Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Audi A4 Lease Questions

14445474950143

Comments

  • audihorseaudihorse Posts: 15
    I think the attorney was just suggesting that it would be good to be aware of Audi leasing terms, including the buy out agreement. Sometimes humans only learn by doing something once and then want to help others not make the same mistake or to at least warn others of not so obvious considerations in the equation.

    He did not say he thought he had a case against Audi - just that he objected to their terms and would not lease again from them.
  • mcwenzelmcwenzel Posts: 37
    Here we go again. Could you demonstrate less understanding of basic contractual terms? Please stop doing people a disservice by blatantly misrepresenting my statements and the details of the transaction.

    You say:
    "What RaudiAudi (and I) don't understand is why the lawyer, who contends he knows about contracts because he is a lawyer of some sort, signed a contract which he can't comply with."

    Huh, when did I say that. Of course I can comply with the contract. The contract contains no terms stating that the buyout price will be different for a third party or dealer than it will be for the lessee, regardless of when that buyout is made. And, FWIW, so those reading can guage respective credibility of the posters, I am an attorney who drafts and negotiates contracts on behalf of businesses on a weekly basis.

    You said:
    "As previously pointed out, if the lawyer signed a contract he is bound by the conditions of that contract. If the lawyer chooses to sell the car in violation of the lease terms, the contract allows for Audi to penalize him in some manner - as all leasing companies do in one form or another."

    Selling the leased car, i.e. paying Audi the lease buyout price IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LEASE. Let me state again, a lease buyout is NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LEASE. To the contrary, it is explicitly authorized by the lease provisions. ALL LEASES allow you to buy out the lease at the end at the residual price. Virtually ALL LEASES allow you to buy out the lease prior to lease end by paying the residual plus remaining payments. Why do they? Because the money they make on the lease does not change based on whether you buy out the lease on day 1 or the last day. In fact, I am sure they would rather have you pay it all on day one, so they can access the money sooner rather than later. Since the interest is already built in to each payment, this would simply give them access to your capital sooner.

    You said:
    "If you can give me a cite or a link to a leasing company that does NOT penalize one for selling a car out of a lease, please do."

    First, it is not "penalizing" for selling a car out of lease. It is the practice of disparate lease buyout price (as stated in the lease terms) based on who the purchaser is. As for leasing companies that don't do this, Honda, Acura, Ford don't. From what I understand, a Ford dealer will do the third party buyout for you at no charge as a courtesy. When I inquired about Audi doing the same, multiple Audi dealers told me that Audi will jack up the price on them to.

    You said:
    "Or, if the lease allows him to sell to a third party but at a higher buyout fee, he has to perform that contract term because ... he signed the contract. So if Audi wants to keep you in a lease for their business purposes (which I think we can assume they know better than the consumer), they can penalize him for breaching that lease by selling the car to a third party."

    Again, you don't understand. First, the lease doesn't "allow" or disallow the lessee from selling the car to anyone for obvious reasons, as the lessee does not own the car, so inclusion of such a term would be nonsensical. Second, the lease does not "penalize" the lessee "for breaching the lease by selling the car to a third party". The lessee cannot sell the car without buying it first. Once the lessee buys the car, he or she can do whatever he or she likes, and Audi does not and could not penalize that transaction becuase they have no privity of contract with the third party. Moreover, the contract is silent as to the terms for selling the car to a dealer or third party, as opposed to selling it to the lessee.

    You said:
    "Maybe some companies will let the lessee sell the car to some third schmoe for the remaining payments and residual, but the lessee will still owe them a fee. Otherwise, what is the incentive to stay in the lease?"

    More nonsense. The buyout price is the buyout price, and most companies will allow you or a dealer or third party to buy the car out at the same price. The buyout terminates the lease. You don't own a "fee" after a lease buyout, regardless of the purchaser. That is why it is called a "buyout", not an early lease termination.

    You said:
    "If Audi has violated the terms of the lease by requiring a higher buyout than the lawyer contracted for, then the lawyer has a cause of action against Audi. But it appears that Audi is not violating the lease as the lawyer does not mention litigating the issue (and if a lawyer would not litigate, who would?) Again, if they penalize him beyond the terms of the contract, the lessee has legal redress. Indeed, he could get attorney fees under truth in lending laws."

