Would you demand a refund from the dealer?
#1
12-29-2011, 09:06 PM
Would you demand a refund from the dealer?
I just discovered that my recently purchased 2008 XK Select Edition has had the drivers side quarter panel replaced.
I was told, by the selling Jaguar dealership, that the car had been in a "minor accident" and that only the hood and LF fender were painted.
The criteria for a Jag to qualify for Select Edition status is no frame damage. Because the car is a uni-body,design, it begs the question is this defined as "frame" damage?
I took the car to two body shops, one of which is authorized by Jaguar to repair and replace aluminum body parts. They both said the repairs were performed very well.
So my question is, "what would you do, given this circumstance?"
I was told, by the selling Jaguar dealership, that the car had been in a "minor accident" and that only the hood and LF fender were painted.
The criteria for a Jag to qualify for Select Edition status is no frame damage. Because the car is a uni-body,design, it begs the question is this defined as "frame" damage?
I took the car to two body shops, one of which is authorized by Jaguar to repair and replace aluminum body parts. They both said the repairs were performed very well.
So my question is, "what would you do, given this circumstance?"
#2
12-29-2011, 09:30 PM
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Damon /Houston, Texas
Posts: 7,254
Received 2,183 Likes
on
1,355 Posts
the is an exterior panel, and not part of the uni body. With aluminum the panel should be replaced and no filler, heating, shrinking, streaching of the metal should not be done because it work hardens and fatigues the metal. Minor working is fine. We talking big dents that on steel would be pounded out and filled with bondo.This is why Jaguar does not want any body shops to repair the aluminum bodies cars unless theyre certified to do so. If a repair is done well I would not have an issue with it. its the ones that are crap i have issue with and some shops are terrible on what they consider body work. I could get better results with a can of spray paint
The following users liked this post:
joycesjag (12-29-2011)
#3
12-29-2011, 10:35 PM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,739
Received 10,749 Likes
on
7,100 Posts
From a ownership standpoint I agree with Brutal. I have no problem with properly executed body repairs and panel replacements. Since two shops have reported is was a good repair, I wouldn't give it another thought. Enjoy the car :-)
From a legal/monetary/value standpoint, if you wanted to pursue the matter, I'd begin by researching the disclosure laws in your state. In many instances, and surprise surprise, identical to the Select Edition requirements... only frame damage...not exterior panel repairs/replacements...must be disclosed. And, even if that does not apply in your state, you may have to prove that the dealer had knowledge of the repairs and intentionally deceived you.
If the repairs were nicely done it's conceivable that the dealer didn't know. After all, good repairs can be difficult to spot. Lousy repairs stand out like a sore thumb.
As far as what constitutes the "frame" on a unibody car, I think a reasonable (and perhaps even legal?) definition would be those areas that suspension componenents, engine mountings, and transmission mountings are bolted or welded to.
Good luck
DD
From a legal/monetary/value standpoint, if you wanted to pursue the matter, I'd begin by researching the disclosure laws in your state. In many instances, and surprise surprise, identical to the Select Edition requirements... only frame damage...not exterior panel repairs/replacements...must be disclosed. And, even if that does not apply in your state, you may have to prove that the dealer had knowledge of the repairs and intentionally deceived you.
If the repairs were nicely done it's conceivable that the dealer didn't know. After all, good repairs can be difficult to spot. Lousy repairs stand out like a sore thumb.
As far as what constitutes the "frame" on a unibody car, I think a reasonable (and perhaps even legal?) definition would be those areas that suspension componenents, engine mountings, and transmission mountings are bolted or welded to.
Good luck
DD
#4
12-29-2011, 10:52 PM
From a ownership standpoint I agree with Brutal. I have no problem with properly executed body repairs and panel replacements. Since two shops have reported is was a good repair, I wouldn't give it another thought. Enjoy the car :-)
From a legal/monetary/value standpoint, if you wanted to pursue the matter, I'd begin by researching the disclosure laws in your state. In many instances, and surprise surprise, identical to the Select Edition requirements... only frame damage...not exterior panel repairs/replacements...must be disclosed. And, even if that does not apply in your state, you may have to prove that the dealer had knowledge of the repairs and intentionally deceived you.
If the repairs were nicely done it's conceivable that the dealer didn't know. After all, good repairs can be difficult to spot. Lousy repairs stand out like a sore thumb.
As far as what constitutes the "frame" on a unibody car, I think a reasonable (and perhaps even legal?) definition would be those areas that suspension componenents, engine mountings, and transmission mountings are bolted or welded to.
