By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Vic
It could be refering to people who have bad credit or upside down. That is how I am taking that add. :lemon:
I love football season!!!!!!!!
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.
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?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
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.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
however, it was possibe to do better than that price at a dealership outside the metro area.
"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.
more to come.
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...
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.
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
Mack
They way those depreciate, they could probably save a third of the price!
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.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Mack
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.
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
Richard
Richard
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
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.
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"?
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.
God knows I've messed up before.
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.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
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!
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.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
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.
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.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
:shades:
Mackabee
Caused him to pay more attention to trade-ins.
Mackabee
Mack
In what way was I arrogant?
:shades:
Richard
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.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
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!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
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.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
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.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
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.
Richard
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
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Richard