    Complete misquote and fabrication. Not once did I state Audi was breaching the express terms of the contract. Please point out for all of us where I ever said that? You should choose your words more carefully. What I stated was that there is no provision in the contract explicitly stating that Audi will charge a dealer or third party more than the lessee for the identical privilege of buying the car from them. The contract is silent on that term. It is counterintuitive that Audi would do this, as evidenced by the fact that are so far the only company I have found that does this. It even angers Audi dealers. It is simply a policy designed to increase their bottom line. While Audi contracted to sell the car to you for X, they figure hey, why not try to get X + Y if we can, and we don't care at whose expense. That is a business decision Audi makes. Other leasing companies DO NOT.

    You said:
    "I don't think Raudi was following the tax argument of the lawyer. The lawyer is indeed hosed by the tax circumstances he got himself into. The lawyer never did respond to my suggestion to trade or sell the lease itself. As I said, if one don't understand the risks inherent in a lease or have an uncertain income ... one should not enter a lease."

    I am not "hosed" as you state due to the provisions of California law permitting one to avoid tax liability if a car is purchased for resale and the transaction is completed within ten days. However, many states do not have such a provision, and the complexity of the third party buyout and unfamiliarity with it (because of Audi's unique refusal to sell to a dealer or third party) by most lenders/dealers makes the transaction convoluted and time consuming. Moreover, when you say the "tax circumstances he got himself into" - you do realize you are talking about State tax laws that every lessee is subjected to right? This is not some special deal for me. Thus the reason for my post in the first place.
  • mcwenzelmcwenzel Posts: 37
    In closing....

    Regarding your attempt to equate the validity of my post with whether there is pending litigation is silly. Certain hostile business practices are legal, others are illegal. You can choose to do business with whomever you like. It is certainly not illegal to charge someone MSRP on a car, and if you don't mind the practice, feel free to buy the car at MSRP.

    Regarding legality, while I question whether this practice violates California Unfair Business Practices Law, considering in the end I will incur no damages as a result of this hostile practice other than lost time, there is no reason to litigate. Even if I were to incur a loss by having to pay a dealer or third party a premium to purchase the car from Audi at an inflated price, it would not be worth my time to litigate as the loss would be under $2,000.

    Regarding your comment of the litigiousness of lawyers, behind every sleazy lawsuit is a willing client.

    I posted this in the first place because others may not be so lucky in avoiding double taxation depending on their state of residency and familiarity with tax laws. Others may have a change in circumstances that requires them to try to exit their lease and get into a different car (whether it be having children, loss of life, change of job, etc...)

    Audi has chosen to pursue a practice that benefits them at the expense of the lessee. This practice is not disclosed in the lease agreement. This practice is not done by other leasing companies. Whether it is legal or illegal really isn't the point. You can choose to do business with whomever you like, but you should know all the facts prior to making your decision.

    Oh, and by the way, in response to your equestion regarding "selling or trading" the lease, and why I did not respond to that suggestion, the answer follows. As if it were not obvious, why would one ever trade a lease with one month remaining. Your suggestion made no sense.

    However, just so everyone is aware, you cannot assign your Audi lease to a third party (through leasetrader or other similar programs) in the last 12 months of the lease. Most lenders do not have this restriction, some have a sixth month restriction. Moreover, you remain liable for the lease even after the lease is assigned to the third party (unlike many other lenders, who allow a clean assignment).

    Just more food for thought for those considering an Audi lease.
  • raudiaudiraudiaudi Posts: 8
    Here is a good example of someone's experience with this matter.

    http://www.edmunds.com/advice/strategies/articles/48244/article.html

    Don't worry, I won't be calling you in three years, the liars....I mean lawyers I deal with know the difference between to, two, and too.

    ". When I inquired about Audi doing the same, multiple Audi dealers told me that Audi will jack up the price on them to."