Good luck
DD
From a legal/monetary/value standpoint, if you wanted to pursue the matter, I'd begin by researching the disclosure laws in your state. In many instances, and surprise surprise, identical to the Select Edition requirements... only frame damage...not exterior panel repairs/replacements...must be disclosed. And, even if that does not apply in your state, you may have to prove that the dealer had knowledge of the repairs and intentionally deceived you.
If the repairs were nicely done it's conceivable that the dealer didn't know. After all, good repairs can be difficult to spot. Lousy repairs stand out like a sore thumb.
As far as what constitutes the "frame" on a unibody car, I think a reasonable (and perhaps even legal?) definition would be those areas that suspension componenents, engine mountings, and transmission mountings are bolted or welded to.
Good luck
DD
They went on to say that they used a paint meter and only determined paint work on the hood, LF fender and LF door.
I witnessed the paint meters readings at the quarter panel and it was clearly painted. The weld at the roof pegged the paint meter. This, to me, would indicated that they must have known of this condition.
Don't get me wrong, the cars finish is excellent. However, if I go to sell the car, wouldn't this raise a few eyebrows?
#5
12-29-2011, 11:43 PM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,739
Received 10,749 Likes
on
7,100 Posts
It's certainly possible. And it's possible that the the car is devalued as a result.
Different dealers handle such disputes differently but they usually don't just roll over and play dead. Never can tell, though, so I wouldn't go in with both guns blazing right off the bat.
Not sure how strongly you feel about this. What's your tolerance for pain? Extracting a refund will probably be an unpleasant ordeal (for all involved) as dealers really, really, REALLY hate reversing a sale. It takes an act of God ....or the attorney general :-)
A monetary adjustment might be less painful and more easily accomplished.
I spent most of my life working at dealerships. None ever had a "policy" on handling such disputes. It was always case-by-case. Customer attitude often played a part :-)
Cheers
DD
#6
12-31-2011, 09:49 PM
Interesting case... As an attorney, I'd say you have a colorable case, though not a slam-dunk. I'd also want to know how much you paid for the car and what kind of mileage it had when bought. If the car was a crazy deal, I'd suggest you factor that into your decision as to what type of remedy to pursue. I intend to keep my car for a good while, drive it daily, and shall we say I also intend to keep enjoying it's performance. I doubt I'll want to sell it to someone expecting a pristine collectibile, while I spare no expense in keeping it in perfect shape.
So to me, having a panel replaced, if undetectable to the eye, wouldn't be an issue aside from the fact that it should have been disclosed if the paint meter revealed it, and the disclosure should have given you some leverage in the price negotiation. So like I said, if you got a screaming deal on it, there's less to be mad about. But of course you could have possibly leveraged the fact for an even lower price, regardless of how good a deal you got.
I think your strongest fact is that the paint meter showed more than they disclosed. I'd argue that as a Select Edition they should have spotted it also, whether listed as an inspection guarantee or not...
But as to remedy, you can push/argue/sue for: $ equal to the amount that it depreciates the value as a collectable, $ equal to the amount you could have negotiated the price down given what you'd argue is a 'hidden blemish', or recission of the contract and sale with a refund. You'll need to hire a lawyer for the last option IMO, these facts aren't strong enough to go pro se.
If you are happy with the car and won't linger on the invisible repair, and the car is truly as good as if it hadn't happened, AND you didn't buy it with the intention of keeping it as a collector car super long term, I'd push for option 1 or 2. Push hard on the fact that it was known and not disclosed (if I read you correctly and this is the case), and insist on the obvious truth that if you'd known about it you certainly would have factored that into a lower price.
The threat of evidence of withholding on an issue relevant to price should be enough to get something out of them. Free set of upgraded rims? $?
Worth running through the numbers IMO.
Skeeter
So to me, having a panel replaced, if undetectable to the eye, wouldn't be an issue aside from the fact that it should have been disclosed if the paint meter revealed it, and the disclosure should have given you some leverage in the price negotiation. So like I said, if you got a screaming deal on it, there's less to be mad about. But of course you could have possibly leveraged the fact for an even lower price, regardless of how good a deal you got.
I think your strongest fact is that the paint meter showed more than they disclosed. I'd argue that as a Select Edition they should have spotted it also, whether listed as an inspection guarantee or not...
But as to remedy, you can push/argue/sue for: $ equal to the amount that it depreciates the value as a collectable, $ equal to the amount you could have negotiated the price down given what you'd argue is a 'hidden blemish', or recission of the contract and sale with a refund. You'll need to hire a lawyer for the last option IMO, these facts aren't strong enough to go pro se.
