Car dealership has buyer arrested because THEY sold him the car to cheap.

[Squidgyness]

Honestly, I think that the litigation culture that is spreading throughout the western world can be a bad thing, but this case reminds me why we have the right to instigate such proceedings.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he wants the full 2.2million, like pp's I'd assume an out of court settlement is in the works. It seems like a pretty open and shut case tbh.

 

[zurgswife]

I would too. As a Registered Nurse he has to think about his license. If charged with a felony that would be grounds to lose his license.

As a Nurse every single time this guy applied for a job and they run the check, they are going to find grand theft auto on his record. It may say " found not guilty" but a lot of jobs are not going to call you and ask for your side of the story, they will just rescind their offer and say they chose someone else. So now every single job he ever applied for, he has to start the interview with "oh by the way, you might find this on my background check" . That is not a good way to start off.

The fact that this arrest could affect every single job he has in the future unless the entire things is expunged from his record I think 2.2 is a generous number to sue for. As a nurse if it is not expunged if he tried to change positions he could be easily passed over each and every time.

 

[tvguy]

This sounds like a civil matter to me rather than a criminal one. But I'm not sure of the laws of the state the dealership was in. In some states, a civil arrest can be made and the cops will make it. However, if you're wrong and you make such an arrest, you're subject to prosecution and or civil suit yourself. Personally, if I'm that business, I notify the customer that we made a mistake on price but that we're honoring it. The smart thing to do for that business was to eat the 5k. In any case, I wouldn't have him arrested. Think of the difference between WOW. THEY MADE A 5K MISTAKE AND THEY HONORED IT. YOU CAN TRUST THESE GUYS, and WOW, THESE GUYS MADE A 5K MISTAKE AND HAD ME ARRESTED.

My point too, a civil matter. Police don't even respond to auto thefts here anymore (unless it is in progress). They take a report over the phone. There is no such thing as a civil arrest here, you just would file a civil lawsuit.

I think the other thing that sticks out to me is , looking at the local Chevy dealer website, the MSRP for a Traverse runs $36,000 to $43,000,, I would expect at least $7,000 off sticker, and right now the rebate is $2,000.....so it certainly would not be unreasonable to me to buy a fully loaded Traverse for $33,000.....that might actually be $1,000 more than I would expect to pay.

 

[horseshowmom]

However I do think his lawsuit is playing it to the hilt with emotional distress, shame, sleeplessness, loss of reputation etc.

Once it went from phone calls and contacts by mail to having me arrested all bets would have been off, and I would have sued for whatever I thought I could get (and like another poster said, I normally tend to think lawsuits are out of control in this country).

I thought the story was going to be he got it for $3,000 instead of $33,000 or some typo like that. I don't understand what the police even arrested him for - did they ask the dealership why he was accused of theft before they arrested him?

Agreed. That's what I thought too, but it was nothing like that. This is so ridiculous that I would probably be checking Snopes if the information hadn't been sourced.

Honestly, what are the chances that this case ever sees the inside of a courtroom? This bad boy's got "out of court settlement" written all over it.

Yep...

Consumerist article link here with my bolding.

Chevy Dealer Really Sorry About Having Customer Arrested Over Pricing Error
October 3, 2012 By Chris Morran

...

But within a few days, the dealership began contacting the customer, telling him that a mistake had been made in the contract and that he had to come by the dealer and sign a new contract for the higher amount.

The sales manager tells the Virginian-Pilot that the customer initially agreed to the higher price but then balked.

So, after further attempts to contact the customer, the dealership contacted police, and he was arrested on charges of theft.

...

He says he intends to let the customer keep the disputed cash.

“I can’t tell you how I plan to fix it, but it is my intention to make it right,” he tells the Virginian-Pilot.

Meanwhile, the customer’s attorney says that “An apology is not enough.”

The lawsuit, which alleges malicious prosecution, slander, defamation and abuse of process, seeks $2.2 million in damages.

