Stories from the Sales Frontlines

mackabee

I hear you brother. Today is our company picnic and I'm here at the dealership. Got a customer coming in today to pick up a Tacoma. I hope he doesn't call and cancel. Looks like we got a storm brewing off the Carolina coast so it will hit us here in Va. At least my team doesn't play until later tonight.
Vic

greanpea68

I believe the add is refering to " lets make the best of a situation" I agree it sounds negative but I am pretty sure it is trying to make a positive statement.

It could be refering to people who have bad credit or upside down. That is how I am taking that add. :lemon:

greanpea68

The Pats beat the Jets 27- 16.... :shades:

I love football season!!!!!!!!

user777

i like'd isell's take on this. very suspicious for 3 reps not to have caught this.

to me, it almost seems intentional.

i meant to say in my post that he both bought the car, and was STILL responsible for the payoff. the contract (on the trade) is between the buyer and the bank who loaned $ for it for the 7K, so his recourse i guess, would have been to sue the dealership for the 7K payoff amount, and it's unlikely he'd "win" in the end would he.

when i mentioned this to my wife (lawyer) she said, more than likely when they agreed to unwind the deal, they tried to put him in a less expensive car with more profit in the deal for them.

others have indicated they've heard of mistakes (honest) that were small.

i suppose if they agreed to put him in a vehicle (of his choosing) for a zero profit deal, then i'd consider them making good on the situation.

greanpea68

There are alot of things that could've happened. Sounds to me like no one verified the payoff. The bottom line is the dealership got sloppy. They probably didn't have a approval on the deal. Which you should always have before delivering a car. Because the bank would have asked what is he doing with this car loan. Obviously if he had a 750 fico Debt to income was in line none of that would matter. But I doubt that was the case. In order to tell if he was getting a good deal on their second offer you would have to know numbers. If they offered the same discount and the same for the trade then who is to say he didn't get a good deal on the second car. You also have to keep in mind the lower the MSRP the lower the mark up. Besides i think the dealer would have offered a good deal on the second car because of their sloppiness. Maybe they had a new sales person, a new sales mngr, and a new finance mngr. Bottom line comes down to sloppiness.

oldfarmer50

"...The worst thing you can do as a customer is to put the product that you're trying to buy down..."

I agree, that kind of behavior is tacky but why do you say it is the worst thing a customer can do? Is it because knocking the product tells the salesman that you really feel the opposite, or is it just because it is likely to get him angry?

snakeweasel

technically i think the car was sold

I am thinking that that may not be the case. A material mistake that should have been caught will invalidate a contract. If this is the case there really is no sale.

Now if the buyer stated a couple of times that they made that mistake then thats a pipe of a different color.

user777

curious. it wouldn't be GPH would it? what a dumb adv. :lemon: i've seen a very specific full page adv in the AJC for an ODY, they providing a stock number, price claiming includes Tax Title and Tags at that dealership. of course, it was not possible to buy the van there for the amount in the adv. everything was being bumped.

however, it was possibe to do better than that price at a dealership outside the metro area.

joel0622

If they were trying to screw the customer then what they would have done is demand he keep the car and demand a clear title to trade. They did not do that. They unwound the deal which is the only right thing to do. Your wife like allot of other people automatically assumed that the second deal was for more profit. That is a pretty long road to go down to make a deal.

"OK skip the pay off on the first one, then call him up and tell him that he still owes for it, then we will unwind that deal and sell him a cheaper car for more profit. Works every time"

In the long run what did the dealer end up with? Not a thing except wasted man hours.

mackabee

It's both. If you really want the car then say so and make a reasonable offer. It just makes me wonder why a customer would say that if they are trying to buy the car. I know it's reverse psychology but sometimes it backfires on them as it did here. I was not going to get into a marathon negotiating session especially at closing time. The wife was not being very nice either. He was an ok fellow and I told them I would get them a good deal until they started getting stupid on me.
more to come.

user777

snake, define material mistake. the terms of the contract have to be on paper. i'm sure it makes mention of his trade. the mistake is the missing 7K.

i really believe he both owned the car, and was still responsible for the 7K. all i'm saying is if he wanted to keep the vehicle, his recourse would have been to go after the dealership for the 7K.

i really find it difficult to believe it wasn't "caught". the dealership should have eaten the 7K IMHO, or given the guy the car he wanted at no profit to prove they negotiated in good faith...

user777

a good lesson.

look, i'm not saying the buyer should have kept the car and expected the 7K. sounds like HE offered the unwind.

the orginal question was "was the car sold"? i say it was.

isellhondas

Well, I guess it's the nature of a lawyer to be cynical.

