Articles Posted in Car Dealership Complaints

Car Salesman Talk
On or about March 11, 2011, the plaintiff listened to an advertisement on 1010 WINS Radio from XXX indicating that it was 30% off of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, MSRP or $5,000 cash back on all of their new vehicles. (The bait) After hearing the ad with the reliance thereon, the plaintiff proceeded to the dealership and signed various documentations indicating that he would be acquiring a new vehicle from XXX at the interest rate of 3.9%. The plaintiff signed various documents and left the dealership. The price was over the MSRP by about 25% and once the “fictitious discount” is factored in the real price is %50 to %100 above the advertised price. (MSRP about $21,000 purchase price about $26,000) The plaintiff was not told verbally by any individuals that the contract was not final, subject to approval or otherwise not a completed transaction. The only documents in the plaintiff’s possession when he left the dealership indicated that the transaction was final. Plaintiff is unsure as to exactly what documents the dealership has in their possession pertaining to the ‘temporary’ approval of the transaction. However, the plaintiff was told, left with documents indicating the transaction was final. (Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the pleadings to allege that the advertisement was deceptive upon receipt of same from dealer or the radio station)

After approximately two weeks, the plaintiff received a call back from a representative of the dealership who the plaintiff believes was the finance manager that indicated that there was a mistake in the paperwork and that the plaintiff cannot get his tags without returning to the dealership. (Get him back to the dealer so we can do “The switch”) (Charge him too much for financing and charge too much for the car) Thereafter, the plaintiff returned to the dealership, sat down with the individual whom he believed was the finance manager and told the plaintiff that he had to sign a separate set of paperwork all of which was backdated (violated TILA) to the original specific date of the transaction. (The dealer transgressions just continue and continue) The representative of the dealership said this is the only way the plaintiff could get financed that if the plaintiff did not have the life, health and other type of insurance, the interest rate will be 5.9% rather than the 4.9% which was on the second set of documents and certainly above the 3.9% for which the plaintiff allegedly received an approval and had signed the documentation. The dealer was in possession of the plaintiff trade at this time or they had sold it.

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEALER
1. When did this defendant acquire the subject vehicle?

2. While the vehicle was in the possession of the defendant was the car ever damaged, if so explain how, the amount of damage and how it was fixed, and by whom.

3. Did this defendant ever inspect the vehicle, if so when, why, and the results?

4. Describe all service performed in this car and attach all repair orders
5. List all conversation between the parties and all testimony you will use at the trial
6. List all pre delivery services and products purchased by the plaintiff, list price and documents indicating that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the product and all conversations supporting the claim that plaintiff agreed to purchase the product or service.

7. Was the plaintiff ever told that the car had not been in an accident, and of so by whom?
8. How much money was forwarded to the MFGR to have the car certified?

9. List each employee who was involved in any way with this transaction
10. Explain the certification process and attach all documents supporting same
11. List selling prices for vehicles set forth in demand for documents number 12 .
12. Who was the used car manager who inspected the plaintiff’s vehicle and where is his report?

13. When the dealership acquired the plaintiff’s car did they own a paint thickness meter and if so was it used on the plaintiff’s vehicle?

14. If not why?
Continue reading ›

Cases and examples:

In Grabinski v. Blue Springs Ford, 136 F.Supp. 565, 568 (8thCir. 1998), the Court of appeals upheld a $210,000 punitive damage award where the jury awarded $7,835 in compensatory damages. In Grabinski, the plaintiff action was based on the following misstatements of material fact: 1) The car was very nice; 2) the car was driving fine; 3) the car only needed a clean up and standard service; 4) the car was in excellent condition, had had one owner and had never been wrecked. The court determined that the jury had a reasonable basis to conclude that the dealer, defendant, should have been aware of the condition of the vehicle, which had been seriously damaged by a prior owner. Id at 569.

In Chezik Homerun v. NKC Motors, 153 F.3d. 1014 (8thCir. 1998), the Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict for $6,900 in compensatory damages and $35,000 in punitive damages. The jury had determined that the defendant had violated the applicable Consumer Fraud Statute by misrepresenting 1) the car was a one-owner car; 2) the car had been traded in because the prior owner wanted an upgrade; 3) the car had nothing wrong except a pop can holder. The jury also found the defendant had violated the Act by concealing (representing by silence) that the car had sustained prior wreck damage.

Look at this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnqr2Rhiqhg
 

Car dealership complaints

According to consumer affairs.com, four dealerships within the “Sansone Auto Network” have settled with the State and have agreed to pay a fine.

THE DEALERSHIP ARE AS FOLLOWS

Fords National Auto Mart, Inc., which does business as Sansone Ford Lincoln Mercury in Ocean Township;