    Jabs aside,

    I know you aren't in a lawsuit, and I know you aren't trying to get out of a lease agreement early. The double taxation thing is still muddy waters for some people, even in the article I have linked into this posting. She is going for the State Taxation Board for a double taxation claim, which is BS. She did not buy the vehicle until the end of the lease, where she should be taxed on the residual price of the vehicle plus any applicable fees she agreed to. Now whoever buys it after her purchase must pay sales tax on their purchase of the vehicle from her. So no double taxing is going on. If there was better resources on this forum, I would draw a diagram with cute stick figures and all. I understand leases, loans, and taxation. In this article, she discovered what a dealer would do to either help or hinder a third party in obtaining the vehicle. If the residual was 15k and the market of the vehicle held strong at 18k, I would like to meet the SOON-TO-BE-FIRED Finance Manager at a dealership that would turn away, plus AID in the effort to get the third party in the vehicle for 15k when they could make so much more by telling both parties that it can't be done, then taking the third party and selling them a car for about the same price he had worked out or maybe a little less. In this case, the dealer also has the lessee by the you know what because if the lessee was over mileage or past normal wear and tear, they just took the lessee's get-out-of-jail-free card away and now they can charge the lessee the appropriate fees when he is now forced to turn the vehicle into them since they took away his buyer--Just playing the devil's advocate that always chases the dollar. Situation #2 is that the market of the car actually is 13k and your buy out is still 15k, which is more likely with most brand of manufacturers over Audi (greater depreciation rate per year, rather than the roughly %12 Audi currently maintains), so your third party would be an idiot to step in the finance room to make that deal with you. So the black and white has been established here, but now there is a grey we haven't even talked about. First Audi has a Premier Purchase Plan, after skimming through the rules, it seems like they put the title of the vehicle in your name from day one, but treat it much like a lease, so I hate to use the [non-permissible content removed]-out-of-u-&-me word here, but I would assume there is a sales tax situation wrapped up in the program somewhere, maybe even before the term end. So this is also a purchase, with some lease restrictions with a balloon payment at the end for the purchase of the vehicle, which eliminates the taxation at the end, again I am only assuming. The gray area also has the down and dirty idea of buying it from the dealer, with your money (which is better) or money fronted by the third party, then selling it to your third party for say 1k, which you can put on the title when you sign it over to him on the back of the document or in a bill of sale note, but don't put down "gift", b/c the DMV in most states have caught on to this and will go with market value of the vehicle. He pays virtually nothing for taxes and you have payed tax once. If the DMV is curious about this, the third party can say it was a "favor" deal, happens all the time. For the rest of the amount come to an agreed understanding of why this helps the two of you out and plan out the rest of the payment plan.

    -"You don't know what they don't know."

    P.S. I would recommend doing it this way since the poster of the article referenced in this reply tried to comply with California Law and the whole ten day policy and she still ran into snags. No surprise there, state officials make the law and they still can't interpret it correctly for the people of which it governs.

    Ye have little faith, no, Ye have no faith!
  • mcwenzelmcwenzel Posts: 37
    Well, thanks for clearing that up. If anyone can interpret this post for those of us not in a drug induced haze, I would appreciate it. Next time consider paragraphs.

    Again, Audi charges MORE to sell the car to a dealer than they do the lessee. Other leasing companies do not do that. That was my original premise, and you have not disproved it.

    Regarding buying the car "from the dealer" as your "gray area", you can't buy the car from the dealer unless the dealer buys it from Audi first. And guess what, the price the dealer can buy it for is a special increased price that exceeds your residual. So sure, give up your residual price, have the dealer buy it for $1500 more, and then buy it from the dealer, and then sell it to a third party. Yeah, that makes a great deal of sense.

    Regarding the third party process in california, I read the same article. The author fails to mention numerous ways to avoid ever having to go to the DMV, which begin with signing a limited power of attorney with your lender to allow them to move title directly from the manufacturer, through you, to the third party. I have no idea why the author paid sales tax to a dealer, particularly when California law is clear that if purchasing for resale within ten days, no tax liability is owed.

    What little value I did glean from your post simply supports my point, so I have to thank you. What is so easy to do with many lenders is extremely difficult to do with Audi (and apparently difficult to do with Nissan). You finally understand.

    Regarding the Audi Premier Purchase Plan, sure, you can go that route, but not only will your payments be higher than if you had a lease, but you also can only select 15k miles a year. Great plan. And note was is not in the details of the PPP. Whether a third party or dealer can buy the car for the same balloon payment. I have a pretty good idea what the answer is.

    So it seems your solution, and correct me if I am wrong, is to buy the car from a dealer at a premium well over your residual (because that is the only way you can buy the car from the dealer), and then commit fraud in the title transfer to the third party, rather than simply applying for a refund with the State Equalization Board?

