wrong oil put in car

[Zenmervolt]

You're wrong, ZV. It's straight contract law. If the OP specifically ordered synth oil, or dealer should have known that's what she has always ordered, there is no way she can be construed as having offered to purchase anything else which means the dealer could not accept, let alone act on, the non-existant offer.

The dealer owes her what she ordered at the regular price for synth oil. We've already determined that the error won't cause any damage, but if the dealership has any class, they'll replace the regular oil with synth, either now or when a change of regular oil is indicated, or they'll offer some other free "make good" service to compensate a long time customer for the hassle.

Let's look at what you said the first time:

If anything does go wrong, the dealer owes covering you for the repair.

That's a falsehood. There's no way to show to a reasonable person than anything could go wrong from using the manufacturer-specified grade of oil. It's just not possible. There's absolutely no way they could be held liable for something going wrong with the car because none of their actions can reasonably be expected to have caused any damage.

I've been countering what you first posited.

Now, if you want to get into the parol evidence rule and suggest that the service order could somehow be invalidated based on an oral agreement to use synthetic, you've got a little more traction, but it's still not an easy hill to climb. If the service order listed regular oil and the OP signed it prior to the service, then she's hosed. An unambiguous written contract will overrule an alleged oral contract (at least under the statutory scheme in my state, however this is fairly universal). If there's no service order, however, then yes, there's a chance that the dealership could be on the hook to replace the oil with synthetic if the OP also pays the difference between the price charged for conventional oil and the price of the synthetic oil.

The idea that the dealer should have known that's what the OP always requested is likewise difficult to prove in court. The amount of business done by a dealer makes it unlikely that the scheduling staff would recognize the OP and most computer systems don't automatically pull up a level of detail that would reveal that past oil changes used synthetic. It would not be reasonable to expect a secretary to look through the entire service history and see a difference and even if such were noticed, people change their minds all the time. I don't see a court forcing mechanics to double-check every instance where a customer changes his mind.

The most they would be liable for is charging for synthetic and using conventional. In that situation there might be some level of punitive damages at work. However, if they only charged for regular oil but have a service order specifying synthetic, then they could be liable for replacing with synthetic on the condition that the OP covers the cost difference but punitive damages would be unlikely since fraud wouldn't enter in. If there was no service order and the OP was only charged for conventional oil, then there's really not much that can be done. It's a he-said-she-said and there's little the OP can do to prove anything.

ZV

 

[Harvey]

That's a falsehood. There's no way to show to a reasonable person than anything could go wrong from using the manufacturer-specified grade of oil. It's just not possible. There's absolutely no way they could be held liable for something going wrong with the car because none of their actions can reasonably be expected to have caused any damage.

That doesn't change the basic laws of contract. If the OP ordered synth oil, and the dealer use regular oil, the dealer breached the contract for the specified goods and services.

I will grant you that it is highly doubtful that substituting regular oil for synth oil will do any damage, so there won't be any consequential monetary damages, but the dealer DOES owe the OP on one level or another. There are lots of ways a classy dealer could try to make up for the mistake. For example, they could simply apologize for the mistake and refund whatever the OP paid for the regular oil change.

 

[LTC8K6]

The dealer doesn't owe the OP anything unless synthetic was specifically requested. Synthetic oil is not normal or recommended for the car. If the OP just requested the factory oil change, then that's that. Oil change stickers often don't say exactly what oil was used.

It's even possible that the OP already had dino oil in there and didn't know it.

We don't know.

 

[Zenmervolt]

That doesn't change the basic laws of contract. If the OP ordered synth oil, and the dealer use regular oil, the dealer breached the contract for the specified goods and services.

I will grant you that it is highly doubtful that substituting regular oil for synth oil will do any damage, so there won't be any consequential monetary damages, but the dealer DOES owe the OP on one level or another. There are lots of ways a classy dealer could try to make up for the mistake. For example, they could simply apologize for the mistake and refund whatever the OP paid for the regular oil change.

I think we're just not on the same page with the terms. I took, "If anything does go wrong, the dealer owes covering you for the repair." as saying that if anything went wrong with the car, the dealer would be liable. It looks as though you were using it to say that if anything went wrong with the transaction, the dealer might have to honor the original contract.

Still, unless there was a purchase order, the chances of the OP proving that there was an original contract are slim. Even with a purchase order specifying synthetic oil, the use of conventional oil in a car with a manufacturer's recommendation of conventional oil would only qualify as a minor breach, not a total or "material" breach. As such, specific performance would not be available as a remedy and the OP would only be able to recover actual damages, which, in this case, would be nothing.

The more I look at this, the less I see any viable legal strategy to pursue a demand for specific performance or any damages. One could attempt to appeal to the business' sense of fair play or their fear of bad publicity, but I just don't see a path to a remedy at law.

Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice. I am not currently licensed to practice law in any state and my J.D. is not yet completed.

ZV