|
Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002.
The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. We had already told the Honda guy my wife was on permanent disability so she could never be insured anyway, so the finance manager should have changed me to the primary debtor so at least I would be covered and we wouldn't be paying insurance premiums just to fatten Honda's wallet. We are considering many courses of action but we would like a second or thiird opinion before we decide what to do. For the record I have been disabled for three months now and because Honda lied I have had to make a $278 car payment every month after becoming disabled with no income other than my wife's meager diability check. Honda told us the best they could do is stop the insurance and give us our premiums back. That's not what we want. I should have been covered and they should be making our car payments now. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:RPkGc.13614$JR4.1365@attbi_s54... > My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. > The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if > either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments > until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie > so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would > have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. By your own admission you failed to read the contract, before signing the document. That puts (in my opinion) you at fault, no one else. -- Brian I live in my own little world. But it's OK. They know me here. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:42:57 GMT, "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com>
wrote: >My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. >The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if >either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments >until we could get back to work. That is commonly known as the most expensive insurance known to mankind. It's also one of the hardest to collect on. Hell, by the time you finish all the requirements to claim it you have usually spent more money than you saved. >We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie so we signed the >contract without reading it. If we had read it we would >have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. You signed a contract on a major purchase that you hadn't read and obviously did not understand? You just basically admitted you are on your own with zero recourse. >We had >already told the Honda guy my wife was on permanent disability so she could >never be insured anyway, so the finance manager should have changed me to >the primary debtor so at least I would be covered and we wouldn't be paying >insurance premiums just to fatten Honda's wallet. The primary debtor isn't based on the needs of your insurance company. It's based on your credit, your ability, stability, and willingness to pay, etc. If your wife is on a very limited disability income I find it amazing that she was financed as the primary in the first place! >We are considering many courses of action but we would like a second or >thiird opinion before we decide what to do. For the record I have been >disabled for three months now and because Honda lied I have had to make a >$278 car payment every month after becoming disabled with no income other >than my wife's meager diability check. Honda did not lie. The dealership employee may be partially at fault, but the major fault lies with your failing to understand the contract that you entered into. Like it or not, you are at fault there. There are certainly cheaper and more effective insurances for such occasions (the duck comes to mind). Your basic course of action is to sit back, smile, live, and learn... however, you have already achieved the only really pleasant outcome below. >Honda told us the best they could do is stop the insurance and give >us our premiums back. Honestly, they don't even have to do that. That is a very kind effort on their part and if I were you I'd take it and run. Heck, apply it to those payments. >That's not what we want. I should have been covered and they >should be making our car payments now. Is that what you WANT or is that the contract you SIGNED? There is a huge difference. I want a nice Ferrari 360 Modena Spider but I've been happily living with my Miata's for years. (soon to be an S2k or STi, not sure which yet) |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
In article <RPkGc.13614$JR4.1365@attbi_s54>,
"Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. I'm sure Honda didn't screw you. The Honda dealer, though, is a different story. You do know, don't you, that the Honda dealer is an independent businessman? He isn't Honda. He just sells their cars--in a manner that makes him as much profit as possible. Some dealers lie, cheat, and steal to do that. But that doesn't have anything to do with the manufacturer. > The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended Did you know he gets paid a commission on that crap? He's just another salesman. Did you buy his products without knowing what they were or how much they should cost? You can *always* buy everything outside the car itself somewhere else. You can buy the money somewhere else (the financing), and you should. You can buy life insurance somewhere else, and you should. You should never, EVER buy multiple things from the car dealer. He's there to sell you the car, period. So this guy wants to sell you insurance. Didn't a little bell go off in your head, wondering why? Does your insurance guy try to sell you cars? > if > either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments > until we could get back to work. This would all be laid out in the contract. You read the contract first; if you agree to the terms, you sign it. If not, you don't. If you don't understand the terms, how can you possibly agree to it? If you don't understand the terms, you shouldn't sign it until and unless you do understand the terms. > We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie Ohmigod. Because you're a rube straight out of the cornfield.... > so we signed the contract without reading it. And this is someone else's problem? I don't think so. You started this thread by calling this a deceptive trade practice; now it's just someone smarter than you selling you something you never even bothered to TRY to understand. That's not deceptive on his part. That's just plain STUPID on your part. Suck it up. Be a man. Admit to your mistake, learn from it, and move on. But don't try to make it someone else's fault. Hell, you're not even doing a very good job of *that*. You're tripping all over yourself to admit that you were at fault, by doing something stupid yet perfectly legal--you signed a contract without reading it. Whether you read it or not is immaterial; under the law, you signed it therefore you're beholden to it. > If we had read it If wishes were horses. If I had hit that MegaMillions last week, I'd be worth $200 million. So what? > we would > have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. We had > already told the Honda guy my wife was on permanent disability so she could > never be insured anyway, If she can't be insured, then they won't issue the policy and you won't have to pay anything. If they issue the policy and take your money, then she's insured. Claim the disability and stop paying on the car. When their insurance carrier investigates things, he'll find that