    Wow, and people hold lawyers in low esteem. I highly, highly recommend you don't follow this advice. Simply complete the transfer within ten days in California or suck it up and pay the tax. In other states, check the taxation laws.
  • raudiaudiraudiaudi Posts: 8
    Now that we are at the crux of the problem, i.e. buying the car from the dealer, well over residual, that has got to be disclosed to the lessee prior to getting into this situation. So you were approached by a dealer that said, "Mr. your car's residual is this, but afer this fee, that fee, this add on and this, this is now the buy out of this car? And you didn't have any prior knowledge of this until they told you at turn in? That may be a liability on Audi if not presented to the lessee correctly. It doesn't make sense to buy a car off a friend for a premium if that does occur. I am not suggesting fraud, but another way to skin the cat. As citizens, we take the "LAW" as all governing and perfect, which is not true, it is an idea and entity written by imperfect beings, so when the government is spending money in a wasteful and unproductive way, but then turning around and saying we as citizens have to be on the level with it, I call the BS flag. Like I said, the guy mowed my lawn for 42k and I sold him this car for 1k because he is a good friend. Not an advocate, just someone that sees through the liberal bs of our current government. State Equalization Board, yea, I am sure you are the first one that came to them with this problem and tried to get it handled the same way as this lady did in the article. Out of my own curiosity, how can a dealer re-neg a residual price after it is written, just by calling Audi and saying that they now have to buy the car from them for 4k or whatever over the price. How is that an honorable quote in the first place, unless the price increase was due to fees that were explained in the fine print all along if you were to purchase at the end of the contract?
  • mcwenzelmcwenzel Posts: 37
    No, you are still missing the whole point. The dealer does not "own" the car. They leased it to you, it is owned by the manufacturer, you can return it to any dealer of that manufacturer, it is not owned by any dealer.

    For the dealer to sell it to you, they have to buy it first. Thus, there is no reason to buy the car from the dealer when you have the right to buy it directly from the finance company.

    The problem arises when you want to trade the car in to a dealer for another car or have a third party buy the car. If you try to do this, the dealer will have to purchase the car at "fair market value" determined by Audi Financial, and not your negotiated residual. The FMV will likely exceed your residual. There are no add of "fees" by the dealer. The increase in price is a result of Audi Financial charging the dealer a buyout price that exceeds your residual.

    As I have stated multiple times already, there is no provision in the leasing contract stating that Audi will do this. There is no provision stating Audi will not. The contract is silent on this issue, and therefore, until you are actually in the situtation, you would have no idea what their policy is.

    The practice of charging a dealer "FMV" solely determined by Audi Financial instead of the negotiated residual is a practice not utlized by other leasing companies.

    The dealer is not re-negging on a residual. The dealer is simply a conduit/agent in the transaction. You can still buy the car from the Audi Financial at the price in your contract. A third party cannot without paying a premium well above the lessee's residual.

    Regarding your justification for evading taxes, it sounds like Wesley Snipes in his tax evasion trial. I suggest you petition your State congressman/woman regarding state tax policy rather than commit tax evasion because you disagree with the policy of the government.
  • edwardsfedwardsf Posts: 187
    That last post was pretty good. Of course, it was the only post of yours written in any kind of understandable English. So the crux of this is indeed one of two things (that I have already addressed); You, Mr. I-Know-Everything-But-Got-Hosed-Anway, 1) signed a contract whose terms are clear but you just don't want to comply with them, or 2) the contract terms of the contract you signed were uncertain but you interpret them differently than AFS does. I think that indeed #1 is probably your circumstances and that you are facing the consequences of being an unsophisticated buyer or a buyer who is upset because he cannot take advantage of the bank. Finance companies are not know for being intimidated by disgruntled borrowers. But finance companies have insurers who are intimidated by claims of clear violations of unfair lending laws.

    Regarding your claimed scenario #2, you claim that the contract is silent on the criteria regarding buyout and you don't like and disagree with their interpretation of the buyout clause. Well, hello Mr. Contact-Law-Expert - Negotiate! Or sue them. If indeed, it is industry practice to interpret such clauses in auto leases differently than AFS does, that practice is indeed industry custom and such custom is probative towards interpreting the disputed lease terms. But since - after what? 4 posts - you, Mr. I-Know-Everything-But-Am-Losing-My-Shirt-Anyway have not given me ANY links, I can only assume that industry custom does NOT normally let you buy your way out of a lease with no type of penalty (or the equivalent, an inflated market value). You are just mad because you can't take advantage of AFS the way you probably do in your work by the use of your quite impressive but still confusing and bombastic rhetoric.
  • mcwenzelmcwenzel Posts: 37
    You said:

    "Regarding your claimed scenario #2, you claim that the contract is silent on the criteria regarding buyout and you don't like their interpretation of the buyout clause"

    Classic.