The thought has crossed my mind that just maybe the trade was the type of trade that everyone assumed was paid for when in fact, it wasn't. A couple of years ago, I had a guy trade in a 1995 Taurus. Normally, a car like that would have been paid for years ago, but not this one!

When he handed me the registration, it showed a lienholder. Still, I figured it was paid off but I asked.

" Oh, no, I owe 2500.00 on it"!

Also, this couple was RETIRED. the vast majority of retired people do not finance cars and they don't have liens on the ones they are trading in. The last thing most retired people want is a car payment. These people were the exception. Another reason they could have assumed the car was paid for.

So...we have an incredibly sloppy dealer here and a customer who REALLY should have known something was amiss!

I wouldn't assume any malice on the part of the dealer. They were probably damm embarassed and wanted to make amends. We aren't ALL evil!

mackabee

Have you guys noticed that every time a poster puts a "scenario" like this they suddenly disappear? That's why I don't get into the fray. In my professional opinion there was no deal here.

Mackabee

mackabee

Some folks just need to understand you don't have to act like a jackass when buying a car. Be nice but professional and we will get along just fine. We weren't finished appraising his vehicle and he storms into the manager's office demanding his keys saying he has to leave. There were five other salespersons working deals so it's not like we weren't busy. I had to go out and "apologize" for the delay. I hope they are happy with their Buick.
Mack

isellhondas

You could have smiled nicely and suggested to them that they might want to look at a slightly USED Lucerne.

They way those depreciate, they could probably save a third of the price!

snakeweasel

snake, define material mistake.

Usually the courts will define it as if a reasonable person would have, or should have, noticed the mistake. In this case I would think that $7K would be enough to invalidate the contract.

I truly think that if this had been in a court the court would have undone the deal.

i really find it difficult to believe it wasn't "caught".

I agree whole heatedly.

mackabee

I thought about showing them a Certified Pre-owned Avalon but they would have found fault with that one too.
Mack

joel0622

Gotcha

Ultimatley it was the F&I guy who screwed the pooch on this one. How in the world do you trade for a car with out asking for the title? Or when you go over the final figures and are pointing out the trade equity? :confuse: :confuse:

This one has me more then baffled.

mackabee

This little story reminds me of my first year in the biz. I had a couple trade in a VW Jetta on a Toyota Tacoma. I filled out the appraisal sheet as I was taught how to do it. VIN#, miles, make, and model. Gave it to the GSM who appraised the vehicle. Gave the customers the figures and they agreed to the deal. That was easy enough.
A week later the GSM orders me to call the customers as they "owe us" $1000.00 since their trade is not worth what we told them it was worth. I was confused :confuse: Seems the GSM was too distracted to pay attention to the car and didn't bother to actually look at the car and the VIN. He was off by a grand and was now in hot water for missing the trade that he wanted me to call the customers and ask for the money. I told him he was crazy. I did not make the mistake he did.
:mad:
Mack

joel0622

I would have had to find a new place of employment.

sterlingdog

You're wrong. I haven't disappeared. I've been reading everyone's opinion. To User777---I have a Beacon Score of 850 so my credit was never an issue. I was a Tier I customer. By the way, I have several retired friends who make car payments. Just because we are retired doesn't mean that we don't get monthly checks. Another thing, if you keep a small mortgage and tie it to a car payment, you do have at least some deduction at tax time. Retirees are not excused from paying taxes. My other car is paid for so why is a car payment so bad for a retired person? After all, my estate can pay it off if I kick the bucket. It is interesting to note that the dealer is so nice becuase he can make a profit by selling me a less expensive car. Still, he is willing to do my payoff. I don't know about the sales manager who looks to be in his early 40's but I do know that the salesman and the finance guy have been there a long time. One more point---I DID ask about the good deal TWICE. It just sounded so good. I can't help it if I don't know what every line on those work sheets means. After all, I was listening to the salesman and looking at the circled figures every time he came back from the sales manager's office. It's ok. I don't have to have a convertible and I can wait for my wife's car to be paid off. Maybe next time I'll just pay full sticker price and everyone will be happy. After all, you haven't sent me any advice---just thoughts that maybe I was trying to get over on them. Don't you think that my wife and I feel badly about this? That's why I offered to just kill the whole deal. After 40 years in human resources, I have certainly seen enough of that! Thanks guys.