If you are happy with the car and won't linger on the invisible repair, and the car is truly as good as if it hadn't happened, AND you didn't buy it with the intention of keeping it as a collector car super long term, I'd push for option 1 or 2. Push hard on the fact that it was known and not disclosed (if I read you correctly and this is the case), and insist on the obvious truth that if you'd known about it you certainly would have factored that into a lower price.
The threat of evidence of withholding on an issue relevant to price should be enough to get something out of them. Free set of upgraded rims? $?
Worth running through the numbers IMO.
Skeeter
#7
01-01-2012, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=Skeeter;448211]Interesting case... As an attorney, I'd say you have a colorable case, though not a slam-dunk. I'd also want to know how much you paid for the car and what kind of mileage it had when bought. If the car was a crazy deal, I'd suggest you factor that into your decision as to what type of remedy to pursue. I intend to keep my car for a good while, drive it daily, and shall we say I also intend to keep enjoying it's performance. I doubt I'll want to sell it to someone expecting a pristine collectibile, while I spare no expense in keeping it in perfect shape.
So to me, having a panel replaced, if undetectable to the eye, wouldn't be an issue aside from the fact that it should have been disclosed if the paint meter revealed it, and the disclosure should have given you some leverage in the price negotiation. So like I said, if you got a screaming deal on it, there's less to be mad about. But of course you could have possibly leveraged the fact for an even lower price, regardless of how good a deal you got.
Skeeter…
Thanks for your insightful input and Happy New Year! I hail from Berkeley (Cedar and Sacramento) and lived there through college. By way of further background, I retired as Vice President of Automotive Services from AAA, which make me no stranger to customer (Member) satisfaction. The situation at hand is both frustrating, while at the same time, somewhat intriguing.
While in the process of purchasing the XK, I initially “walked away” after discovering that the car was in a documented accident. The dealership stated that the Carfax accident report must have been a mistake. They subsequently called me, apologized for the confusion, and offered to “adjust” the sales price. I offered, conditioned on a letter detailing the accident, $42K for the XK which they soon after accepted.
Now it gets interesting. The conditioned letter, written on their stationary, states that the car was in a minor accident, which resulted in the hood, fender and door being repainted. It goes on to say that they (dealership) will include, throughout the Select Edition warranty period, the paint work performed. I agreed, largely in part, to purchase the XK on the dealerships express representations.
I subsequently had a cursory inspection, performed by a certified Jaguar body shop, of the quarter panel. They pulled up the interior trunk cover, climbed underneath and stated that the work appears to have performed satisfactorily. The paint meter revealed the welded area, as well as, the variations in the depth of the paint.
In summary…I absolutely love the car, it has every option, including 20” Senta’s, Luxury Aluminum Package, upgraded sound system and on. The mileage on the clock is 29K and it is, as previously stated, a Select Edition. The $42K that I paid is a very good price for an XK nicely equipped with a factory extended warranty. The question at hand is, “how much should I have paid, considering the additional damage?” I intend to keep this car for a long while, however, at some point I will need to disclose the cars condition at the time of the inevitable sale.
I have not approached this with “guns blazing” to the dealer. I have sent them a letter, making them aware of my findings, of which they acknowledged receipt. They intend to contact me tomorrow to discuss this and I have no idea as to what they might say or offer. For that matter, they may tell me to “**** off” or conversely offer to give me a complete refund.
I look forward to settling the matter in a way that results in my keeping the car and feeling very good about this. That said, I am “all ears” for any suggestions or pearls of wisdom as to a possible resolution.
Dave
So to me, having a panel replaced, if undetectable to the eye, wouldn't be an issue aside from the fact that it should have been disclosed if the paint meter revealed it, and the disclosure should have given you some leverage in the price negotiation. So like I said, if you got a screaming deal on it, there's less to be mad about. But of course you could have possibly leveraged the fact for an even lower price, regardless of how good a deal you got.
Skeeter…
Thanks for your insightful input and Happy New Year! I hail from Berkeley (Cedar and Sacramento) and lived there through college. By way of further background, I retired as Vice President of Automotive Services from AAA, which make me no stranger to customer (Member) satisfaction. The situation at hand is both frustrating, while at the same time, somewhat intriguing.
While in the process of purchasing the XK, I initially “walked away” after discovering that the car was in a documented accident. The dealership stated that the Carfax accident report must have been a mistake. They subsequently called me, apologized for the confusion, and offered to “adjust” the sales price. I offered, conditioned on a letter detailing the accident, $42K for the XK which they soon after accepted.