    Since nobody could be this criminally stupid, at this point I am convinced my wife put you up to posting as a practical joke and/or you and RaudiAudi are the same person and this is an endless troll.

    Either way, I'm out. I need to get back to using confusing and bombastic rhetoric to take advantage of multi-billion dollar corporations.

    If anyone needs any advice on how to navigate the third party buyout in California or the inherent risks unique to an Audi/VW lease, feel free to e-mail me.
  • audihorseaudihorse Posts: 15
    just wanted you to know that I understood all of your "...rhetoric" and completely get your points.

    Glad you gave up on Dumb and Dumber, though. It was hopeless. If either of them were your client - you would have to fire the client. ;)
  • raudiaudiraudiaudi Posts: 8
    So by your experience in an Audi lease, you would agree that even though you are given a residual price for your car at the beginning of the agreement, that this number is arbitrary? Eventhough the dealership quoted it to you, they can't bind themselves to it because the dealer still has to buy the car from AFS and that will be at a much higher FMV if you do decide to buy it from them at the end? I understand entirely where you are coming from.

    However, if a lease is made through a dealer directly with AFS, AFS is bound by the contract, if the dealer didn't go about it this way, i.e. carried you through the lease then you said you want to buy the car at the end of it, which this most likely sounds like your case, then yea, you did get hosed and should have known better. You make it sound as if AFS inks a deal with someone when a car is leased, tells them specific numbers in writing, then backs out and says, oh yea, that residual, we were just kidding, actually, here is the real price which is more like FMV.

    I will ask when I go for an Audi lease if the paper is carried by them and all terms of the agreement are going to be honored by them or if it won't happen because the dealer or another third party lessor will have to at that time buy the car from AFS.

    Here are your paragraphs.....
  • jagxjagx Posts: 1
    JHC....... i had to sign up for this forum just to post this after reading this thread. anyone reading this --- do yourself a favor and pay attention to the posts by mcwenzel. i read contracts every day and he has a clear understanding of, and provides a clear understanding of, the relevant topics. reading the posts of the other side in this "debate" is like reading a dr seuss book upside down after having 5 pints.

    btw, if anyone wants to reply, what is the bottom line on a 36 mo a4 lease, 12k miles, say $2k down? or just the 36 mo residual and money factor used would be great to have. seems like they must have a pretty low mf if my sister in law is accurate that she landed a new a4 2 mos ago for 360/mo inclusing taxes.
  • rallyfanrallyfan Posts: 36
    could you give an example of a good lease on A4 2.0 cvt frnt trk i want to put as little down as possible 15k year 36 months thanks rallyfan ps i finally am able to post yeah love this site
  • simansiman Posts: 7
    Hi McWenzel,
    This site is very confusing especially with some other irresponsible posters to confuse most other people (like me).
    I just wanted to know if this is a good deal from my local dealer Ads (St.Petersburg, FL).
    For A4 with MSRP $31,015, the downpayment is $1,999 and the monthly payment is $299 plus tax. Term: 36 months (30,000 miles total)
    What should I watch out with this Ads? This is not clear to me if the downpayment includes all the prep fees, acquisition fee, etc. We went to the dealer on Sunday (they closed) and saw one exactly A4 we both wanted with the MSRP $31,015 exact amount from the classified Ad.
    The residual amount is $17,058.25. It just didn't make sense (with negative MF?), too good to be true?
    Thanks for all your helps!
  • cars0153cars0153 Posts: 45
    Either you or the dealer can buy the car from Audi for the residual on the contract period.
    If the dealer is saying you have to go through them then they are lying to you.
    Go right to Audi
    If you are intending to sell the car you do have to register the car first, pay the tax and then sell it. You presently don't own the car and the tax must be paid
  • edwardsfedwardsf Posts: 187
    I am sure you will get a lot of takers. "Available: Expert Lawyer who got taken to the cleaners, seeks to advise other similarly situated lessees." I agree, if you can't defend your mistakes, get out of the kitchen.

    BTW, as we are crowing, I did work in the Bankruptcy law division at Bank of America many years ago. My job (and that of many others) was to defend the Bank against deadbeats who obtained loans and not only could not pay them but then sued the bank for lending them too much money. Right up your alley.
  • edwardsfedwardsf Posts: 187
    I actually want to understand this but McWenzell's writing is so arcane that it is difficult. Plus, he is so pompous.