they never should have issued the policy in the first place. Worst case, they'll deny your claim and revoke your policy--and you won't have to pay anything. Why do you sign contracts without reading them? Why do you buy insurance from a car salesman? Do you buy ice cream from your plumber? The two things are entirely unrelated, and you shouldn't do business like that. > We are considering many courses of action For what? What harm has come to you? If they're taking your money and giving you a policy, you're insured. You bought the insurance, it's yours. You got the product. If they don't issue the policy, then you don't have anything to pay for and therefore don't owe anything on it. No harm. No harm. Got it? Either you're harmed, or you're not. The only way you'd be harmed is if they take your money AND don't issue the insurance policy. You DO know that insurance is regulated by your state, don't you? > For the record I have been > disabled for three months now and because Honda lied I have had to make a > $278 car payment every month after becoming disabled with no income other > than my wife's meager diability check. Honda told us the best they could do > is stop the insurance and give us our premiums back. I'm still waiting for the part of your story whereby you filed a claim under this insurance and were denied because you never had a policy. I don't see that part of it. I can only infer, I can only read between the lines, that your disability claim was denied 3 months ago. But you don't tell us why. But then again, maybe it wasn't denied. Maybe you never filed. Maybe you just ASSUMED you wouldn't be covered, now you're crying in your beer over a bunch of assumptions. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:30:04 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >You can *always* buy everything outside the car itself somewhere else. >You can buy the money somewhere else (the financing), and you should. This is the only place I saw that may need attention. With most all the manufacturers offering APR's lower than you can get even at your credit unions you are often better off taking the manufacturer financing. The trick to that is making sure you know what your credit is before you go in and shop the car. Get the Automotive Beacon Score from your credit union or something similar. If you are 700-720+ you should qualify for just about everyone's best rates. The dealers as well as the banks can try to make points (bumping an interest rate up a little and getting a kickback for it) but they can't do that if you know what your credit is and what rates you qualify for. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Well I see the error of my ways now, it was late and the store had closed,
the finance manager wanted to go home and so did I. At the time I didn't even care my wife was listed as the primary debtor, I just wanted to sign the papers and go home. I didn't even see why we needed a new used car. At least our 1991 Plymouth Acclaim was fully paid for and it had a trunk you could hide valuables in, unlike the tiny compartment under the CRV's back mat. I thought to myself as long as I have a roof over my head and money to pay my cell phone and cable modem bills I'm happy, so if she wants to see us get screwed royally she will pay for it later. Now it is time to pay the piper. Haha. But I still think I was deceived by Honda for agreeing to buy disability insurance they knew we could never use. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-04F042.20300405072004@text.usenetserver.com... > In article <RPkGc.13614$JR4.1365@attbi_s54>, > "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. > > I'm sure Honda didn't screw you. > > The Honda dealer, though, is a different story. You do know, don't you, > that the Honda dealer is an independent businessman? He isn't Honda. > He just sells their cars--in a manner that makes him as much profit as > possible. Some dealers lie, cheat, and steal to do that. But that > doesn't have anything to do with the manufacturer. > > > > > The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended > > Did you know he gets paid a commission on that crap? He's just another > salesman. Did you buy his products without knowing what they were or > how much they should cost? > > You can *always* buy everything outside the car itself somewhere else. > You can buy the money somewhere else (the financing), and you should. > You can buy life insurance somewhere else, and you should. You should > never, EVER buy multiple things from the car dealer. He's there to sell > you the car, period. > > So this guy wants to sell you insurance. Didn't a little bell go off in > your head, wondering why? Does your insurance guy try to sell you cars? > > > > > if > > either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments > > until we could get back to work. > > This would all be laid out in the contract. You read the contract > first; if you agree to the terms, you sign it. If not, you don't. If > you don't understand the terms, how can you possibly agree to it? If > you don't understand the terms, you shouldn't sign it until and unless > you do understand the terms. > > > > > We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie > > Ohmigod. Because you're a rube straight out of the cornfield.... > > > > so we signed the contract without reading it. > > And this is someone else's problem? I don't think so. You started this > thread by calling this a deceptive trade practice; now it's just someone > smarter than you selling you something you never even bothered to TRY to > understand. That's not deceptive on his part. That's just plain STUPID > on your part. > > Suck it up. Be a man. Admit to your mistake, learn from it, and move > on. But don't try to make it someone else's fault. Hell, you're not > even doing a very good job of *that*. You're tripping all over yourself > to admit that you were at fault, by doing something stupid yet perfectly > legal--you signed a contract without reading it. > > Whether you read it or not is immaterial; under the law, you signed it > therefore you're beholden to it. > > > > > If we had read it > > If wishes were horses. If I had hit that MegaMillions last week, I'd be > worth $200 million. So what? > > > > > we would > > have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. We had > > already told the Honda guy my wife was on permanent disability so she could > > never be insured anyway, > > If she can't be insured, then they won't issue the policy and you won't > have to pay anything. If they issue the policy and take your money, > then she's insured. Claim the disability and stop paying on the car. > When their insurance carrier investigates things, he'll find that they > never should have issued the policy in the first place. Worst case, > they'll deny your claim and revoke your policy--and you won't have to > pay anything. > > Why do you sign contracts without reading them? Why do you buy > insurance from a car salesman? Do you buy ice cream from your plumber? > The two things are entirely unrelated, and you shouldn't do business > like that. > > > > We are considering many courses of action > > For what? What harm has come to you? If they're taking your money and > giving you a policy, you're insured. You bought the insurance, it's > yours. You got the product. If they don't issue the policy, then you > don't have anything to pay for and therefore don't owe anything on it. > No harm. > > No harm. Got it? Either you're