Now it gets interesting. The conditioned letter, written on their stationary, states that the car was in a minor accident, which resulted in the hood, fender and door being repainted. It goes on to say that they (dealership) will include, throughout the Select Edition warranty period, the paint work performed. I agreed, largely in part, to purchase the XK on the dealerships express representations.
I subsequently had a cursory inspection, performed by a certified Jaguar body shop, of the quarter panel. They pulled up the interior trunk cover, climbed underneath and stated that the work appears to have performed satisfactorily. The paint meter revealed the welded area, as well as, the variations in the depth of the paint.
In summary…I absolutely love the car, it has every option, including 20” Senta’s, Luxury Aluminum Package, upgraded sound system and on. The mileage on the clock is 29K and it is, as previously stated, a Select Edition. The $42K that I paid is a very good price for an XK nicely equipped with a factory extended warranty. The question at hand is, “how much should I have paid, considering the additional damage?” I intend to keep this car for a long while, however, at some point I will need to disclose the cars condition at the time of the inevitable sale.
I have not approached this with “guns blazing” to the dealer. I have sent them a letter, making them aware of my findings, of which they acknowledged receipt. They intend to contact me tomorrow to discuss this and I have no idea as to what they might say or offer. For that matter, they may tell me to “**** off” or conversely offer to give me a complete refund.
I look forward to settling the matter in a way that results in my keeping the car and feeling very good about this. That said, I am “all ears” for any suggestions or pearls of wisdom as to a possible resolution.
Dave
Trending Topics
#8
01-01-2012, 11:01 AM
Hailing from across the Pond, I am not familiar with your legal standing, but on a point of principle you appear to have been misled (intentionally or unintentionally) as as such have a position of moral high ground. If it does not affect the value of your car, I would enjoy it and not let it spoil your purchase, albeit I might just be looking for discounted service (s). If it does affect the value of your car, then I would get those guns out of the holsters
#9
01-01-2012, 11:07 AM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,739
Received 10,749 Likes
on
7,100 Posts
#10
01-01-2012, 11:54 AM
[QUOTE=Doug;448364]
The right question! A close friend, who is a licensed auto broker, noticed that the rivets used to attach the quarter panel on the drivers side were different from those on the passenger side.
I then wanted to have this confirmed by a subject matter expert. I was referred to Jaguar's area designated body shop, by another dealership. They explained that our XK's are built, just the opposite, of most cars. Specifically, they all start out as convertibles and those destined to become coupes have the roof attached. This, according to the GM at the body shop, all but eliminates body flex. He went on to say that only Jaguar certified body shops are entitled to purchase the aluminum body replacement parts.
That said, I was somewhat relieved to hear that it was not a case of "cut and paste..."
I then wanted to have this confirmed by a subject matter expert. I was referred to Jaguar's area designated body shop, by another dealership. They explained that our XK's are built, just the opposite, of most cars. Specifically, they all start out as convertibles and those destined to become coupes have the roof attached. This, according to the GM at the body shop, all but eliminates body flex. He went on to say that only Jaguar certified body shops are entitled to purchase the aluminum body replacement parts.
That said, I was somewhat relieved to hear that it was not a case of "cut and paste..."
#11
01-01-2012, 12:12 PM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,739
Received 10,749 Likes
on
7,100 Posts
Hmmmm. This sounds familiar.
I dunno. This is whole thing is beginning to sound like a "gotcha" game.
Whenever these situations come up I often wonder if we are trying to right a wrong or merely exploiting an opportunity to extract some free merchandise.
I remember well disputes where the customer felt they had been wronged and cheated, and were morally outraged at the lies, graft, corruption, and deceit. Shame shame shame on the sinners!
But....BUT..... for some free oil changes or a free set of wheels they'd be willing to forget the whole thing, absolving the offending dealer of all sin and the fire of moral outrage being immediately extinguished.
Cheers
DD
#12
01-02-2012, 08:46 AM
I take it, from your comments, that you would not contact the dealership if you discovered that they sold you a car that had the rear quarter panel replaced? This, after they guaranteed in writing that the only body work was repaint on the hood and the fender.
I believe the suggestions, from forum members, are with good intentions. This situation clearly needs to be addressed and the dealership should want it resolved as much as I do.
This is not an attempt to "hustle" the dealership. I love this car and want to enjoy it for quite sometime. If I chose not to bring this to their attention, I would be a fool. The dealer is in the business of making sure their customers are totally satisfied.
This is not a "nice to know" in their case, it's a "need to know"
#13
01-02-2012, 09:21 AM
Senior Member
TD, Squeet;
I did my college years in the Bay/Tahoe area too.
Here's my second opinion for what it's worth.
