PDA

View Full Version : Customer didn't pay enough for a used car?


Grumpy
01-25-2010, 09:09 AM
Found this on another site. Not sure if its true. If so that dealer should be fined for filing such a stupid ass suit

I did a search and didn't see this story told on here before...
I like the part about the dealer would have re-imbursed if they accidentally charged too much. Yeah right....


Star Tribune (Minneapolis)


January 20, 2010


In October, Tammie Townsend got a great deal on a used car. Walser Chrysler of Hopkins, MN, sold her a 2007 Chrysler Pacifica for $11,639, or about $6,000 below its Blue Book value. Now, she’s too nervous to drive it. Her financing was revoked, two repo men showed up at her house, and the dealership filed a lawsuit against her, claiming she knew the deal was too good to be true.

Walser Chrysler says it made an “administrative error” when it sold the crossover wagon to Townsend for less than what the dealership thinks it’s worth. Instead of accepting the loss, the dealership blames Townsend, saying she should have spoken up before accepting an unintentional discount on the car she had been leasing for two years.

Townsend can’t believe she’s been accused of hoodwinking a car dealer over the price of a car. She said she didn’t know she got a bargain until the dealership told her of its blunder, but she wants them to honor the terms of the contract it signed. “You can’t sell someone something, and then come back and say, ‘Whoops, I made a mistake. You have to pay more,’” said Townsend, 40, a hairstylist who lives in Golden Valley.

Walser Chrysler doesn’t see it that way. In its lawsuit, delivered to Townsend’s door Monday, the dealership accused her of fraud and unjust enrichment. Under her 2007 lease with the dealership, she had the right to buy the car for $18,505.

“She was told several times what the [correct] price was,” said Doug Sprinthall, vehicle operations director for Walser Automotive Group. “We made a clerical error.” In fact, he said, the dealership would have reimbursed Townsend if it accidentally overcharged her.

Townsend locked the Pacifica in a friend’s garage because she’s convinced the dealership will do whatever it can to get it back. Her husband, Greg, recently became unemployed, but in terms of stress, the struggle over the Pacifica is “worse than losing my job,” he said.

Until recently, Townsend was one of the dealership’s satisfied customers. She bought a Jeep Liberty from Walser Chrysler in 2005, and she routinely brings her vehicles to the dealership for service. She decided to lease the Pacifica in 2007 because she needed more room for carting around her two children and their friends. Her lease payment was $366 a month.

When she decided to talk to a salesman about buying the vehicle in October, her main concern was keeping her monthly payment below $350. So she was “pleasantly surprised” when the salesman said she could purchase the vehicle for $316.91 a month with dealer-arranged financing. She even agreed to fork out for a few extras, including $1,973 for an extended warranty and $799 for undercoating. On her way out the door, the finance manager told her, “You’re getting a great deal,” Townsend recalled.

Two weeks later, a Walser Chrysler salesman called with a surprising request. He wanted her to come in and redo her paperwork, which would increase her cost $7,000. She declined. General manager Kevin Webb followed up with a letter Nov. 6, threatening legal action if she didn’t either return the vehicle or come up with the extra cash.

Instead, Townsend hired a lawyer. On Nov. 16, she made her first scheduled payment on the vehicle. But the bank returned the check, notifying her that the loan had been paid off by the dealership, according to David Knodell, Townsend’s attorney.

In January, two men showed up at Townsend’s house at 8 p.m. while she was watching TV with her kids. They wanted to take the Pacifica. “I said, ‘No, you’re not,’” Townsend said.

Sprinthall said the dealership would give Townsend a conditional permit so she can drive the vehicle until the dispute is resolved. “Honestly, it’s a crappy situation,” he said.

While Walser Chrysler is demanding that Townsend pay the full option price on her vehicle, Sprinthall acknowledged the dealership sometimes cuts the price for buyers. He claimed the dealership recorded Townsend agreeing to pay the full option price of $18,505, but Townsend’s contract specifically states that her deal supersedes “any verbal agreement” or other contract.

“This is clearly a situation where we don’t want the customer to go through,” Sprinthall said. “It’s not our normal course of doing business.” Meanwhile, Knodell called the dealership’s actions “harassment” and its legal argument “complete bupkus.”