harmed, or you're not. The only way > you'd be harmed is if they take your money AND don't issue the insurance > policy. You DO know that insurance is regulated by your state, don't > you? > > > > > > For the record I have been > > disabled for three months now and because Honda lied I have had to make a > > $278 car payment every month after becoming disabled with no income other > > than my wife's meager diability check. Honda told us the best they could do > > is stop the insurance and give us our premiums back. > > I'm still waiting for the part of your story whereby you filed a claim > under this insurance and were denied because you never had a policy. I > don't see that part of it. I can only infer, I can only read between > the lines, that your disability claim was denied 3 months ago. But you > don't tell us why. > > But then again, maybe it wasn't denied. Maybe you never filed. Maybe > you just ASSUMED you wouldn't be covered, now you're crying in your beer > over a bunch of assumptions. > |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> > Do you buy ice cream from your plumber? no but he's got good crack |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
In article <DOnGc.30939$Oq2.24398@attbi_s52>,
"Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well I see the error of my ways now, it was late and the store had closed, > the finance manager wanted to go home and so did I. At the time I didn't > even care my wife was listed as the primary debtor, I just wanted to sign > the papers and go home. Well hang on, I have a few papers I'd like you to sign. Don't bother reading them, it'd only waste your time. Sign here. > But I still think I was deceived by Honda for agreeing to buy > disability insurance they knew we could never use. Repeat after me: you were never deceived by Honda. You didn't deal with Honda. You dealt with an independent salesman, selling a product. And it's not the salesman's job to determine whether or not you can or will use a product. His job is to sell it to you. YOUR job is not to be ripped off. It's no one else's responsibility to look after your needs and take care of you. The world doesn't owe you a living. The world doesn't owe you anything. If you didn't have a driver's license, the salesman would still sell you the car. It's not his responsibility to make sure you have a license, can afford the gas and insurance and upkeep, and are physically able to drive a car. His job is to SELL YOU THE CAR. He's not Honda; he's an independent businessman. IT'S NOT UP TO HIM TO JUDGE WHY YOU WANT SOMETHING AND WHETHER YOU'RE WORTHY OF HAVING IT. It's up to you to judge whether you should buy the product or not. You didn't do that. You signed the papers without reading them. YOU are at fault. What's more YOU are the ONLY one here at fault. No one else. The way you keep saying "I was deceived by Honda" tells me that you truly can't distinguish between the manufacturer of the product and the independent businessman who sells you the product. Given that, what you should do is take your concerns to a lawyer and have him argue with the dealership that you are incompetent and therefore legally unable to enter into contracts. That's the only way you'll get out of this. It sounds pretty solid, too--because you are unable to distinguish a manufacturer from a dealer/businessman, and you sign contracts without reading them. How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort of deception. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
In article <ts0ke0t4tssut3m6kpir6d23a1n3edp514@4ax.com>,
DragonRider <DragonRider1@comcast.net> wrote: > >You can *always* buy everything outside the car itself somewhere else. > >You can buy the money somewhere else (the financing), and you should. > > This is the only place I saw that may need attention. With most all > the manufacturers offering APR's lower than you can get even at your > credit unions you are often better off taking the manufacturer > financing. Usually, the manufacturer financing at those special rates requires that you buy the car at full sticker price. I can get financing at 3.99% now, off the street. (It was 3.49% for the longest time, until a few weeks ago.) I'm then free to negotiate whatever price I can negotiate, including rebates. (remember, the deal is usually special APR *or* rebates, but not both. The special APR is just a marketing gimmick, designed to get people's attention. Woe be to the guy who doesn't follow through by analyzing his entire costs in the deal.) The only way to handle that is to get all the numbers up front and crunch them. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
A few questions and comments:
1. Bob, so now you're disabled. Is it permanent? If so, won't you soon be receiving disability along with your wife? 2. Yes, the dealer's people lied to you. Yes, your outrage is at least somewhat justified. But like the others said, I doubt you have legal recourse. What you can do is tell your story all over town. This may humiliate (somewhat) the dealer and teach others to read the contract before signing. If one cannot understand a contract, yup, get a lawyer or seek some other, independent resource to translate the contract for you. 3. I think the dealer's offer to give you back the premiums is very generous. 4. If you can't make the car payments, seek re-financing. I have read lenders tend to be flexible when it comes to changes in people's circumstances. They want the money to keep coming in, one way or another. Maybe it won't be the greatest refinancing package, but you'll still be able to keep the car. Other newsgroups might better be able to handle any queries you might have about re-financing your car. Post again if you want suggestions. "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote > My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. > The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if > either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments > until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie > so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would > have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. We had > already told the Honda guy my wife was on permanent disability so she could > never be insured anyway, so the finance manager should have changed me to > the primary debtor so at least I would be covered and we wouldn't be paying > insurance premiums just to fatten Honda's wallet. > > We are considering many courses of action but we would like a second or > thiird opinion before we decide what to do. For the record I have been > disabled for three months now and because Honda lied I have had to make a > $278 car payment every month after becoming disabled with no income other > than my wife's meager diability check. Honda told us the best they could do > is stop the insurance and give us our premiums back. That's not what we > want. I should have been covered and they should be making our car payments > now. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:pnpGc.3378$sD4.998@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net... > A few questions and comments: > > 1. > Bob, so now you're disabled. Is it permanent? If so, won't you soon be receiving > disability along with your wife? No one knows if it's permanent or not yet. My doctor said I may recover completely, but it may take a year or two to find out. > > 2. > Yes, the dealer's people lied to you. Yes, your outrage is at least somewhat > justified. But like the others said, I doubt you have legal recourse. What you > can do is tell your story all over town. This may humiliate (somewhat) the > dealer and teach others to read the contract before signing. If one cannot > understand a contract, yup, get a lawyer or seek some other, independent > resource to translate the contract for you. Friends I have and I know some of the best trial lawyers in Kentucky. I can raise a ruckus if I need to do so. I decided to get a feel for the basic inequity of the situation by starting here. > > 3. > I think the dealer's offer to give you back the premiums is very generous. You could look at it that way, but isn't doing so an admission of "we should not have led you to believe you would both be covered by this insurance"? > > 4. > If you can't make the car payments, seek re-financing. I have read lenders tend > to be flexible when it comes to changes in people's circumstances. They want the > money to keep coming in, one way or another. Maybe it won't be the greatest > refinancing package, but you'll still be able to keep the car. Other newsgroups > might better be able to handle any queries you might have about re-financing > your car. Post again if you want suggestions. We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to believe we were both covered by the contract. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Caroline wrote:
[snip] > 2. > Yes, the dealer's people lied to you. Yes, your outrage is at least somewhat > justified. But like the others said, I doubt you have legal recourse. What you > can do is tell your story all over town. This may humiliate (somewhat) the > dealer and teach others to read the contract before signing. If one cannot > understand a contract, yup, get a lawyer or seek some other, independent > resource to translate the contract for you. > Why should he tell everyone his story? The dealer would not be humiliated, Bob would. In his rush to get home, he did not read the contract, which had to mention who was the insurance beneficiary and all the circumstances that would allow claims against said insurance. The burden never falls on the seller to ensure the buyer receives a fair deal. Bob failed to look after his interests, and shifting even a small part of the blame onto the dealer is undeserved. > 3. > I think the dealer's offer to give you back the premiums is very generous. > This fact alone proves the dealer is extremely fair. Legally they would be entitled to force Bob to pay the premiums untill the contract expires (whenever that may be). But instead they allow him to terminate the contract (an early termination clause may be stipulated in the contract, but we will never know since he did not post it) AND they are willing to refund him the money. If only all dealers would be this generous... [snip] Cosmin |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Caroline wrote:
> A few questions and comments: > > 1. > Bob, so now you're disabled. Is it permanent? If so, won't you soon be receiving > disability along with your wife? > > 2. > Yes, the dealer's people lied to you. Yes, your outrage is at least somewhat > justified. But like the others said, I doubt you have legal recourse. What you > can do is tell your story all over town. This may humiliate (somewhat) the > dealer and teach others to read the contract before signing. If one cannot > understand a contract, yup, get a lawyer or seek some other, independent > resource to translate the contract for you. > > 3. > I think the dealer's offer to give you back the premiums is very generous. > > 4. > If you can't make the car payments, seek re-financing. I have read lenders tend > to be flexible when it comes to changes in people's circumstances. They want the > money to keep coming in, one way or another. Maybe it won't be the greatest > refinancing package, but you'll still be able to keep the car. Other newsgroups > might better be able to handle any queries you might have about re-financing > your car. Post again if you want suggestions. > > "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote > >>My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. >>The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if >>either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments >>until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie >>so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would >>have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. We had >>already told the Honda guy my wife was on permanent disability so she could >>never be insured anyway, so the finance manager should have changed me to >>the primary debtor so at least I would be covered and we wouldn't be paying >>insurance premiums just to fatten Honda's wallet. >> >>We are considering many courses of action but we would like a second or >>thiird opinion before we decide what to do. For the record I have been >>disabled for three months now and because Honda lied I have had to make a >>$278 car payment every month after becoming disabled with no income other >>than my wife's meager diability check. Honda told us the best they could do >>is stop the insurance and give us our premiums back. That's not what we >>want. I should have been covered and they should be making our car payments >>now. > > > > Hmmmm, Onus is on you. You did not read fine print yourself, you assumed verbal statement. Very sloppy! I think the dealer is doing all it should. You can sue the finance manager but where is the proof he said that? He is not a Honda employee, he is an employee of the dealership(an independent business) Tony |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Bob Travis wrote:
> No one knows if it's permanent or not yet. My doctor said I may recover > completely, but it may take a year or two to find out. I do hope you will get well again. That said, I must disagree with your opinions regarding the Honda dealer who sold the insurance. As many others pointed out, please note that the Honda dealer is a completely different entity from Honda Corporation. > Friends I have and I know some of the best trial lawyers in Kentucky. I can > raise a ruckus if I need to do so. I decided to get a feel for the basic > inequity of the situation by starting here. > Making an ass of yourself is the only thing you will achieve by "raising a ruckus". Talk to some lawyers, they will probaby point out the complete lack of legal basis you have for your case. > > You could look at it that way, but isn't doing so an admission of "we should > not have led you to believe you would both be covered by this insurance"? > Or maybe the dealer is trying to be nice to you. Giving up the premiums you already paid may be outweighed by his hope you may purchase another car from them in the future. If he is aware you won't do business with him in the future, and he is still going to refund your money, then he's one of the best dealerships I've ever heard of. > We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to believe we > were both covered by the contract. > I am truly glad you are in a good financial situation. But I do not see how you were led to believe both you and your wife were covered. Whatever were the negotiations prior to signing the contract, their final outcome is the contract itself. If the dealer said otherwise would be immoral, however in a court only the written contract matters. And the contract is definitely not on your side. Cosmin |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
....top posting here!