My clients used to always ask "if they could file suit."
I would tell them "sure."
"But that is not really what you are asking."
"What are we asking?"
"If you can win."
Two different things....you could sue...you might win in Nevada...depends how good consumer protection laws are in Nevada....though your years at AAA put you in a weaker rather than stronger position because it makes your business experience closer but not equal to the dealership....ambiguities would be resolved in your favor.....you didn't get what you thought you were buying....in law it is called a "Meeting of the Minds"....(when two parties to an agreement (contract) both have the same understanding of the terms of the agreement) which you didn't have.
But as Justice Brandeis once said " A lawsuit is to be avoided second only to an illness unto death".
I suggest you go talk to the owner/manager directly and tell him you would like to trade the car immediately for one just like it. Be polite but firm...there were oversights or misrepresentations that could get him in trouble with the License Board...BBB...etc. This is his chance to avoid it.
Give them a firm dead line....30 days should be plenty to find a car in the US.
Or get Skeet to call him.
If there is nothing really wrong with it they should have no objection.
Don't let them tell you they don't have one ask them to find one....dealers do this all the time.
Be prepared to pay a little more it will cost much less than a lawsuit would.
Even if you win it you will never get the time and aggravation back....it would likely take a couple of years to resolve given the back log of cases in Civil Court these days.
Then you have your 'perfect' car and they can sell the other one to someone who either doesn't care or isn't as discerning....relieving you of the responsibility of disclosing the problems when you go to sell....at a greatly reduced value.
Mostly I counseled clients to stay out of court if at all possible because then you lose control of the situation....when a little horse trading/mediation/arbitration might gain what was desired in a lot easier way.
Good luck.
cheers,
jj
I did my college years in the Bay/Tahoe area too.
Here's my second opinion for what it's worth.
My clients used to always ask "if they could file suit."
I would tell them "sure."
"But that is not really what you are asking."
"What are we asking?"
"If you can win."
Two different things....you could sue...you might win in Nevada...depends how good consumer protection laws are in Nevada....though your years at AAA put you in a weaker rather than stronger position because it makes your business experience closer but not equal to the dealership....ambiguities would be resolved in your favor.....you didn't get what you thought you were buying....in law it is called a "Meeting of the Minds"....(when two parties to an agreement (contract) both have the same understanding of the terms of the agreement) which you didn't have.
But as Justice Brandeis once said " A lawsuit is to be avoided second only to an illness unto death".
I suggest you go talk to the owner/manager directly and tell him you would like to trade the car immediately for one just like it. Be polite but firm...there were oversights or misrepresentations that could get him in trouble with the License Board...BBB...etc. This is his chance to avoid it.
Give them a firm dead line....30 days should be plenty to find a car in the US.
Or get Skeet to call him.
If there is nothing really wrong with it they should have no objection.
Don't let them tell you they don't have one ask them to find one....dealers do this all the time.
Be prepared to pay a little more it will cost much less than a lawsuit would.
Even if you win it you will never get the time and aggravation back....it would likely take a couple of years to resolve given the back log of cases in Civil Court these days.
Then you have your 'perfect' car and they can sell the other one to someone who either doesn't care or isn't as discerning....relieving you of the responsibility of disclosing the problems when you go to sell....at a greatly reduced value.
Mostly I counseled clients to stay out of court if at all possible because then you lose control of the situation....when a little horse trading/mediation/arbitration might gain what was desired in a lot easier way.
Good luck.
cheers,
jj
Last edited by jamjax; 01-02-2012 at 09:25 AM.
#14
01-02-2012, 10:51 AM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,739
Received 10,749 Likes
on
7,100 Posts
If you read my prior postings you'll see that's not the case
This is not an attempt to "hustle" the dealership.
Good. I really didn't think so.
But the thread seemed to be taking a bit of a turn that had me wondering a bit. I get a little suspicious when it's suggested that ethical/moral/legals "wrongs" be quickly solved by getting lots of "free stuff".
Cheers
DD
#15
01-02-2012, 11:53 AM
Good. I really didn't think so.
But the thread seemed to be taking a bit of a turn that had me wondering a bit. I get a little suspicious when it's suggested that ethical/moral/legals "wrongs" be quickly solved by getting lots of "free stuff".
Cheers
DD[/QUOTE]
Doug...
I could see how that may appear, truth be known, I wish this entire matter never happened. I originally posted this as I wanted to gauge, whether or not, I was over reacting.
The GM at the dealership is both reasonable and a gentlemen. I therefore have every reason to believe that this situation will be handled professionally, by both of us.