He "intends to let the customer keep the cash". I think he should have figured out by now that he's not the one doing the deciding. If the customer "agreed to the higher price", then why wasn't it in the contract? Somebody messed up and then tried to throw it in the customer's lap. And it sounds like the dealer is guilty of all the charges listed above (although he'll never get 2.2 mil).

 

[Planogirl]

$2.2 million is a pretty ridiculous amount but of course the lawyers will get a huge chunk of whatever he actually gets too. Silly dealership.

 

[hereyago]

Dang,I guess I missed this on our local news. As for the cops, the dealership person probably just went to the magistrate and said,this guy didn't pay entirely for the car or make it sound like he stole it. And I live here in Va and NEVER have a dealership call me later and say I owed them money.I have bought used and new crs even special order.the salesman wasn't going to get enough commision and he cost the dealership money so I am sure he got this ball rolling.

 

[sbell111]

The dealership was completely but I think going for millions of dollars in a lawsuit is also wrong. People should sue for actual damages not perceived emotional damage. Whatever actual damages the person sustained should be covered and possibly even doubled or trebled because of the circumstances and police involvement but I doubt personally even trebling the actual damages reaches 2.2 millions.

Another perfect example of why we need tort reform in this county in my opinion.

The police were also way out of line. What ever happened to doing an investigation and determining if the accusation is valid before making an arrest? Morons.

Here's the problem with your argument: he doesn't have 'actual' damages by your definition. Even if you argue that his damages were a couple days out of work and lawyer's fees, then he's only out maybe a thousand dollars. Triple that and by your logic, the dealership is out three thousand dollars. That is simply not large enough of a penalty to force them to change their bad practices. A fat judgement, on the other hand, will send them a message that they won't laugh off.

 

[sbell111]

Sorry, I disagree. Even IF the guy got the car for $3K, the dealership agreed to the deal.

I agree. You walk into a dealership and negotiate your price. The dealership's goal is to get you to buy the car at the maximum price. Your job is to get the car you want at the lowest price. It is not the buyer's job to make sure that the dealership makes enough money.

 

[tvguy]

I agree. You walk into a dealership and negotiate your price. The dealership's goal is to get you to buy the car at the maximum price. Your job is to get the car you want at the lowest price. It is not the buyer's job to make sure that the dealership makes enough money.

New car pricing is very complicated. A friend is a business manager for a European brand car dealership. She said they sold 31 new cars of a specific model one month, average price $48,000......and lost $500 total. HOWEVER, the manufacturer had a deal going if you sold 30 in a month, they would give the dealership $100,000 in money for advertising. So sometimes selling a car below cost can be profitable. She pointed out that they sold 60 USED cars that month at an average profit of $3,500 per car......and that the service and parts department was responsible for about 80% of the dealerships profits.

 

[horseshowmom]

New car pricing is very complicated. A friend is a business manager for a European brand car dealership. She said they sold 31 new cars of a specific model one month, average price $48,000......and lost $500 total. HOWEVER, the manufacturer had a deal going if you sold 30 in a month, they would give the dealership $100,000 in money for advertising. So sometimes selling a car below cost can be profitable. She pointed out that they sold 60 USED cars that month at an average profit of $3,500 per car......and that the service and parts department was responsible for about 80% of the dealerships profits.

That's interesting.

 

[redlight]

They had the poor guy arrested. That's just shameful. They deserve to lose a lot of money.

 

[cats mom]

Except it's not 'he said, she said' - or in this case 'he said, he said,' - because there was a signed contract. The entire purpose of a contract is to keep it from ever being 'he said, she said.'

And for some reason an identical vehicle in blue costs $6,000 more?

I don't think anyone ever said they were identical. Given the price difference I'm guessing the black one was a base model and the blue one was fully loaded.

I bet the guy really wanted the fully loaded model, settled on the base model to save a few thousand dollars, had second thoughts, and did verbally agree to pay the price difference if the dealership would let him bring the black one back and switch it out for the blue one.