Having bought approx 25 new cars/trucks in my 60 years, which including 3 whereby I went to the dealer a few hours early...only to find my NEW vehicle was in pcs because it was either "hit" by a wise guy salesman, the engine had been blown by a dealer employee over the weekend (a supercharged Tbird) and more things than I wish to recall....the old saying "Let the buyer beware" always applies.... OK, you didn't do it...you didn't read the contractor understand it. Were they nice....of course NOT...were you (oops sorry) "stupid"...well, (again sorry)...YES. There's an old saying..."Watch the new car salesman open the door for you to your new car upon delivery...blocking the dent they put in". My Dad was a part owner in a new car dealer years ago...and he tried to eliminate many such things...but finally he too was frustrated! It's the breeding of many (I say most) sales people and the way most dealerships "guide their ways of doing buisness". I'm not saying there are no "good" sales people or dealerships...but they are absolutely a small percentage. YOU...and all consumers...have to act (as you should) that you are the customer, and it's your money...at least until you sign the contract. The profit in dealership (generally) is NOT in the basic car sale including FACTORY INSTALLED equipment. Rather in extended warranties...which most try to tell you is from the MFG'r (most arent't), add-on sun roofs, annd deals like yours. Still, I feel bad for you...but the other poster is 100% correct. Honda didn't screw you...but (maybe) the dealer did. READ THE CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS...don't be pressured. If you're not sure...hell, ask for a copy (before you sign), and take it and go have a cup of coffee and read it. By the way, most of these deals (like yours, actually can be bought elsewhere and certainly don't have to be bought at the time of delievery. I'll bet...if you read very closely...you'll find this "great payment agreement" isn't even underwritten by Honda, no the primary lender...rather some 1/2 -assed , flybynight company. Further, I'll be that it's got language (like "only if you're sick due to mongolian flu contract in december) that makes collecting really hard. I feel "bad" for you....BUT the question is...Did YOU LEARN anythin=g for the future? That applies to cars, things you purcahse at BestBuy, etc etc. I hope so. ++++++++++++++++++++++ On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:30:04 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >In article <RPkGc.13614$JR4.1365@attbi_s54>, > "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. > >I'm sure Honda didn't screw you. > >The Honda dealer, though, is a different story. You do know, don't you, >that the Honda dealer is an independent businessman? He isn't Honda. >He just sells their cars--in a manner that makes him as much profit as >possible. Some dealers lie, cheat, and steal to do that. But that >doesn't have anything to do with the manufacturer. > > > >> The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended > >Did you know he gets paid a commission on that crap? He's just another >salesman. Did you buy his products without knowing what they were or >how much they should cost? > >You can *always* buy everything outside the car itself somewhere else. >You can buy the money somewhere else (the financing), and you should. >You can buy life insurance somewhere else, and you should. You should >never, EVER buy multiple things from the car dealer. He's there to sell >you the car, period. > >So this guy wants to sell you insurance. Didn't a little bell go off in >your head, wondering why? Does your insurance guy try to sell you cars? > > > >> if >> either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments >> until we could get back to work. > >This would all be laid out in the contract. You read the contract >first; if you agree to the terms, you sign it. If not, you don't. If >you don't understand the terms, how can you possibly agree to it? If >you don't understand the terms, you shouldn't sign it until and unless >you do understand the terms. > > > >> We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie > >Ohmigod. Because you're a rube straight out of the cornfield.... > > >> so we signed the contract without reading it. > >And this is someone else's problem? I don't think so. You started this >thread by calling this a deceptive trade practice; now it's just someone >smarter than you selling you something you never even bothered to TRY to >understand. That's not deceptive on his part. That's just plain STUPID >on your part. > >Suck it up. Be a man. Admit to your mistake, learn from it, and move >on. But don't try to make it someone else's fault. Hell, you're not >even doing a very good job of *that*. You're tripping all over yourself >to admit that you were at fault, by doing something stupid yet perfectly >legal--you signed a contract without reading it. > >Whether you read it or not is immaterial; under the law, you signed it >therefore you're beholden to it. > > > >> If we had read it > >If wishes were horses. If I had hit that MegaMillions last week, I'd be >worth $200 million. So what? > > > >> we would >> have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. We had >> already told the Honda guy my wife was on permanent disability so she could >> never be insured anyway, > >If she can't be insured, then they won't issue the policy and you won't >have to pay anything. If they issue the policy and take your money, >then she's insured. Claim the disability and stop paying on the car. >When their insurance carrier investigates things, he'll find that they >never should have issued the policy in the first place. Worst case, >they'll deny your claim and revoke your policy--and you won't have to >pay anything. > >Why do you sign contracts without reading them? Why do you buy >insurance from a car salesman? Do you buy ice cream from your plumber? >The two things are entirely unrelated, and you shouldn't do business >like that. > > >> We are considering many courses of action > >For what? What harm has come to you? If they're taking your money and >giving you a policy, you're insured. You bought the insurance, it's >yours. You got the product. If they don't issue the policy, then you >don't have anything to pay for and therefore don't owe anything on it. >No harm. > >No harm. Got it? Either you're harmed, or you're not. The only way >you'd be harmed is if they take your money AND don't issue the insurance >policy. You DO know that insurance is regulated by your state, don't >you? > > > > >> For the record I have been >> disabled for three months now and because Honda lied I have had to make a >> $278 car payment every month after becoming disabled with no income other >> than my wife's meager diability check. Honda told us the best they could do >> is stop the insurance and give us our premiums back. > >I'm still waiting for the part of your story whereby you filed a claim >under this insurance and were denied because you never had a policy. I >don't see that part of it. I can only infer, I can only read between >the lines, that your disability claim was denied 3 months ago. But you >don't tell us why. > >But then again, maybe it wasn't denied. Maybe you never filed. Maybe >you just ASSUMED you wouldn't be covered, now you're crying in your beer >over a bunch of assumptions. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote: > > In article <DOnGc.30939$Oq2.24398@attbi_s52>, > "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Well I see the error of my ways now, it was late and the store had closed, > > the finance manager wanted to go home and so did I. At the time I didn't > > even care my wife was listed as the primary debtor, I just wanted to sign > > the papers and go home. > > Well hang on, I have a few papers I'd like you to sign. Don't bother > reading them, it'd only waste your time. Sign here. > > > But I still think I was deceived by Honda for agreeing to buy > > disability insurance they knew we could never use. > > Repeat after me: you were never deceived by Honda. You didn't deal > with Honda. You dealt with an independent salesman, selling a product. > > And it's not the salesman's job to determine whether or not you can or > will use a product. His job is to sell it to you. YOUR job is not to > be ripped off. It's no one else's responsibility to look after your > needs and take care of you. > > The world doesn't owe you a living. The world doesn't owe you anything. > > If you didn't have a driver's license, the salesman would still sell you > the car. It's not his responsibility to make sure you have a license, > can afford the gas and insurance and upkeep, and are physically able to > drive a car. His job is to SELL YOU THE CAR. He's not Honda; he's an > independent businessman. IT'S NOT UP TO HIM TO JUDGE WHY YOU WANT > SOMETHING AND WHETHER YOU'RE WORTHY OF HAVING IT. It's up to you to > judge whether you should buy the product or not. > > You didn't do that. You signed the papers without reading them. YOU > are at fault. What's more YOU are the ONLY one here at fault. No one > else. > > The way you keep saying "I was deceived by Honda" tells me that you > truly can't distinguish between the manufacturer of the product and the > independent businessman who sells you the product. Given that, what you > should do is take your concerns to a lawyer and have him argue with the > dealership that you are incompetent and therefore legally unable to > enter into contracts. > > That's the only way you'll get out of this. It sounds pretty solid, > too--because you are unable to distinguish a manufacturer from a > dealer/businessman, and you sign contracts without reading them. > > How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a > whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort > of deception. Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of someone else. Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... -- JT Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4 |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
