New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

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.