Posted 11/9/2012 03:20 (#2687125 - in reply to #2687115) Subject: Re: GM dealer makes mistake, then has customer arrested
Hagen Brothers farms,Goodrich ND
Gary Lyon - 11/10/2012 01:53
Jon Hagen - 11/8/2012 23:54
plowboy - 11/10/2012 00:22
I just read the article. Where in the world are you getting all of that, Jon? The guy bought a car. The next day he decided he wanted a different color. Nevermind how silly that is, when he went back the sales manager, who can reasonably be presumed to represent the dealer in matters of this nature, signed a contract exchanging the car for one of a different color...one can only presume such contract had to include the vehicle's VIN, which should automatically tell anyone in the dealer what it is down to the last option... and he left with it. He is then contacted at some later time and they want him to sign a different contract to pay more. Then a couple weeks after the fact they have the police arrest him because he did not sign the new, higher priced contract they tried to get him to sign.
Where in the article is there anything to support your postion? It really doesn't matter who messed up or whatever, the dealer signed off on the deal. I don't see how he has any standing to come back later and demand more money then he agreed to orginally.
If anything I'd say this sounds like a typical bait and switch deal that dealer's sales personel play ten times a day, running back and forth to talk to someone else then coming back with a different deal, but taken far beyond any reason. I don't understand why would anyone care to even talk to a 'salesman' who lacks the authority to actually sell anything without these stupid antics. I refuse to play that game....the minute someone trying to sell me something tells me they have to consult with someone else about the sale I will prompty discontinue dealing with the messageboy and either deal with someone authorized or simply find a different place to buy. If a salesman sold me something and then came back making demands after the fact he would not get anywhere, and if he pulled anything remotely like this deal there is no doubt that there would be future discussions handled by my attorney.
Check the first link at the bottom of the story which leads to the original news source. The Virginian-Pilot via Inside Tidewater In that link, the salesman claims that the guy was told of the price increase when he came back for the other car and agreed to it, but when they mistakenly did not include the increase in the new contract, this guy decided he was not going to pay. That does not sound like bait and switch to me, it sounds like a crook trying to get out of an oral contract because of a clerical error on the paper contract. http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/dealership-apologizes-error-custome... The fact that the guy left the dealer with what he knew was an incorrect contract and immediatly returned with a cashiers check to make it legal before the mistake was found out, seems very suspicious to me. I suspect the dealer is willing to eat the loss because that would be cheaper than fighting the guy and his lawers "The lawsuit claims Wib Davenport, a sales manager, agreed to the trade without discussing how much more the blue Traverse would cost. Cummings disputed that, saying Davenport told Sawyer it would cost about $5,500 more than the black one and that Sawyer orally agreed to the higher price. Regardless, the final contract Sawyer signed did not reflect the higher price, which Cummings said should have been in the area of $39,000. He blamed a clerical error."
I see now where you got that idea. It appears to me that the dealership is clearly involved an a "cya" action. The top people clearly either don't know what actions and agreements subordinates made or they chose to mislead authorities about what happened. It is pretty lame to have to come back and admit that yes, in fact, someone had reported the car as stolen. The actions of the dealership are indefensible.
Why was the cashiers check not recieved at the time of the intial sale of the original car? It appears to me that the water is pretty murky at that dealership.
"Why was the cashiers check not recieved at the time of the intial sale of the original car?"
It appears that the late model trade in with promise of future payments was accepted by the dealer at the time of the original contract.
It appears that the poor victum suddenly decided no need to make payments and produced the cashiers check to pay the new exchange contract in full. Why do you suppose the change of heart ?? Could it have anything to do with the $5500 error in his favor ??