In article <CvqGc.30041$a24.8812@attbi_s03>,
"Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 3. > > I think the dealer's offer to give you back the premiums is very generous. > > You could look at it that way, but isn't doing so an admission of "we should > not have led you to believe you would both be covered by this insurance"? No. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
In article <CvqGc.30041$a24.8812@attbi_s03>,
"Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to believe we > were both covered by the contract. You weren't "led" to believe anything. Stop trying to make this an explicit act of someone else. You LED YOURSELF into believing something, because you EXPLICITLY FAILED to read the written contract that was right in front of your face. You signed it without reading it. By your own admission, you signed it without reading it. You tell those Kentucky lawyers this story, exactly the way you told it to us. See what their reaction is. My father was a country lawyer. He had many good clients, many of them good businessmen but also naive in so many ways. One day one of those clients came to him with a sob story; turns out in a moment of weakness and stupidity he had bought himself a time share. Now he was looking to get out of it. My father looked things over for a moment, and explained to this client that he was liable for that contract. What was he thinking? He should have known better than this. The client didn't want to hear all this, but finally accepted it. Please come back and tell us what these fine Kentucky lawyers have to say. If they're over 55, they'll tell you you're stuck and that you're an idiot. If they're under 55, they'll probably go on the attack--regardless of the facts--and hope the finance insurance company just wants to settle. Tell us which way it goes. Either way, you're out some cash. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:25:06 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >In article <ts0ke0t4tssut3m6kpir6d23a1n3edp514@4ax.com>, > DragonRider <DragonRider1@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >You can *always* buy everything outside the car itself somewhere else. >> >You can buy the money somewhere else (the financing), and you should. >> >> This is the only place I saw that may need attention. With most all >> the manufacturers offering APR's lower than you can get even at your >> credit unions you are often better off taking the manufacturer >> financing. > >Usually, the manufacturer financing at those special rates requires that >you buy the car at full sticker price. Not true. That would be listening to the guys at the dealership. ;) Besides, in many cases even if it were true you'd be better off (though this applies mostly to the less expensive cars). The manufacturer doesn't care how much you sell the car for as long as it doesn't exceed 110-120% of the vehicles MSRP (per your credit). >I can get financing at 3.99% now, off the street. (It was 3.49% for the >longest time, until a few weeks ago.) I'm then free to negotiate >whatever price I can negotiate, including rebates. If you end up with a less than 4% and can take a huge rebate along the way, then go for it! In limited cases you can get both a decent rebate and lower financing which can come out better at the end of the day. Regardless of the above, you can still negotiate the price of the vehicle. Remember, the dealership sets the final price, not the manufacturer. Thank the 'fixed price laws' for that one. (remember the Nintendo/Playstation fiasco's?) :) >(remember, the deal is usually special APR *or* rebates, but not both. >The special APR is just a marketing gimmick, designed to get people's >attention. Woe be to the guy who doesn't follow through by analyzing >his entire costs in the deal.) That marketting gimmick seemed to be very very good to a great many of my customers in the past. Heck, if you can get financing that saves you $5,000-7,500 or a rebate of $2,500 which is the better way to go if your credit qualifies you for it? Several manufacturers are starting to use rebates AND special financing (Chrysler, Mitsu, etc). They do have the catch that not everyone will qualify, but usually it's not too difficult. All you have to do is make a habit of paying your bills. <grin> >The only way to handle that is to get all the numbers up front and >crunch them. That is true. If you can get them to show you the numbers both ways you are good. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote
C wrote > > 2. > > Yes, the dealer's people lied to you. Yes, your outrage is at least > somewhat > > justified. But like the others said, I doubt you have legal recourse. > What you > > can do is tell your story all over town. This may humiliate (somewhat) the > > dealer and teach others to read the contract before signing. If one cannot > > understand a contract, yup, get a lawyer or seek some other, independent > > resource to translate the contract for you. > > Friends I have and I know some of the best trial lawyers in Kentucky. I can > raise a ruckus if I need to do so. I decided to get a feel for the basic > inequity of the situation by starting here. For the internet forum answer to your question, I think you'd be better off consulting the newsgroups misc.legal and misc.legal.moderated . But again, this would be only the "internet answer." Plenty of mediocrity and even incompetence in so-called "professional" forums on the net. Alternatively, you could google for info on contracts. What you describe (someone verbally saying one thing about a contract but the written contract saying something else) comes up a lot. My recollection is the courts by far tend to side with what the written contract says. Why? Because every Tom, Dick, and Harry could claim a salesman said one thing but the written contract said another; give me money! This promotes chaos. (I'm not an attorney. I read a lot.) > > 3. > > I think the dealer's offer to give you back the premiums is very generous. > > You could look at it that way, but isn't doing so an admission of "we should > not have led you to believe you would both be covered by this insurance"? Maybe but IMO not necessarily. The dealer could say it was simply trying to maintain good customer relations; it gives money back anytime a customer complains. misc.legal and misc.legal.moderated may see it both ways (yours and mine), though. > > 4. > > If you can't make the car payments, seek re-financing. I have read lenders > tend > > to be flexible when it comes to changes in people's circumstances. They > want the > > money to keep coming in, one way or another. Maybe it won't be the > greatest > > refinancing package, but you'll still be able to keep the car. Other > newsgroups > > might better be able to handle any queries you might have about > re-financing > > your car. Post again if you want suggestions. > > We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to believe we > were both covered by the contract. I agree you should be peeved. At a minimum, by raising as much of a ruckus as possible, the dealer might be more careful in the future. Updates welcome. I think this is on-topic enough to continue here as you see fit. Honda owners like to know how their car dealers are behaving. Good luck with everything. