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

[runsandjumps]

This whole situation is silly. $5k? Really. they probably sold it to him at factory cost and realized it too late. I used to work in car sales as a teen and I remember one guy making 10k commission off one sale. They should have just taken it for what it was. Their mistake.

 

[jujube]

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.

Signing it doesn't mean someone cannot sue.

 

[tvguy]

Signing it doesn't mean someone cannot sue.

True. But it greatly increases the risk your suit will be thrown out.

 

[phred52]

Interesting reading.

I always thought the car dealer (who called my sister the day BEFORE she picked up her new car) was a wacko. He told her she needed to bring an additional $1500 because he made a mistake ..... She told HIM she had a signed contract and IF he didn't deliver as per the contract she'd have him in court so fast ..... She got her car as originally agreed upon. Helped, I'm sure, that she's an attorney and knows 'the language'.

 

[2binak]

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.

DH & I have bought 6 cars at dealerships over the years and have never had a dealership call us after the sale and tell us that we owed them money Sounds like you've been dealing with some shady dealerships.

 

[tvguy]

Interesting reading.

I always thought the car dealer (who called my sister the day BEFORE she picked up her new car) was a wacko. He told her she needed to bring an additional $1500 because he made a mistake ..... She told HIM she had a signed contract and IF he didn't deliver as per the contract she'd have him in court so fast ..... She got her car as originally agreed upon. Helped, I'm sure, that she's an attorney and knows 'the language'.

My car I had to go back and sign a new contract for the same total price. Dealer forgot to include the tire tax (a fee to help pay to recycle used tires in California) and the bank would not fund the loan since the tax is a required item. So they added the $12 tax, and reduced the sales price by $12 so I paid the same price after taxes and license.

 

[sbell111]

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.

You misunderstood my post. While you can certainly sign away your rights to sue when you enter into an agreement, you cannot sign away some other person's right o sue. Please go back to read my associated posts to understand the context.

 

[sbell111]

I guess you missed this:

I guess that you didn't read my posts carefully. Never did I suggest that OnStar will not work with police to recover a stolen vehicle. The hypothetical 'feature' that was being discussed was the ability to track your vehicle so that you know where your children are. Similarly, OnStar will not tell you where your car is if it was stolen. They will happily work with the police to recover it, however.

 

[sbell111]

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!)

For a lawyer, you sure didn't read the post that you quoted very carefully. I expect more from my attorney.

Please explain how any of your examples is an instance where one person signed away another person's rights.

 

[stitchlovestink]

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!)

the one for your kid to go on a field trip isn't probably such a great example...when I worked in insurance (which was YEARS ago) we were informed by our litigation dept that parents could not sign away a child's right to sue. That if a child was injured that they retained the right to sue once they became a legal adult. So the waiver of liability really wasn't that worthy of a document. The parent couldn't sue on behalf of the child, but the child could still sue, just at a later date...

You misunderstood my post. While you can certainly sign away your rights to sue when you enter into an agreement, you cannot sign away some other person's right o sue. Please go back to read my associated posts to understand the context.

bolding is mine...
that is always how we were informed by our litigator's when I worked in insurance...

 

[tvguy]

You misunderstood my post. While you can certainly sign away your rights to sue when you enter into an agreement, you cannot sign away some other person's right o sue. Please go back to read my associated posts to understand the context.

Okay, reread. I see 2 parties, Onstar, and the car owner, not sure who the "other" party you are referring to is, unless you are referring to the car thief?

Like I said, I do not have Onstar (didn't exist when I bought my Chevy), but I do know that most of the Onstar (and Lojack) tracking around here is done in such a way that the owner of the car calls the Police AFTER the owner has located the stolen car with information from Onstar and Lojack. But, full disclosure.....like I posted....except in cases where the crime is still on progress, or an injury happens during the theft, because of budget cuts, the theft of an auto here is not a crime police respond to. They take a report over the phone. They do respond on recovery, primarily to enter that in the DMV system so that the legitmate owner of the car doesn't get pulled over later by police thinking it is still a stolen car.

 

[sbell111]

Okay, reread. I see 2 parties, Onstar, and the car owner, not sure who the "other" party you are referring to is, unless you are referring to the car thief?