Richard

sterlingdog

You're right Joel. The dealer ended up with wasted man hours and I ended up with no car. Still, I like to believe that the dealer wants to make it right. The lawyer may be right but if I get a good deal I certainly don't mind if the dealer makes a profit. After all, what is he in business for anyway? Thanks for your input.

Richard

tidester

very suspicious for 3 reps not to have caught this.

Perhaps, but if the original salesperson didn't list it I can see how it would then pass through the rest of the system unchecked. Sloppy? Yes. Conspiracy? Dunno!

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

lrguy44

I truly think that if this had been in a court the court would have undone the deal

Actually, the legal onus is on the buyer to provide clean title to the trade within 30 days, not for the dealer to make a payoff. I have had several instances where the buyer actually made the payoff themselves. Dealers automatically include a payoff because most people can't write a check for the amount, and it insures getting a clean title quickly.

mikefm58

He was off by a grand and was now in hot water for missing the trade

Now that is one deal the dealer should eat. How would it sound if the customer called back a day later and said "I think I paid too much, by about a grand, let's redo the deal"?

bolivar

Your boss gave you a significantly reduced number to take back to the buyer, and you broomed him out of the store. Without even offering part of the reduction, if you thought the whole thing would be too much of a downward jump to lay out on the table at one time.

Aren't a lot of your customers pains in the rear? I would think this is just part of the sales world.

And, you lay out all kind of negative opinions about the customer's negotiating approaches, but it looks to me like his approach would have saved him $2,500 if you would have just presented the managers offer!

The auto world sure looks different from the sales and buyers (my) view.

im_brentwood

Absolutely the manager's fault. It's his job to appraise cars, not the salesperson's.

God knows I've messed up before.

snakeweasel

Actually, the legal onus is on the buyer to provide clean title to the trade within 30 days, not for the dealer to make a payoff.

Only if you have a legally binding sales contract. This discussion is if the sales contract is legally binding. Since both sides state that is a mistake in the paperwork and it is rather large that would invalidate the contract. Hence neither side has any legal responsibility to the other.

isellhondas

You asked our advise and now that we have thrown around some ideas you are getting testy. All we can do from this end is speculate and give you our thoughts on this matter.

I don't think anyone suggested that you were trying to pull something on them.

MOST retired people do not finance their cars, they pay cash for them. I didn't suggest there was anything WRONG for you to finance yours. They may have assumed incorrectly that your trade in had a clear title which was dumb on their part.

I hope you have better luck next time!

houdini1

MOST retired people do not finance their cars, they pay cash for them.

It depends on what is being offered. If you can get a special 1.9% finance deal you would have to consider it even if you could pay cash.

I think Mac was a little arrogant on this one but I wasn't there, so who knows. By the way, since when do you have to be "lucky" to buy a car! I don't blame the guy, I would have walked too.

lrguy44

Only if you have a legally binding sales contract

I was referring to the legal status of any contracts. Before both parties agreed to void the agreement, the buyer was legally responsible for a clean title.

snakeweasel

I was referring to the legal status of any contracts.

So am I, I am wondering if there was a legal contract at all. If it wasn't a legal contract then neither party could void the agreement (the agreement has to be legal and enforceable to be voided). If this is the case the buyer had no legal responsibility save to return the car.

mackabee

Well, it sure took you a long time to pipe in. I was starting to think you were a troll.
:shades:
Mackabee

mackabee

Yep, he ate it.
Caused him to pay more attention to trade-ins.
Mackabee

mackabee

Let me put it to you this way Mr. Bolivar. Every $1000.00 reduction in price costs my wallet a potential $300.00 in commission on an Avalon XLS. So this would have been $750.00. It was already closing time and I was not about to engage in a war for a mini and risk a bad survey to boot.

Mack

mackabee

"I think Mac was a little arrogant on this one but I wasn't there, so who knows."