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote > Caroline wrote: > [snip] > > 2. > > Yes, the dealer's people lied to you. Yes, your outrage is at least somewhat > > justified. But like the others said, I doubt you have legal recourse. What you > > can do is tell your story all over town. This may humiliate (somewhat) the > > dealer and teach others to read the contract before signing. If one cannot > > understand a contract, yup, get a lawyer or seek some other, independent > > resource to translate the contract for you. > > > > Why should he tell everyone his story? To get the word out that people should not believe the dealer's people. It would be a public service of sorts. > The dealer would not be > humiliated, Bob would. I'm sure some would feel Bob was at fault here, sure. I'm sure plenty would feel the dealer's people were jerks, too. That's useful information to the public. > In his rush to get home, he did not read the > contract, which had to mention who was the insurance beneficiary and all > the circumstances that would allow claims against said insurance. The > burden never falls on the seller to ensure the buyer receives a fair > deal. It's not a question of fairness. It's a question of legal fraud. One example of this is "fraud in the inducement." From dictionary.law.com: _____ fraud in the inducement n. the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act. Example: "there will be tax advantages to you if you let me take title to your property," or "you don't have to read the rest of the contract-it is just routine legal language" but actually includes a balloon payment. _____ On the surface, Bob looks like he has a good case for this. But I, like others here, am not optimistic. Still, I'd say it's probably worth consulting an attorney. I hope Bob is documenting everything. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote: > > How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a > > whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort > > of deception. > > > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of > someone else. > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing illegal fraud? That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought I'd point out: it cuts both ways. Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions. I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the law will on occasion punish lying in business deals. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:42:57 GMT, Bob Travis <e_quip@hotmail.com> sayeth:
>My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. >The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if >either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments >until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie >so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would >have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. I'm sorry, but some of the others on this group seem to only be encouraging this asinine thought process. Many people in this country are too quick to blame others for their own carelessness, and help contribute to the general litigious society that those same people complain about. Are you saying this sales person *intentionally* sold your wife insurance knowing she wouldn't be covered? Or that he sold it to your wife *knowing* that you wouldn't be covered, and hid it from you? If that were the case, you might have grounds, but that is a conspiracy theory that I think you'll find is far from the truth. The truth is, and I think you know this, that the salesperson didn't know the coverage limitation, was not an insurance salesperson, and simply wanted to get the closing process finished. He may have been irresponsible in not knowing more about the product he sold, but that's where his failure ends. This country operates under caveat emptor, and you, and you alone, are the one to be blamed here. Repeat after me: I ACKNOWLEDGE MY OWN MISTAKE AND WILL NOT BLAME OTHERS FOR MY OWN CARELESSNESS. -- Chris B. furrier@iglou.com |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Caroline wrote: > > "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote > > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote: > > > How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a > > > whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort > > > of deception. > > > > > > > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of > > someone else. > > > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing > illegal fraud? > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. > > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions. > > I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business > deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the > law will on occasion punish lying in business deals. Personal responsibility on the dealer's part is bottom line profit period. -- JT Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4 |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Chris Bradley wrote: > > On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:42:57 GMT, Bob Travis <e_quip@hotmail.com> sayeth: > >My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002. > >The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if > >either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments > >until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie > >so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would > >have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered. > > I'm sorry, but some of the others on this group seem to only be > encouraging this asinine thought process. > > Many people in this country are too quick to blame others for their > own carelessness, and help contribute to the general litigious society > that those same people complain about. > > Are you saying this sales person *intentionally* sold your wife > insurance knowing she wouldn't be covered? Or that he sold it to your > wife *knowing* that you wouldn't be covered, and hid it from you? If > that were the case, you might have grounds, but that is a conspiracy > theory that I think you'll find is far from the truth. > > The truth is, and I think you know this, that the salesperson didn't > know the coverage limitation, was not an insurance salesperson, and > simply wanted to get the closing process finished. He may have been > irresponsible in not knowing more about the product he sold, but > that's where his failure ends. This country operates under caveat > emptor, and you, and you alone, are the one to be blamed here. > > Repeat after me: > > I ACKNOWLEDGE MY OWN MISTAKE AND WILL NOT BLAME OTHERS FOR MY OWN > CARELESSNESS. > > -- > Chris B. > furrier@iglou.com Amen! One ultimately has to be responsible for his position in life. But that is not how people are brought up these days. They are led to believe that some angel will rescue them out of the most ridiculous self created situation only to go out and repeat the ill-fated deed again. <sigh> -- JT Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4 |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
> Caroline wrote: > > > > "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote > > > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote: > > > > How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a > > > > whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort > > > > of deception. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm > > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of > > > someone else. > > > > > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... > > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing > > illegal fraud? > > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. > > > > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the > > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions. > > > > I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business > > deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the > > law will on occasion punish lying in business deals. > > > Personal responsibility on the dealer's part is bottom line profit period. You wish the law saw things this way. Bob should also report this situation to any Consumer Protection Division his state has. It's highly likely there is one. Maybe start with the Better Business Bureau listing in the phone book. *If* this complaint has arisen before with another customer of the car dealer's, then this will add weight to Bob's case. I disdain our litigious society as much as the next person. Politically speaking, I am unhappy John Edwards is Senator Kerry's VP pick; trial lawyers will be partying until November. But there are certainly situations where lying in a business deal should be punished. This may be one of them. Or by any chance do you think what Enron executives did is okay? |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
In article <RPkGc.13614$JR4.1365@attbi_s54>, "Bob Travis"
