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

[MUFFYCAT]

$5,000? The dealership should be ashamed and I hope they lose some business over it. I hope the guy gets every penny in the lawsuit.
Buying a car is stressful without being harrassed for the dealers mistake like this man experienced.

I'm sorry to any car dealers out there but I hate them all.

 

[tvguy]

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.

I again bring up, best I can tell, the price he paid IS a fair price for a fully loaded Traverse. Never confuse suggested retail price on the window sticker, with what the vehicle can actually sell for with the dealer making a nice profit.

 

[TinkTock]

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

A lot of people are saying that the written contract rules, end of story. But, since he exchanged the car, I'm wondering if he has a written contract for the car he ended up with.

 

[kt_mom]

A lot of people are saying that the written contract rules, end of story. But, since he exchanged the car, I'm wondering if he has a written contract for the car he ended up with.

I was wondering the same thing. Having worked in the office at a dealership and having a husband that is the GSM in a dealership this whole situation seems questionable to me for all parties involved.

I know at the dealership DH works at, everything is automated. Cars and all their pricing information are loaded into the computer when they come in. To run a deal they have to pull that specific car up in the system. They can change the pricing in the system based on what ends up being negotiated but that would have to be done manually. The paperwork is associated with a specific car and VIN number. So when the customer brought the car back to trade in for the other model, all new paperwork would have to be run and signed for the new car.

So, I have to wonder if new paperwork was done, how did the mistake happen on the price? Or was a verbal agreement made and the customer was supposed to come back and sign new paperwork or what? The whole thing just doesn't make much sense. If the customer had new paperwork signed with the correct VIN and the police pulled him over, why didn't he just show them the signed paperwork with the matching VIN numbers? Its entirely possible that the dealership allowed the customer to go ahead and drive home the higher model with the agreement to come back in the next day to sign the new paperwork or something. I think that makes a lot more sense then the alternative. I don't see how you could be arrested if you could show paperwork that you owned the car. You would have the contract, or the temporary registration or something I would imagine.

ETA: I read the article and I see that he did sign new paperwork. I guess I still don't understand why he didn't just show that paperwork to the officers who came to arrest him.

 

[mrsklamc]

A lot of people are saying that the written contract rules, end of story. But, since he exchanged the car, I'm wondering if he has a written contract for the car he ended up with.

The dealership acknowledges that he had a signed contract for the vehicle and that the mistake was their error:

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/dealership-apologizes-error-customer-arrest-0

 

[mrsklamc]

The documents at the end list VIN numbers, I wonder if it's possible to determine trim packages from that info.

 

[tvguy]

Just re-read the article. The whole dealership end is fishy. GM cars have On Star, you don't need the police to locate a GM car if it is stolen, just call On Star.

At this point I think the Police probably should be worried about being sued too. Maybe impound the car until they investigate further, but arrest the guy?

 

[christineann]

My sister called a dealer's bluff after driving over an hour to look at a vehicle described as "only one at this price!!" Both times she called before she left home to make sure they still had the car, and both times they had "just sold it, but we can show you another (more expensive) vehicle!"

It was such a great deal that the third time, she called them from the parking lot across the street, and of course they still had the special vehicle but she needed to hurry! She walked into the dealership immediately, and of course the special vehicle didn't exist. She called their bluff and got a vehicle at the price. Of course, she had to remind them that she could report them for bait and switch first.

On the other hand, it took me 15 minutes to purchase my new truck, which was $89 over factory invoice (which I know how to read since I used to work at a dealership), no dealer add-ons or added fees, customer keeps the rebates. It's called car buying without all the nonsense, and it works for me

 

[sbell111]

Just re-read the article. The whole dealership end is fishy. GM cars have On Star, you don't need the police to locate a GM car if it is stolen, just call On Star.

I don't think that's how OnStar works. Imagine the potential liability if GM directed you right to the baddie who jacked your car and he killed you (or you him). It's more likely that they will work with the police to recover your vehicle (as shown on the OnStar commercials).

 

[Becky2005]

When I saw the title I thought it was going to be some obvious glaring error price something of the nature of $2,000 instead of $20,000 type thing.

However, seriously? They did all of this for $5,000 on a car? The bad PR is going to lose them way more than that!!! Can you imagine anyone wanting to buy a car from them now? I would want it written into the contract that I would not be arrested for their clerical error!