    Perhaps you can explain in laymen's terms why:
    1) If AFS unilaterally replaced the lease residual #s with FMV #s, why McWenzel does not have a cause of action against them for breach of contract and violation of Fair lending laws.
    2) If he has no recourse, why is this the only area of contract law, where one party can provide a specific # when writing the contract (e.g. residual), yet use another one (e.g. FMV) to later interpret it. This simply makes no sense.

    Also, McWenzel claims NO OTHER finance dealers do this but cannot provide ONE link to another leasing company that does not penalize lessees for getting out of the lease. What am I missing there?

    Now for my credentials: I just leased an A4 Avant for 36 months and have the MF, Residual and a price lower than any seen on this forum - all are available if you can explain why McWenzel does not have a claim against AFS or alternatively why he simply is trying to get out of a contract that he doesn't like.
  • alex320alex320 Posts: 8
    Does anyone know if the special leasing ads in the classified sections are negotiable? Are dealerships flexible on say, adding more mileage for the same quoted price if you haggle with them or are those specials "as good as it gets"?
  • audihorseaudihorse Posts: 15
    I had no problem with his explanations and tried before to interpret for some of you and I am sure this is waste of my time but here goes:

    Contract with AFS and agreed terms is between you and them only - they only change the residual price if 3rd party attempts to buy car. No recourse as the contract is between you and them. He gets that. Not sure why you don't. He thinks it is a rather onerous position and less than customer friendly on AFS part to change the price if a 3rd party wants to buy and that would be convenient to you. Forces you to buy the car and pay tax before you re-sell. Which can be worked around in some states - just a hassle. So no penalty as you are entitled to buy the car at any time within the lease or at lease end - but ONLY you can buy it for the price agreed.

    BTW, before you brag too much on your deal - remember the MF and price should be low, but the higher the residual the better for the deal - means you are paying less for use of car for term of lease.
  • rallyfanrallyfan Posts: 36
    HEY SIMAN LOOKS LIKE YOU AND I ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM BOTH OF OUR POST ARE BEING IGNORED DUE TO THE CONSTANT BATTLE THAT HAS TAKEN OVER THIS SITE. LOOKS LIKE WE WANT THE SAME TYPE CAR GOOD LUCK TRY NO OR LITTLE DOWN AND AT INVOICE RALLYFAN
  • simansiman Posts: 7
    We plan to revisit the dealership this Saturday and will let you know what I get from them.
    It looks like the special leasing program is the bottom price and I am sure they will try to add on some other fees as you are dealing with them in person.
    I will try to minimize my downpayment and monthly payments :-)
    Thanks!
    PS: My dealership is Crown Audi - clearwater, FL.
  • This just happened to me. I leased my audi and got my loan through Audi Financial Services (AFS). I had my mechanic sell my car and we listed it at the pay-off I was quoted by AFS. Needless to say I now owe my mechanic money because when the car sold yesterday and he purchased the car from AFS with the money he was given by the purchaser, AFS charges him the higher price (which neither of us knew anything about). This being said has anyone ever been succsesful in having AFS re-pay them the diffirence between the two pay-offs?
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,872
    A reporter from a large local newspaper would like to speak to consumers who have just leased a vehicle. Please respond to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than June 21, 2007 with your daytime contact information.

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • edwardsfedwardsf Posts: 187
    Thanks for your attempts to explain this. According to 2 contract attorneys in my office, your view that it is unethical for AFS to require that "ONLY [the lessee] can buy it for the price agreed," has no basis in contract law. The third party buyer has no privity with the lessor, AFS, and therefore has no right to the price that the lessee contracted for. Why you guys think that a lessee can transfer the lease buyout terms to a third party or that the lessor would allow the lessee to do so is beyond the understanding of the two contract attorneys I spoke to. That is, if you want out of a business deal, you got to pay.

    Remember, by selling to the third party at resdiual, Audi will lose interest. AFS can certainly agree to release the lessee but they can also make up for this lost profit by charging more to the third party. Even if the lessee himself can eliminate the interest through a prepayment buyout, AFS has no obligation to grant this original contract inducement to a third party. By agreeing to transfer this price to the third party, Audi loses the opportunity to sell the car for the price and manner they choose. After all, it is AFS' car and they get to sell it at the terms they set. Again, AFS is under no obligation to provide a third party with the terms that they have negotiated with the lessee.