Best case scenario, we arrive at simple, logical agreement that could serve as a "precedent" for others that find themselves in a similar situation.
Dave
But the thread seemed to be taking a bit of a turn that had me wondering a bit. I get a little suspicious when it's suggested that ethical/moral/legals "wrongs" be quickly solved by getting lots of "free stuff".
Cheers
DD[/QUOTE]
Doug...
I could see how that may appear, truth be known, I wish this entire matter never happened. I originally posted this as I wanted to gauge, whether or not, I was over reacting.
The GM at the dealership is both reasonable and a gentlemen. I therefore have every reason to believe that this situation will be handled professionally, by both of us.
Best case scenario, we arrive at simple, logical agreement that could serve as a "precedent" for others that find themselves in a similar situation.
Dave
#16
01-04-2012, 10:50 PM
'But the thread seemed to be taking a bit of a turn that had me wondering a bit. I get a little suspicious when it's suggested that ethical/moral/legals "wrongs" be quickly solved by getting lots of "free stuff".'
Yes, this is how every judicial system in history has dealt with problems like this.
There is nothing improper in pursuing a financial remedy to a misrepresentation which causes financial damages.
Yes, I'll do more than _suggest_ that the wrongs of the dealership be solved by getting 'stuff', I'll say it directly! Yes! If they INTENTIONALLY held back from disclosing a repair that has impact on the value of the car, and as a result Dave overpaid, then YES, getting $ or something worth $ is a perfectly correct and just resolution.
If you doubt his sincerity that's another issue, but if the facts are as he's saying (I'm assuming they are), the dealership paying him back is one of several appropriate legal remedies.
I invite you to broaden your characterization of this as an ethical/moral issue and instead see it as a financial issue. If you paid for $1,000 for 10 healthy goats and were only given 8, when does getting the delta in $ (or equivalent) become a hustle?
Yes. Yes, if the dealer hid a known flaw that impacts the value of the car, commensurate financial compensation is a correct and proper remedy.
Thankfully this type of 'wrong' is capable of resolution via $ or 'free stuff' in equal worth. Basic ethics, I don't get the insinuation that he's wrong to go that direction if the facts line up that way.
Skeeter
Yes, this is how every judicial system in history has dealt with problems like this.
There is nothing improper in pursuing a financial remedy to a misrepresentation which causes financial damages.
Yes, I'll do more than _suggest_ that the wrongs of the dealership be solved by getting 'stuff', I'll say it directly! Yes! If they INTENTIONALLY held back from disclosing a repair that has impact on the value of the car, and as a result Dave overpaid, then YES, getting $ or something worth $ is a perfectly correct and just resolution.
If you doubt his sincerity that's another issue, but if the facts are as he's saying (I'm assuming they are), the dealership paying him back is one of several appropriate legal remedies.
I invite you to broaden your characterization of this as an ethical/moral issue and instead see it as a financial issue. If you paid for $1,000 for 10 healthy goats and were only given 8, when does getting the delta in $ (or equivalent) become a hustle?
Yes. Yes, if the dealer hid a known flaw that impacts the value of the car, commensurate financial compensation is a correct and proper remedy.
Thankfully this type of 'wrong' is capable of resolution via $ or 'free stuff' in equal worth. Basic ethics, I don't get the insinuation that he's wrong to go that direction if the facts line up that way.
Skeeter
#17
01-04-2012, 11:21 PM
Banned
#18
01-05-2012, 01:42 AM
Guys...We are dealing with mechanical objects, not blemished unique works of art. If it can be shown that a defect/repair relevant to value is not disclosed, the dealer should be on the hook for the difference in value.
Not rocket science. Plato wouldn't even bother with this one... An uneducated child (Plato would use their ability to answer things to demonstrate that to logic and truth was intrinsic) would be able to see this for what it is.
I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want anything other than Dave to have had the opportunity to buy a car in a fair negotiation. That assumes no dileberate withholding of prior damage by the seller if that damage devalues the car. Why am I not getting people thinking this is a deep moral/ethical/philosophical issue?!
Bigcat, my advice is the same to Dan: avoid litigation if at all possible, be certain of your facts, and do what you can to offset any loss in value not disclosed.
I could see having an issue with suggesting a lawsuit for $100,000 in punitive damages or something, but this is pre Hanurabi law/justice, not a suit against McDonald's for millions over hot coffee.
You don't allow people to benefit from dishonesty. No conjecture here as to how big damages should be, I'm no expert on car valuations. But if the facts indicate a difference, why stand in Dan's way in being able to negotiate a fair price with all known facts on the table?
