black hole of legal logic.

Anyway, while this is technically legal it is sure as hell underhanded. Even if the story is as they claim then the salesman is the one who needed to bear the brunt, not the owner. I'd say he has good grounds for a civil suit.

And yeah, the magic black hole of logic I described needs to be closed.

That would never hold up in court. Basic contract law would show that the buyer made payment. The check being cashed has nothing to do with it.

Someone needs a better lawyer.

Aye. If you sign a contract and you have the keys to the car, it should be yours. Possession is 9/10 of the law.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: her209
So what's happened to the buyer's car that he traded-in.

Ahh yes, I left out the interesting part. Not only did he get the trade-in back, the dealership even gave him $500 for the trouble. I mean, still, the whole thing was underhanded and sneaky, but of all the stories that could have been published this guy's is not the worst. Not by a long shot. At least he came out technically ahead.

Okay, $500 for the trouble is something that I really wouldn't mind, all things considered

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Okay, let's clear this one up:

THE CAR WAS NOT REPOSSESSED. THE SALE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

This popped up on FARK a while ago, and various links were discovered which shed more light on the story.

The key part of this story is how he paid: by check. Yes, it was a "cash" sale, but all that means is "money up front." The dude paid for it all at one time, with a reasonably immediate form of payment. Note that I said reasonably. This is where the catch comes in.

See, when you buy anything with a check it usually takes the business at least a day to process it and send it off to the bank, and if you're very, very lucky they may actually verify the check and put the money in the business account within, say, 18 hours of the customer writing the thing. However, the probability of that happening is like the probability of a Geo Metro hitting 100mph on the open highway. More often than not there's about 3 days before the check is properly cashed. In this case the dealership hadn't cashed the check yet, hadn't even finished processing it. (Hell, it was probably when they were processing it that they found it) Since they hadn't taken the money yet, as it were, they were still able to cancel the sale before it was finalized. Sure, the dude had a contract, but if you check that fine print I guarantee it has a clause in there about "receipt of payment." Legally, the car didn't belong to the guy yet. Kinda. It's a weird black hole of legal logic.

Anyway, while this is technically legal it is sure as hell underhanded. Even if the story is as they claim then the salesman is the one who needed to bear the brunt, not the owner. I'd say he has good grounds for a civil suit.

And yeah, the magic black hole of logic I described needs to be closed.

uh? no that is not right.

i do not beleive that argument will work.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Okay, $500 for the trouble is something that I really wouldn't mind, all things considered

Not me I would still be pissed...again it is ok if they railroad you into a horrible deal, but if their managers and sales people are such boneheads that they mess up the numbers then they should eat it. They were pretty lucky this guy let it go...I know I wouldn't have.

 

[PAB]

Originally posted by: TG2
Was it registered? I would think the title would come to his house, with no liens on it, after the DMV is done with it

Registration = license plate.

Title = Title

I've bought cars without a title present because GMAC and finance companies will hold titles.

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Okay, let's clear this one up:

THE CAR WAS NOT REPOSSESSED. THE SALE WAS NOT TECHNICALLY COMPLETE.

This popped up on FARK a while ago, and various links were discovered which shed more light on the story.

The key part of this story is how he paid: by check. Yes, it was a "cash" sale, but all that means is "money up front." The dude paid for it all at one time, with a reasonably immediate form of payment. Note that I said reasonably. This is where the catch comes in.

See, when you buy anything with a check it usually takes the business at least a day to process it and send it off to the bank, and if you're very, very lucky they may actually verify the check and put the money in the business account within, say, 18 hours of the customer writing the thing. However, the probability of that happening is like the probability of a Geo Metro hitting 100mph on the open highway. More often than not there's about 3 days before the check is properly cashed. In this case the dealership hadn't cashed the check yet, hadn't even finished processing it. (Hell, it was probably when they were processing it that they found it) Since they hadn't taken the money yet, as it were, they were still able to cancel the sale before it was finalized. Sure, the dude had a contract, but if you check that fine print I guarantee it has a clause in there about "receipt of payment." Legally, the car didn't belong to the guy yet. Kinda. It's a weird black hole of legal logic.

Anyway, while this is technically legal it is sure as hell underhanded. Even if the story is as they claim then the salesman is the one who needed to bear the brunt, not the owner. I'd say he has good grounds for a civil suit.

And yeah, the magic black hole of logic I described needs to be closed.

That would never hold up in court. Basic contract law would show that the buyer made payment. The check being cashed has nothing to do with it.

QFT

 

[ElFenix]

basic contract law mostly only fills in details where the parties didn't. if the contract says something it wins over default provisions in the law.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There are only a couple different ways the dealership could repo the vehicle, and those would be, if the guys' check bounced, or he really financed it, and they could not get him approved. A pricing mistake is not one of them. Something doesn't add up here. No dealership in their right mind would risk a multimillion dollar business license over a simple pricing error.

Other than the above couple reasons, if they accepted the trade in, and his cash, and contracted with him, they are out, even if they did not mean to sell it so cheaply. Not knowing the laws in the state he resides in, I don't know what clauses the sale contract contains. If it has a price error clause, then it could be legit, but that's doubtful.

It sounds like this is a common practice so I would be surprised if it didn't contain such a clause.

 

[krunchykrome]

I'll spread the word on my xanga.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Someone needs run this dealership owner over with EVERY car he's gotten back because of deception and trickery.

 

[CVSiN]

Bill Heard is known for being shady here in Houston/Sugar land also... numerous scam warnings about them...

 

[tmc]

man this is sick. so there is nothing legally that we can do? that $u(k$.