Dealer Ethics Hypothetical

For me this how I would answer this..First I never say a car has not had paint work..in fact I tell customers that almost all lamborghini's and Ferrari's have had the bumpers redone. If I have proof there was never any paint work then i say it! As for service records..I have every record since the car was brand new, so I fax them over to the new buyer for there own records, and send a copy of the records with the car!

Now one thing to remeber is a dealer can say anything they want, as long as it is not in writing....

I had a deal a couple of years back where I had a 5,800 mile Lamborghini instock..I bought it from another dealer, who had it on consighment...I spoke to the owner, recived and reviewed the records and bought the car..In my ad I listed the car had the 15k mile service complete, I had copyed the dealers ad and it said 15k..well the facts ware only 7k service was done and at the right time! This was found by someone that was buying the car from the guy I sold it too...

I was saying well I did not misrep the car, the service was infact done just the wrong one was listed and it was misprint..but they both felt that I had...So to make everybody happy in the end I payed the broker selling the car and paid to have the 15k service done..I am still not sure if everybody knows this or not..buts thats what I did and how I handel things like that!

 

Sounds like you are pretty honest and thorough.

 

I think you're that you're combining several different areas here, moral, ethical, legal and of course hypothetical. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the dealer SAYS the work was done...it's the buyers responsibility to verify that the work has been done, through a PPI from a DIFFERENT dealer than where the car is advertised. If it truly was an authorized dealer as you're hypothetically saying it was, then a call to any Lambo dealer with the VIN would have told you when it was last in for service, and a little more digging would have uncovered what was done. Also, if the work has been done, there is a record someplace...if the dealer making the claim was asked for it and didn't provide it before the sale, then again, buyers responsibility. The dealer didn't say you had to buy the car or else....most likely the price was reflective of both paintwork and lack of service...or lack of service records. However, if you wait TWO years before you start thinking you have a claim, you've waited too long.

PPI would have saved the hypothetical loss, if there were any actual losses...trade in value is never the same as retail value...never. So to use that example isn't accurate. Dealers almost always beat your car down during trade in while pumping their car up...it's part of the game. Tell me the last time you were able to get retail money on a trade in and then buy the dealers car at wholesale? Never. The buy at below wholesale and sell at retail.

Just my .02. Hypothetically and all.

 

Because you assume or have heard that the selling dealer does not sell repaired or repainted areas of their cars, does not give the buyer the right to accuse the dealer of fraud 9 months later based on what the buyer assumed. The buyer did not perform his due diligence. And how does everyone else on the planet spot the repainted area except the owner of the car? Owner is lame.

 

Due diligence, due diligence on the buyer's part. I remember watching the Barrett-Jackson auction and they kept repeating that the buyer MUST do due diligence on the car they are bidding on. They were saying that the buyer should not accept what the seller says or what Barrett-Jackson says.

 

that's what paper and ink are for. words are free. even then - the dealer would likely only agree to signing "to the best of our knowledge...".

buyer beware.

 

As an ethical if not a legal matter, it seems to me that the buyer should bear the risk of everything except (1) intentional misrepresentation by the seller and (2) if there's a PPI, negligence (or worse) by the mechanic. The purchaser's incorrect assumption as to the history of a specific car based on a belief about the dealer's usual practices doesn't strike me as fraud by the dealer. And without a PPI the buyer should be on his own as to condition.

Anyone who buys a used car takes a risk, and it's up to the buyer to decide what resources to use in mitigating that risk. I say this as someone who decided not to get a PPI when I bought my car. In this particular case the records were virtually complete since new, the dealer had a very good reputation and had serviced the car for the PO. It worked out fine, but I understood that I was taking a risk - and I would make the same decision again only if the circumstances were very similar.

 

I knew of a certain Mercedes Dealer (I will not name it, but it was in a certain southwestern city just about 250 miles north of Dallas) who sold not one but MANY brand new Mercedes cars right during the collapse of the mini oil boom.

These cars did not have legal titles. The new owners were encouraged to keep coming in for paper tags over and over to avoid the actual title process.

Of course it eventually got found out, and business failure and a suicide followed.

My point is this - (absolutely NO reference made to any other thread here) -

Let the Buyer Beware, or Caviar Emptorial as we used to say in the oil patch.

 

It still cracks me up to log-on and see "Dealer" and "Ethics" in the same sentence......Might just be my experience, though (a certain N. Tejas F-car dealer especially).

Back to your regularly scheduled program......

 

The fact that the hypothetical owner did nothing at the 9 month mark when he found out the discrepancy........and then continued to own and operate the vehicle for another two years IMHO discharges the dealer.

Not saying the dealer was a good guy or anything like that.....but this hypothetical owner should have dealt with it at the 9 month mark. You would not win a court case up here if you sued due to these factors, as well as the elapsed time. Don't know about your jurisdiction though.......but I seriously doubt it however.

I'd never do what that dealer is suggested to have done.......no honest businessman would........but if someone comes back to me 2 years later with a complaint (regardless whether it is valid) there is a 75% chance that I am gonna tell them to pound salt. If you've got a problem.....you have absolutely positively got to deal with it on day one.......

 

State laws vary, but in many a consumer has recourse if he relied on what was told him to make a decision. It is assumed a dealer has greater expertise and is therefore liable when a discrepancy arises. It can work when buying as well. For instance, if you have a valuable antique car (or any other collectible) and a dealer talks you into selling it for a fraction of its value and you later find out about it, the dealer is liable. On the other hand, if you sell it to Joe blow on the street, you are considered his equal and no liability. You should contact an attorney for advice on a particular situation.

Dave