Dan, drive by your street daily... Be cool with them and expect only what you are truly due. But don't let them brush you aside if your facts are strong and request fair. Glad to stay in the thread here if it helps, plenty you can do short of hiring a lawyer, which IMO is not a good plan on these facts.
Peace,
Skeeter
Not rocket science. Plato wouldn't even bother with this one... An uneducated child (Plato would use their ability to answer things to demonstrate that to logic and truth was intrinsic) would be able to see this for what it is.
I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want anything other than Dave to have had the opportunity to buy a car in a fair negotiation. That assumes no dileberate withholding of prior damage by the seller if that damage devalues the car. Why am I not getting people thinking this is a deep moral/ethical/philosophical issue?!
Bigcat, my advice is the same to Dan: avoid litigation if at all possible, be certain of your facts, and do what you can to offset any loss in value not disclosed.
I could see having an issue with suggesting a lawsuit for $100,000 in punitive damages or something, but this is pre Hanurabi law/justice, not a suit against McDonald's for millions over hot coffee.
You don't allow people to benefit from dishonesty. No conjecture here as to how big damages should be, I'm no expert on car valuations. But if the facts indicate a difference, why stand in Dan's way in being able to negotiate a fair price with all known facts on the table?
Dan, drive by your street daily... Be cool with them and expect only what you are truly due. But don't let them brush you aside if your facts are strong and request fair. Glad to stay in the thread here if it helps, plenty you can do short of hiring a lawyer, which IMO is not a good plan on these facts.
Peace,
Skeeter
#19
01-05-2012, 02:24 AM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,739
Received 10,749 Likes
on
7,100 Posts
Skeeter,
If we're 100% convinced that the dealer *intentionally* misrepresented the car then I think we have two issues.
1) Besides being dishonest and unethical, the dealer intentionally misrepresenting the car is illegal and punishable. There's probably a department of the Nevada AG office specifically for this type of thing.
2) Finanical loss to Dave
Certainly Dave deserves to be made whole for any financial loss, if he suffered one. But even if he didn't the actions of the dealer are no less unethical and no less illegal. Getting something for free doesn't address that.
If the dealer has been caught dead to rights but the suggested course of action is, essentially, "Tell 'em that you'll forget about the whole thing in exchange for some free wheels".....well...how does that sound?
As it stands I'm being cynical. Thirty-plus years at car dealerships can sensitize a person. There ARE some people out there who haven't actually been damaged but are only to happy to leverage a "gotcha" scenario.
Dave says he's not trying to hustle the dealer....and I'll gladly take him at his word.
Cheers
DD
If we're 100% convinced that the dealer *intentionally* misrepresented the car then I think we have two issues.
1) Besides being dishonest and unethical, the dealer intentionally misrepresenting the car is illegal and punishable. There's probably a department of the Nevada AG office specifically for this type of thing.
2) Finanical loss to Dave
Certainly Dave deserves to be made whole for any financial loss, if he suffered one. But even if he didn't the actions of the dealer are no less unethical and no less illegal. Getting something for free doesn't address that.
If the dealer has been caught dead to rights but the suggested course of action is, essentially, "Tell 'em that you'll forget about the whole thing in exchange for some free wheels".....well...how does that sound?
As it stands I'm being cynical. Thirty-plus years at car dealerships can sensitize a person. There ARE some people out there who haven't actually been damaged but are only to happy to leverage a "gotcha" scenario.
Dave says he's not trying to hustle the dealer....and I'll gladly take him at his word.
Cheers
DD
#20
01-05-2012, 09:59 AM
This lively exchange has exceeded my expectation and is unquestionably appreciated. There are some interesting perspectives, legal, moral and philosophical being debated. As the “subject” party of this incident I would like to (again) share my point of view, as well as, report out on a recent update…
From a legal point, the condition of the car was not fully disclosed, period, end of paragraph. I knew the car had been in an accident, of which the dealer initially dismissed as an error on the part of CarMax. The dealer subsequently agreed that there was “a minor fender bender” and gave me a signed affidavit to that effect. This signed letter was given to me in the interest of supporting a sale down the road, if the reported accident should be called into question. The letter also “guaranteed” (at that dealership) the paint work from any defects in materials and workmanship for the period of the Select Editions duration. I was initially so concerned about this accident, that as previously posted, I “walked away” from the purchase. I reconsidered, after receiving a call from the GM, as we adjusted the price and agreed on the declaration letter of guarantee.