    I never said that Audi is taking a consumer friendly position. I only said that I don't believe that such a consumer friendly practice is industry custom. Neither of your combined 5 or 6 posts has provided any support for the existence of this supposed custom, so I can only conclude that it does not exist. One thing that we can agree on is that lessees should not assume that Audi - who subvents these leases - will let them transfer favorable lease terms to a third party.

    BTW, I never bragged about residual rates, just made a typo that a low residual is good. I meant a high residual is favorable. I did not get a great residual (.51) but I did buy at $1000 under invoice.
  • hybidzhybidz Posts: 1
    what are the june buy rates on a 2007 a4 2.0 cvt cab
  • audihorseaudihorse Posts: 15
    I am happy that you finally understand the 3rd party issue.

    I did not say AFS was unethical - maybe unfriendly, yes. And I believe the original poster if he says his research indicates other car cos. will sell to 3rd party for same price as they will to lessee.

    BTW, if you or I pay off a lease early- AFS will not charge interest on remaining payments so that is not the issue. Base payments + residual. But at equivalent of 1.29% interest, etc. who wants to do that? And as you noted, none of their terms -prepayment buy out of remaining payments due less interest + set residual (or if at lease end residual only) are avail to 3rd party. I have no problem with their terms - I just leased another Audi - and I fully understand the deal. But I thought Mcwenzel's point of view was perfectly legitimate and that he explained it quite well.

    Very good that you got $1000 below invoice. Did you pay that $495 advertising/prep fee they claim is on their "invoice"?
  • cars0153cars0153 Posts: 45
    This is normal. You and Audi had the contract not a 3rd party. Any manufacturer can sell the car for anything they want other than the original lessee. You're lucky they would even sell the car to him. Most of the time the manufacturer won't.
    They nothing wrong! You avoided payhing sales tax if you bought it.
  • hello all:

    I was at a southern california dealership today and while I was negotiating the price of an '07 a4 2.0t the dealer tried to throw in two fees: an "ad" fee, around $250 or so and an "inspection and preparation fee" around $175. He claimed that he was giving me the invoice price of the car, but with these two fees, it really seemed like $400 over invoice. I have heard something about a coop ad fee that I think is legit, but do dealers generally waive this after some negotiation? With the inspection fee, I feel like this is total bs--any input?

    Also, I was under the impression that maintenance is part of the 4 year warranty, but learned with Audis only the first--5K or 10K? miles--is free. So they tried to sell me the Audi car care program for $590 and said because the residual value is 55% instead of 54% it practically pays for itself. He also claimed they require certain maintenance as part of the lease contract which ends up costing more that $590. What's the deal with this?

    Appreciate your help. Thanks!
  • audihorseaudihorse Posts: 15
    The add on fees are something that Boston area dealers do, too - adding up to $495. Read the previous recent posts on this board for info. Negotiate to under invoice or tell the dealer you don't want to pay those fees and will go elsewhere. Although because every dealer in So Cal is in on these "invoice" add ons it might be easier to ignore the fees and just negotiate to the price you have in mind which should be invoice or below on an 07 (before the fees.) If I had it to do over I would have struck a better deal for myself and I did get my lease at invoice. At least in SoCal I think they go easy on doc fees $45? (for title, reg. etc.) - separate from this advertising/prep add on "invoice" fee. I made them throw in all weather mats and wagon mat to make up for that $300 doc fee in Boston area.

    Audi Care is legit. Audi used to include free maintenance. Now they don't. If your lease is for 36 mos. get the Audi Care. And yes they will make you sign a doc saying you will use the Audi Care because they want to insure that their leased car will be maintained. Since you are paying for it it makes sense you would use it. But because it does bring residual up a point it is worth it.
  • rallyfanrallyfan Posts: 36
    DID YOU LEASE THE A4 I WAS LOOKING INTO THE SAME CAR CAN YOU POST SOME OF THE NUMBERS DID YOU HAVE TO PUT THE 999 DOWN AND THE OTHER FEES THAT EQUAL APPR. 2300 DOLLARS I HEARD THE MAINTENCE FEE IS LEGIT AND A GOOD DEAL CONSDERING THEY CHARGE 100 DOLLARS FOR THE 10K OIL CHANGE AND SERVICE THANKS GOOD LUCK
This discussion has been closed.