After all, most car dealerships aren't exactly known for being flexible about letting customers change their mind once they've driven off the lot... unless there's more money to be made for the dealership.

Like I said, just guessing here; but when the dealership accepted the price the guy had negotiated for the base model and let him drive away in the fully loaded model instead, I bet he was thrilled! I bet he also knew full well that they had screwed up.

Assuming I'm correct, I'm not seeing the customer in quite the victim light that everyone else here seems to be. While what he did may have been legal, it wasn't exactly ethical.

Of course I also agree that the car dealership handled the situation spectacularly badly. I'm sure they'll lose business over this, as well as a chunk of change in attorney fees and a settlement payoff, and I'm not feeling the least bit sorry for them.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I don't think anyone ever said they were identical. Given the price difference I'm guessing the black one was a base model and the blue one was fully loaded.

I bet the guy really wanted the fully loaded model, settled on the base model to save a few thousand dollars, had second thoughts, and did verbally agree to pay the price difference if the dealership would let him bring the black one back and switch it out for the blue one.

After all, most car dealerships aren't exactly known for being flexible about letting customers change their mind once they've driven off the lot... unless there's more money to be made for the dealership.

Like I said, just guessing here; but when the dealership accepted the price the guy had negotiated for the base model and let him drive away in the fully loaded model instead, I bet he was thrilled! I bet he also knew full well that they had screwed up.

Assuming I'm correct, I'm not seeing the customer in quite the victim light that everyone else here seems to be. While what he did may have been legal, it wasn't exactly ethical.

Of course I also agree that the car dealership handled the situation spectacularly badly. I'm sure they'll lose business over this, as well as a chunk of change in attorney fees and a settlement payoff, and I'm not feeling the least bit sorry for them.

Knowing the way car salesman work, they probably didn't mention the price difference. They probably figured if they got him back on the lot , with the car he really wanted, they could slip the higher price in and he'd take it. Then the salesman screwed up and forgot about the price difference.

 

[cats mom]

Knowing the way car salesman work, they probably didn't mention the price difference. They probably figured if they got him back on the lot , with the car he really wanted, they could slip the higher price in and he'd take it. Then the salesman screwed up and forgot about the price difference.

Maybe, although the Consumerist article mentions that he test drove the blue Traverse, then opted to buy the black one. If I'm correct about the fully loaded vs base model, I'm sure he knew there was a price difference.

We did some car shopping recently and and the benefits of the fully loaded model over the base model were pointed out ad nauseum, and it was no secret that those benefits came at an additional cost.

I still say the customer is not as innocent as he'd like to be portrayed in all this. Of course even if he did try to pull a fast one, his behavior doesn't excuse the car dealership for going to the extremes they did.

 

[Hrhpd]

I don't think anyone ever said they were identical. Given the price difference I'm guessing the black one was a base model and the blue one was fully loaded.

I bet the guy really wanted the fully loaded model, settled on the base model to save a few thousand dollars, had second thoughts, and did verbally agree to pay the price difference if the dealership would let him bring the black one back and switch it out for the blue one.

After all, most car dealerships aren't exactly known for being flexible about letting customers change their mind once they've driven off the lot... unless there's more money to be made for the dealership.

Like I said, just guessing here; but when the dealership accepted the price the guy had negotiated for the base model and let him drive away in the fully loaded model instead, I bet he was thrilled! I bet he also knew full well that they had screwed up.

Assuming I'm correct, I'm not seeing the customer in quite the victim light that everyone else here seems to be. While what he did may have been legal, it wasn't exactly ethical.

Of course I also agree that the car dealership handled the situation spectacularly badly. I'm sure they'll lose business over this, as well as a chunk of change in attorney fees and a settlement payoff, and I'm not feeling the least bit sorry for them.

I disagree. We are in the process of car shopping as we speak and every single dealer we have visited, multiple makes and models, has had a policy of being able to bring it back within 3 days as long as you have not put more than x (around 300) miles on it if you change your mind.