 

[declansdad]

I don't think that's how OnStar works. Imagine the potential liability if GM directed you right to the baddie who jacked your car and he killed you (or you him). It's more likely that they will work with the police to recover your vehicle (as shown on the OnStar commercials).

From OnStar.com

helping you get your vehicle back, safely.

There's no experience of safety like feeling confident—even after an auto theft. If your vehicle is stolen, OnStar works with the police to attempt to recover it—swiftly and safely

 

[tvguy]

I don't think that's how OnStar works. Imagine the potential liability if GM directed you right to the baddie who jacked your car and he killed you (or you him). It's more likely that they will work with the police to recover your vehicle (as shown on the OnStar commercials).

Well, as someone who spends 40 hours a week listening to the police scanners, I do hear broadcasts about On Star reporting a stolen car in a specific location. But.....and I don't have onstar......thought one of the perks of it was you could check on where your car is like when your kids have it. I'm sure the liabiliy concern is lawyered away in the contract you sign when you sign up.

 

[S. C.]

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.

I have never had this happen. I worked in a huge auto factory (12,000+ people worked there) lots of people that bought new cars all the time and never heard of this.

 

[sbell111]

Well, as someone who spends 40 hours a week listening to the police scanners, I do hear broadcasts about On Star reporting a stolen car in a specific location. But.....and I don't have onstar......thought one of the perks of it was you could check on where your car is like when your kids have it.

We have OnStar. That is not one of the listed benefits.

A better plan would be to make them give you their iPhone password.

I'm sure the liabiliy concern is lawyered away in the contract you sign when you sign up.

A contact that takes away someone else's right to sue would not be enforceable.

 

[sbell111]

I have never had this happen. I worked in a huge auto factory (12,000+ people worked there) lots of people that bought new cars all the time and never heard of this.

I doubt that a dealership would be stupid enough to try to cheat people buying on the A plan (or whatever the specific company calls it).

 

[cornflake]

Well, as someone who spends 40 hours a week listening to the police scanners, I do hear broadcasts about On Star reporting a stolen car in a specific location. But.....and I don't have onstar......thought one of the perks of it was you could check on where your car is like when your kids have it. I'm sure the liabiliy concern is lawyered away in the contract you sign when you sign up.

No, it's like Lojack in that aspect. The company can find it, you can't.

 

[jujube]

Well, as someone who spends 40 hours a week listening to the police scanners, I do hear broadcasts about On Star reporting a stolen car in a specific location. But.....and I don't have onstar......thought one of the perks of it was you could check on where your car is like when your kids have it. I'm sure the liabiliy concern is lawyered away in the contract you sign when you sign up.

Not only can they track you even if you cancel the service onstar still maintains tracking unless you specifically ask them not to do so. They can also listen w/out you having onstar turned on using a passive listening feature. Hello Big Brother

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/onstar.htm
The FBI found out about this passive listening feature and promptly served OnStar with a court order forcing the company to give it access. The court order the FBI gave OnStar was not something out of the Patriot Act involving international terrorism or national security but a simple criminal case.

According to court records, OnStar complied with the order but filed a protest lawsuit against the FBI.

Yet the FBI was able to enforce the original legal order and completed its surveillance because OnStar's lawsuit took nearly two years to pass through the court system.

 

[tvguy]

A contact that takes away someone else's right to sue would not be enforceable.

Not a lawyer, but that is a pretty standard clause in a lot of contracts I have seen....although usually with an alternate remedy specified, such as arbitration or limtis. I believe if you have Kaiser Permanente health insurance, you agree not to sue for more than $25,000 if they commit malpractice.
Actually, thinking way way back to my business law classes, as long as you get "consideration" for signing that right away, it is perfectly legal.

 

[declansdad]

We have OnStar. That is not one of the listed benefits.

I guess you missed this:

From OnStar.com


helping you get your vehicle back, safely.

There's no experience of safety like feeling confident—even after an auto theft. If your vehicle is stolen, OnStar works with the police to attempt to recover it—swiftly and safely

 

[snykymom]

A contact that takes away someone else's right to sue would not be enforceable.

It sure is. Every time you park your car in a parking garage, your ticket has a clear waiver of liability. It's enforceable and usually is enforced. Every time you go on a dangerous ride or a trip, waiver of liability is on the release (that's what a release is!). It's enforceable. Every time you sign a permission slip for your kid to go on a field trip, your'e signing a waiver of liability. It's enforceable.

(And yes, I am a lawyer. But you don't have to be - just watch Judge Judy or People's Court!)