Like I said, I do not have Onstar (didn't exist when I bought my Chevy), but I do know that most of the Onstar (and Lojack) tracking around here is done in such a way that the owner of the car calls the Police AFTER the owner has located the stolen car with information from Onstar and Lojack. But, full disclosure.....like I posted....except in cases where the crime is still on progress, or an injury happens during the theft, because of budget cuts, the theft of an auto here is not a crime police respond to. They take a report over the phone. They do respond on recovery, primarily to enter that in the DMV system so that the legitmate owner of the car doesn't get pulled over later by police thinking it is still a stolen car.

You appear to misunderstand how OnStar works. OnStar works with the police to recover the car. They don't tell the owner where it is so that he can take the info to the police. That doesn't even make sense, frankly, since the car could be gone again prior to the police showing up. Further, even though your pathetic local police don't actually show up when a car gets stolen, they still no doubt treat it as a crime. If you go to the police station (by taxi, I suppose), they will work the case. That will include working with OnStar to locate and disable the vehicle, assuming that the criminal wasn't bright enough to disable the OnStar system.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I have only skimmed this thread....

I want to point out something that I do not think I have seen mentioned here.

By law, in almost every state, a contract on a vehicle is VERY specific... VIN#, color, options, etc....

You don't just walk on to a car dealership and switch cars....
The ENTIRE contract would have to be voided, and a new one printed out for the blue vehicle.

I just don't see that happening....

I absolutely HATE car dealerships... And, there is no way that they should have filed a complaint that would have resulted in an immediate arrest.

However, if this guy drove back up to the dealership, acted like he wanted to change his mind and go with the original, blue, obviously more expensive, vehicle... took off like he was going to take another test drive... and just drove off like it was a simple swap... I don't know whether to go or or .....

The fact of the matter is that, there seems to be NO agreed contract on the blue vehicle.... Therefore, there is NO agreed sales price, or contract of any kind.

TECHNICALLY, this guy is driving a vehicle for which he has no copy of a valid, signed, sales contract. SO, just 'technically', that could be considered as theft....

Methinks that that there is a lot more to this story than we know!!!

EDITED TO ADD: about registering the vehicle to the guys name... once a sales contract is signed, on a specific vehicle, specific VIN#, the paperwork to register the title and get plates has always been handled right there, as part of the paperwork. A dealership does NOT want to be responsible and liable for somebody else driving around in a vehicle that is 'still owned by the dealership'..... So, once that paperwork is signed... whether fully processed or not... I believe that this is sufficient to establish the new owner of the vehicle. So, AGAIN, this guy has absolutely NO validation that this particular blue vehicle is owned by him... It is not 'his'.

While I hate car dealerships... I don't think this story is as simple as one would like to think.

 

[EveDallas]

I have only skimmed this thread....

I want to point out something that I do not think I have seen mentioned here.

By law, in almost every state, a contract on a vehicle is VERY specific... VIN#, color, options, etc....

You don't just walk on to a car dealership and switch cars....
The ENTIRE contract would have to be voided, and a new one printed out for the blue vehicle.

I just don't see that happening....

I absolutely HATE car dealerships... And, there is no way that they should have filed a complaint that would have resulted in an immediate arrest.

However, if this guy drove back up to the dealership, acted like he wanted to change his mind and go with the original, blue, obviously more expensive, vehicle... took off like he was going to take another test drive... and just drove off like it was a simple swap... I don't know whether to go or or .....

The fact of the matter is that, there seems to be NO agreed contract on the blue vehicle.... Therefore, there is NO agreed sales price, or contract of any kind.

TECHNICALLY, this guy is driving a vehicle for which he has no copy of a valid, signed, sales contract. SO, just 'technically', that could be considered as theft....

\

Try reading the whole thread. He absolutely did have a signed agreement for the blue car. The dealership screwed up on the price and then tried to get him to sign another contract for the higher price.

 

[sbell111]

I have only skimmed this thread....

I want to point out something that I do not think I have seen mentioned here.

By law, in almost every state, a contract on a vehicle is VERY specific... VIN#, color, options, etc....

You don't just walk on to a car dealership and switch cars....
The ENTIRE contract would have to be voided, and a new one printed out for the blue vehicle.

I just don't see that happening....

I absolutely HATE car dealerships... And, there is no way that they should have filed a complaint that would have resulted in an immediate arrest.