Although I do agree that the buyer is not as innocent as he is being portrayed in knowing the difference between the two trucks. However, as others have said, it is not his job to make sure the car dealer does their job properly. I would not even accuse him of being unethical as there are many reasons he may have believed he got a legitimate good deal. It is the end of the fiscal year for many dealers and this time of year dealers are dumping many cars.

 

[sbell111]

I bet the guy really wanted the fully loaded model, settled on the base model to save a few thousand dollars, had second thoughts, and did verbally agree to pay the price difference if the dealership would let him bring the black one back and switch it out for the blue one.

even if that's true, it doesn't matter. The written contract supersedes any verbal agreement.

After all, most car dealerships aren't exactly known for being flexible about letting customers change their mind once they've driven off the lot... unless there's more money to be made for the dealership.

local law is going to apply there. Where I live, you have three days to void such a purchase agreement.

Like I said, just guessing here; but when the dealership accepted the price the guy had negotiated for the base model and let him drive away in the fully loaded model instead, I bet he was thrilled! I bet he also knew full well that they had screwed up.

Assuming I'm correct, I'm not seeing the customer in quite the victim light that everyone else here seems to be. While what he did may have been legal, it wasn't exactly ethical.

Even if that is true, the dealership till had no right to harass him or have him arrested.

 

[horseshowmom]

...
I bet the guy really wanted the fully loaded model, settled on the base model to save a few thousand dollars, had second thoughts, and did verbally agree to pay the price difference if the dealership would let him bring the black one back and switch it out for the blue one.
...

Like I said, just guessing here; but when the dealership accepted the price the guy had negotiated for the base model and let him drive away in the fully loaded model instead, I bet he was thrilled! I bet he also knew full well that they had screwed up.

Assuming I'm correct, I'm not seeing the customer in quite the victim light that everyone else here seems to be. While what he did may have been legal, it wasn't exactly ethical.

No disrespect intended toward this poster , but this post explains pretty well why I think the guy should be allowed to sue for as much as he can get. I haven't read anything that suggests any of this took place, but there are lots of people in the community where this has received publicity who will start drawing their own conclusions about what they "guess" happened. That absolutely has an effect on his reputation and possibly on his employability.

 

[dakcp2001]

Car salespeople pull one over on customers ALL the time. This time someone got the better of them. Too bad, so sad. Customer wins on this one because of the contract.

 

[DMickey28]

I live in Virginia. EVERY car (total of 4) we have ever bought or financed at a dealership, we have gotten the call a few days later that we owed them money. It has ranged from $500-$2500. We never paid it and offered to bring the car back and void the deal, but the dealership always ate their mistake. This even happened the time we paid with a cashiers check, like the guy in the article. I absolutely hate dealerships and refuse to buy a car from them ever again.

Interesting. We bought a new van back in February, our first car purchase outside of Carmax ever. It was a spectacularly shady process but we fought and argued and pushed to get what we wanted at the dealership that we wanted. We live in a different state than the dealership so they actually delivered the car to our town hall and registered the car, signed all the papers and off we went. They called us a few days later saying we owed $500+ more for "registration fees" that they paid when they registered the car into our name in front of us. We fought and they dropped it. This was a huge dealership in the state with many locations and we live just over the border so it's not like the interstate transaction was something out of ordinary for them.

 

[cats mom]

No disrespect intended toward this poster , but this post explains pretty well why I think the guy should be allowed to sue for as much as he can get. I haven't read anything that suggests any of this took place, but there are lots of people in the community where this has received publicity who will start drawing their own conclusions about what they "guess" happened. That absolutely has an effect on his reputation and possibly on his employability.

Eh, I get that the majority of folks on this thread don't agree with me, but based on the articles I've read I doubt my guesses are too far off. I've definitely seen statements that suggest what I posted was what took place.

There are always 2 sides to a dispute, even if one of them belongs to a car dealership that everyone loves to hate. I imagine the truth probably lies somewhere between the versions that are being spun in the media by parties involved.

Like I said, I do agree with you all that the car dealership went to stupid extremes.