The moral dilemma, this one is interesting and could be colored by whatever lenses you wear. I would imagine if you are in the legal arena, there is little question as to the morality. Was the cars condition accurately revealed or not? Add to this, does the replaced rear quarter panel unfavorably influence the value of the vehicle? If the answer to those questions is yes, this is a slam dunk and I, or anyone else, deserves some consideration. If the answer is no, to either question, this is simply an attempt to “shake down” the dealership. I told the dealerships GM that I have no reason to believe that they “knowingly” withheld this information. I do however believe that they knew this was more than a “fender bender”. I know that Doug has spent time “in the tent” at the dealership and has witnessed disgusting attempts to “hustle” the store. Well, so have I, I have been in the automotive industry for 45 years. As posted I retired from AAA as their VP of Automotive Services and was responsible from the Member Experience. I designed and constructed the AAA Club Owned Repair facility in the Bay Area, of which AAA sold to me last year. This is the only repair facility in California, Nevada and Utah that is dedicated to serving AAA Members. Here is the link to the site Welcome to AAA Car Care One - Service is our #1 Priority Please do not misinterpret this as self serving, it is offered to take out of question any thoughts of an ethical breach on my part.
The update. The dealer called me yesterday and, once again, sincerely apologized for the “oversight” and assured me that they had no idea. He then went on to say that someone who inspected the car did notice the roofs paint had been “blended in”. The more we spoke, the more I felt that they (dealership) had an idea that there was more going on. Despite this, we kept the conversation very civil with an eye toward bringing this to closure. The GM offered to guarantee in writing an offer to purchase back the car, in the future, for the Kelly Blue Book fair trade-in value. For those that are familiar with the Kelly Book, that is the absolute lowest value you can place on a car.
I told the dealer that this was unacceptable and believe me he knew that before he was told. I alternatively offered, as a fair solution, that he extend the Select Edition’s warranty along with the in house paint warranty an additional 24 months. I told him that this will serve to give me peace of mind, as well as, add value to the car if I decide to sell it with some remaining warranty. He asked for a day to get back to me.
From a legal point, the condition of the car was not fully disclosed, period, end of paragraph. I knew the car had been in an accident, of which the dealer initially dismissed as an error on the part of CarMax. The dealer subsequently agreed that there was “a minor fender bender” and gave me a signed affidavit to that effect. This signed letter was given to me in the interest of supporting a sale down the road, if the reported accident should be called into question. The letter also “guaranteed” (at that dealership) the paint work from any defects in materials and workmanship for the period of the Select Editions duration. I was initially so concerned about this accident, that as previously posted, I “walked away” from the purchase. I reconsidered, after receiving a call from the GM, as we adjusted the price and agreed on the declaration letter of guarantee.
The moral dilemma, this one is interesting and could be colored by whatever lenses you wear. I would imagine if you are in the legal arena, there is little question as to the morality. Was the cars condition accurately revealed or not? Add to this, does the replaced rear quarter panel unfavorably influence the value of the vehicle? If the answer to those questions is yes, this is a slam dunk and I, or anyone else, deserves some consideration. If the answer is no, to either question, this is simply an attempt to “shake down” the dealership. I told the dealerships GM that I have no reason to believe that they “knowingly” withheld this information. I do however believe that they knew this was more than a “fender bender”. I know that Doug has spent time “in the tent” at the dealership and has witnessed disgusting attempts to “hustle” the store. Well, so have I, I have been in the automotive industry for 45 years. As posted I retired from AAA as their VP of Automotive Services and was responsible from the Member Experience. I designed and constructed the AAA Club Owned Repair facility in the Bay Area, of which AAA sold to me last year. This is the only repair facility in California, Nevada and Utah that is dedicated to serving AAA Members. Here is the link to the site Welcome to AAA Car Care One - Service is our #1 Priority Please do not misinterpret this as self serving, it is offered to take out of question any thoughts of an ethical breach on my part.
The update. The dealer called me yesterday and, once again, sincerely apologized for the “oversight” and assured me that they had no idea. He then went on to say that someone who inspected the car did notice the roofs paint had been “blended in”. The more we spoke, the more I felt that they (dealership) had an idea that there was more going on. Despite this, we kept the conversation very civil with an eye toward bringing this to closure. The GM offered to guarantee in writing an offer to purchase back the car, in the future, for the Kelly Blue Book fair trade-in value. For those that are familiar with the Kelly Book, that is the absolute lowest value you can place on a car.
I told the dealer that this was unacceptable and believe me he knew that before he was told. I alternatively offered, as a fair solution, that he extend the Select Edition’s warranty along with the in house paint warranty an additional 24 months. I told him that this will serve to give me peace of mind, as well as, add value to the car if I decide to sell it with some remaining warranty. He asked for a day to get back to me.