However, if this guy drove back up to the dealership, acted like he wanted to change his mind and go with the original, blue, obviously more expensive, vehicle... took off like he was going to take another test drive... and just drove off like it was a simple swap... I don't know whether to go or or .....

The fact of the matter is that, there seems to be NO agreed contract on the blue vehicle.... Therefore, there is NO agreed sales price, or contract of any kind.

TECHNICALLY, this guy is driving a vehicle for which he has no copy of a valid, signed, sales contract. SO, just 'technically', that could be considered as theft....

Methinks that that there is a lot more to this story than we know!!!

Since you only skimmed the thread, you missed the part where the dealership stated that there was a valid contract for the blue car and that they were entirely at fault.

 

[sam_gordon]

I have only skimmed this thread....

I want to point out something that I do not think I have seen mentioned here.

By law, in almost every state, a contract on a vehicle is VERY specific... VIN#, color, options, etc....

You don't just walk on to a car dealership and switch cars....
The ENTIRE contract would have to be voided, and a new one printed out for the blue vehicle.

I just don't see that happening....

I absolutely HATE car dealerships... And, there is no way that they should have filed a complaint that would have resulted in an immediate arrest.

However, if this guy drove back up to the dealership, acted like he wanted to change his mind and go with the original, blue, obviously more expensive, vehicle... took off like he was going to take another test drive... and just drove off like it was a simple swap... I don't know whether to go or or .....

The fact of the matter is that, there seems to be NO agreed contract on the blue vehicle.... Therefore, there is NO agreed sales price, or contract of any kind.

TECHNICALLY, this guy is driving a vehicle for which he has no copy of a valid, signed, sales contract. SO, just 'technically', that could be considered as theft....

Methinks that that there is a lot more to this story than we know!!!

So you admit you skimmed the thread, but say "no one has mentioned, blah blah blah". If you only "skimmed", how can you say for sure?

Regardless, try this post...

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

From the linked article...

He [dealership manager] said his staff erred when they sold the SUV to Sawyer for about $5,600 too little and erred again when they went to police. He said Sawyer should not have been arrested and definitely should not have spent four hours in jail.
<snip>
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.

 

[lovemygoofy]

I guess that you didn't read my posts carefully. Never did I suggest that OnStar will not work with police to recover a stolen vehicle. The hypothetical 'feature' that was being discussed was the ability to track your vehicle so that you know where your children are. Similarly, OnStar will not tell you where your car is if it was stolen. They will happily work with the police to recover it, however.

OnStar does have this feature but is not included in the standard subscription price. https://www.onstar.com/web/portal/family-link#

 

[Wishing on a star]

WOW, okay, so tar and feather me and execute me at dawn... Jeez, people...
I would have imagined that I would have seen that mentioned and discussed earlier on in the thread. And, I did put that disclaimer at the beginning of my post, just in case I had missed it. Whatever....

If this has always been clear, that he had a contract... That is def. a game changer...

 

[tvguy]

You appear to misunderstand how OnStar works. OnStar works with the police to recover the car. They don't tell the owner where it is so that he can take the info to the police. That doesn't even make sense, frankly, since the car could be gone again prior to the police showing up. Further, even though your pathetic local police don't actually show up when a car gets stolen, they still no doubt treat it as a crime. If you go to the police station (by taxi, I suppose), they will work the case. That will include working with OnStar to locate and disable the vehicle, assuming that the criminal wasn't bright enough to disable the OnStar system.

Just got off the phone with the cops, (they called me about something else) they say the about half the time they deal with OnStar, and about half the time they deal with the owner, who deals directly with On Star. May not be what the official On Star line is, but it is what happens in the real world.

 

[sunshinehighway]

WOW, okay, so tar and feather me and execute me at dawn... Jeez, people...
I would have imagined that I would have seen that mentioned and discussed earlier on in the thread. And, I did put that disclaimer at the beginning of my post, just in case I had missed it. Whatever....

If this has always been clear, that he had a contract... That is def. a game changer...

You were hardly tarred and feathered. Tarring and feathering someone was a horrific form of torturing someone. It resulted in the person being ostracized and often dying of infection from burns and their skin being pulled off with the tar. Not even close to being told something was already covered in a thread you only partially read.