The squabble over the Pacifica has also attracted the attention of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Driver and Vehicle Services, which requires the fees from any vehicle transfer to be submitted within 10 days of the transaction. As of Jan. 5, that hadn’t happened, said department spokesperson Kristine Chapin.

Fast_Eddie
01-25-2010, 09:20 AM
It appears to be true:

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/81820747.html?elr=KArks:DCiUUUUr

Grumpy
01-25-2010, 09:22 AM
Thanks for verifying it Ed. All I can say is that dealer is a scum bag.

They need to leave that poor lady alone and take their lumps.

rickr15
01-25-2010, 09:37 AM
Well I reckon the bad publicity is costing that dirtbag dealer a hell of a lot more than the 7k they screwed up on.

Wonder how long before they close their doors over this?

Fast_Eddie
01-25-2010, 09:39 AM
Thanks for verifying it Ed. All I can say is that dealer is a scum bag.

They need to leave that poor lady alone and take their lumps.

It seems rediculous! I bet you if they made an "error" and charged her a lot more "accidently" they would sing a different tune.

My guess is they probably have some kind of case legally (probably not enough info to say for sure and I'm no lawyer) but I can't imagine going through all this for seven grand. It can't be worth it for them in the long run.

Sandy G
01-25-2010, 10:07 AM
I hope she wins & turns around & sues THEM for "Mental Anguish" or something. Other than there is way more to this than is here, I think the dealership just screwed the pooch..

BlueStreak
01-25-2010, 11:48 AM
I believe it.

(What, nobody feels sorry for the poor abused businessman who was undercompensated by the scheming, do-nothing Minnesota Soccer Mom? That bitch knew she was stealing, she should be ashamed. I'm sure this was all Obamas and/or the UAWs fault anyhow. I think she's a part of the gay-atheist, treehugging, politically correct, socialist-liberal soccer mom effort to destroy America anyhow. Fuck her, she should pay up that six grand, or go to jail. Damn Yankee Democrats.......................:rolleyes::D)

But, seriously folks, nothing suprises me about this story in the least.
Used car dealers have no souls, hell, new car dealers have no souls.
It'll be interesting to follow this and see what comes of it. I think that dealership should just have to take it up the bum, and pay closer attention to what the hell they're doing the next time.

Dave

rickr15
01-25-2010, 11:59 AM
My guess is they probably have some kind of case legally (probably not enough info to say for sure and I'm no lawyer) but I can't imagine going through all this for seven grand. It can't be worth it for them in the long run.

I read in the story somewhere that the written contract superceded any oral contracts made. The dealer does this so the sales staff can verbally promise the moon and deliver nothing.


A good lawyer should be able to win this for the lady I believe. As a matter of fact I would think there should be damages as the dealer is refusing to honor a contract that they drew up.

hillbilly
01-25-2010, 04:51 PM
A car gets parked for a week or two near an old barn, a rat chews through just the right wires .. creates an electrical short in just the right spot ... car burns to the ground ... dealer can have it back. ;)

d-ray657
01-26-2010, 04:06 AM
The car market was crap when she purchased the vehicle. It sounds like she purchased the extras (which really don't do her any good) in reliance on the price she was being offered.

From her account of the negotiations, it appears that the payment amount was a larger part of the equation for her than the actual final price. How many dealers have manipulated the loan terms in order to make a payment level that gets them the price they want. Indeed, they set the condition that she refinance the car through the dealership - presumably so they received the interest or a commission.

She most certainly could file a counterclaim for breach of contract. If the terms of the contract are a clear as they sound, it should be a pretty easy claim - particularly because any ambiguities would be construed against the dealership as the drafter of the contract.

With respect to the fraud claim, they will likely find it difficult to establish that she manipulated her greater knowledge of the value of the vehicle in order to obtain an advantage. Assuming this suit gets bounced, she would likely have a separate cause of action for malicious prosecution.

That will be $550 please.

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
01-26-2010, 08:18 AM
That will be $550 please.


What a sweetheart! Chased any ambulances today, counselor?:D

d-ray657
01-26-2010, 07:07 PM
What a sweetheart! Chased any ambulances today, counselor?:D

Nah, just cross-examined a couple of liars. :eek: They have about as good a chance of winning their case as I have of collecting $550 from you deadbeats.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
01-27-2010, 07:21 AM
Good, stick it to them!