In what way was I arrogant?
:shades:

sterlingdog

I apologize to you guys for getting testy. It is just a frustrating situation. Listen, they couldn't assume I had a clear title because I told them that I owed around $7,000 when I went in the door. Also, I believe that it was a REAL contract because I still have it and it says "Contract" at the top. This may also help you as you consider the situation: I looked at the line on the contract that says "Trade-in/Payoff" and it has "NA" typed in the blank. The finance guy was pushing us so many papers to sign that I didn't notice that until I got home and began to really study it. My lawyer originally suggested that I offer to split the payoff down the middle with them since they made a big mistake. When that didn't work, I just killed the deal, got my car, and came home. The dealer himself is the one who called me to see if we might want another car with no profit for the dealership or perhaps a lease at a good price with no out of pocket expenses and a three year free maintenance plan. I know that you guys see many retirees, but there are many of us who do make car payments. It's the tax advantage for some of us. Thanks again.

Richard

lrguy44

I am wondering if there was a legal contract at all

The point is of course it was legal, LEGALLY, the dealership has no burden to pay off the trade if it is not in the contract that the dealer will pay it off. The legal point is the burden for a clear title is on the buyer until the dealer contractually relieved the buyer of the burden. In this case, the dealer did what was ethically and morally correct, not necessarily legally required.

snakeweasel

You are missing one point, material errors or omissions tend to void contracts. Its basic contract law per the Uniform Commercial Code. In this case both sides admit to a $7K omission. Since this is the case there was no legally enforceable contract. The only legal obligation was for the buyer to return the car.

user777

snake, are you a lawyer? that's the question i have for you.

lrguy44

We are not discussing this specific case, but the legalities regarding a payoff. But in this case, if the dealer had not admitted to an ommision, it would have been legal. What you are missing is that the dealer is not generically or legally bound to make a payoff but the buyer is legally bound to providing a clean title.

isellhondas

Happy to throw in my two cents.

I don't understand how you can possible consider it a tax advantage but I won't go there.

Hopefully lessons have been learned from both parties on this!

snakeweasel

No but I took contract law classes in college. Business law is a very big part of the Uniformed CPA exam.

snakeweasel

We are not discussing this specific case

I thought that we were discussing this particular case, at least I was. My original post was in response to this one particular case.

What you are missing is .......

Immaterial since I am talking about a particular case in which we know certain aspects of and not in a generic sense.

houdini1

In what way was I arrogant?

Your SM felt that $29,500. was a good price for the car and that this price would provide a fair profit for the dealership.

You chose to ignore/override his wishes because your commission might be reduced, thus, placing your best interest ahead of the customer and the dealership. I would call that arrogant, not to mention undermining your SM.

british_rover

usually say, " Well, most of our customers find these seats to be very comfortable but no one car is right for everyone. Maybe a Lucerne would work better for you".

Yeah that is what I tried on my lady who thought the Lexus had comfortable seats. She just kind of sat their confused but I guess she likes sitting on a two perfectly flat cushions covered in Teflon leather.

sterlingdog

Please allow me to explain the tax advantage as expressed by my CPA. If I carry a small mortgage on my house and then use an equity loan to finance the car, then I have a tax advantage. Also, when I do consulting work as a retiree I get another tax advantage by using the car. Though I am not a CPA, this guy has been doing my taxes for twenty years and saving me money each year. No audit yet! By the way, I wouldn't have had this bad experience if I had listened to my wife. She wanted a new CRV like her old one. She says that you can't be too bad if you sell Hondas.

Richard

kyfdx

I don't understand how you can possible consider it a tax advantage but I won't go there.

If you have to take money out of tax-advantaged retirement funds to pay for a car (possibly having the entire amount taxed as ordinary income), then taking a loan and paying interest may save you money in the long term.

Taking out $25K in one year to pay cash for a car, rather than taking out $6K/year for car payments, may well throw you into a higher tax bracket, as well.

Being on a fixed income takes more work and preparation than it seems..

regards,
kyfdx
visiting host

sterlingdog

I think that you and Snake both made valid points. Thanks for using the words "ethically" and "morally" because I do believe that those words still mean something. I can't believe that I have been conversing with people in the car business. I was taught never to trust them. You guys don't seem to hate customers. Maybe I need to buy a car from one of you---I DO have a PAYOFF! OK "isellhondas", how much are those convertibles?! Thanks.

Richard