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.