<e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: >so we signed the contract without reading > it. > We are considering many courses of action but we would like a second > or thiird opinion before we decide what to do. You need to talk to a lawyer, not a Usenet group. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on newsgroups, but I'm thinking you should have read the contract before you signed it. -- -Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> An update on 7/4/04. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:egzGc.9880$yy1.7942@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > > > > > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of > > someone else. > > > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing > illegal fraud? > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't matter what you were "told". > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions. Fraud by inducement only exists when the written contract is vague and purposely left "open to interpretation". If the terms of the insurance were clearly defined in the contract (and they probably were), then it doesn't matter what was "said", only what was written in the legally executed contract (i.e. signed). About the only way to (personally) get out of a (properly written and clear) written contract is to A) prove hardship that exceeds the ability to fulfill the contract or B) be "legally illiterate" and prove fraud or negligence on the part of your interpreter. In the first case, you are still "out" as a default of the contract entitles the finance company (if bound as part of the overall guarantor of the property) to repossess to mitigate their damages and in the case of the second, to sue the interpreter and only then sue the dealership if you can prove collusion. > I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business > deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the > law will on occasion punish lying in business deals. > > |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 07:47:01 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >In article <CvqGc.30041$a24.8812@attbi_s03>, > "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to believe we >> were both covered by the contract. > >You weren't "led" to believe anything. > >Stop trying to make this an explicit act of someone else. > >You LED YOURSELF into believing something, because you EXPLICITLY FAILED >to read the written contract that was right in front of your face. You >signed it without reading it. By your own admission, you signed it >without reading it. Yes, I understand your point. But as a practical matter, we can't always read everything that we are signing, and if we did, we would not always be able to understand what is says. Instead we rely on what we are being told. Example: signing a car rental agreement. Or a flight insurance document. Have you had your lawyer draw up a will for you? Most of us will read and then say "what does this mean?", and then sign it on faith based on what we are told. Same thing with all those docs the bank makes you sign when you open an account. You take your car in to your dealer for repairs and demand an estimate. After having a look at the vehicle, the service dept. calls you in. They have drawn up a document outlining what they are going to fix and for how much. After looking it over as best you can, you sign. But then they keep all the copies. And they can write anything else in later if they feel like it. The point is, agreements work mostly on trust. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Harry Cox" <Cox@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:c4dme05qhn50337ohgf5mivl3o6ngnik7b@4ax.com... > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 07:47:01 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > > >In article <CvqGc.30041$a24.8812@attbi_s03>, > > "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to believe we > >> were both covered by the contract. > > > >You weren't "led" to believe anything. > > > >Stop trying to make this an explicit act of someone else. > > > >You LED YOURSELF into believing something, because you EXPLICITLY FAILED > >to read the written contract that was right in front of your face. You > >signed it without reading it. By your own admission, you signed it > >without reading it. > > Yes, I understand your point. > > But as a practical matter, we can't always read everything that we are > signing, and if we did, we would not always be able to understand what > is says. Instead we rely on what we are being told. > > Example: signing a car rental agreement. Or a flight insurance > document. Have you had your lawyer draw up a will for you? Most of us > will read and then say "what does this mean?", and then sign it on > faith based on what we are told. Same thing with all those docs the > bank makes you sign when you open an account. If I didn't understand, I wouldn't sign until it was explained to me by someone "on my side". In the case of the lawyer drawing up a will on your behalf, he/she is YOUR agent, and therefore must act in YOUR best interest or be guilty of malpractice. > You take your car in to your dealer for repairs and demand an > estimate. After having a look at the vehicle, the service dept. calls > you in. They have drawn up a document outlining what they are going to > fix and for how much. After looking it over as best you can, you sign. > But then they keep all the copies. And they can write anything else in > later if they feel like it. And I do take a copy of what I signed in it's current form. That's also your receipt that you turned your car over to them. I also don't give clothes to my dry cleaner without a receipt proving that they have them. > The point is, agreements work mostly on trust. Until you get screwed, and then as a result of not looking out for your own best interests, you have little recourse. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Caroline wrote:
> "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote > >>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote: >> >>>How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a >>>whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort >>>of deception. >> >> >> >>Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm >>entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of >>someone else. >> >>Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing > illegal fraud? > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. > > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions. > > I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business > deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the > law will on occasion punish lying in business deals. > > Hi, The problem is the guy's verbal statement. If it were in black and white, no problemo. Even if he initialed the contract to that effect. When something is said, you can't prove it(one mouth against another) unless there is witness or it's been duly recorded. We're living in a world, they cut your nose off with your eyes open. It used to be when you closed your eyes, LOL. Tony |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:36:32 GMT, Harry Cox <Cox@SomeDomain.com> sayeth:
>But as a practical matter, we can't always read everything that we are >signing, and if we did, we would not always be able to understand what >is says. Instead we rely on what we are being told. If you sign something without reading it, no matter what the circumstance, you are a fool and will eventually be burned badly. When it happens, do not blame anyone but yourself. >Example: signing a car rental agreement. Or a flight insurance document. Never rent a car or buy flight insurance unless you are either (a) willing to read and accept the contract, or (b) skip reading the contract and take all liability on yourself personally by not blaming others if the contract doesn't meet your expectations. >The point is, agreements work mostly on trust. That is patently false, at least in the United States, where presumably the author's original exchange took place. -- Chris B. furrier@iglou.com |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote > > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm > > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of > > > someone else. > > > > > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... > > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not > committing > > illegal fraud? > > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be > claiming > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I > thought > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. > > Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't matter > what you were "told". You're wrong. > > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then > the > > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's > actions. > > Fraud by inducement only exists when the written contract is vague and > purposely left "open to interpretation". No, this is not FbI. FbI is a very broad category, incidentally. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:36:32 GMT, Harry Cox <Cox@SomeDomain.com> sayeth: > >The point is, agreements work mostly on trust. > > That is patently false, at least in the United States, where presumably > the author's original exchange took place. It's patently true. How could anyone think agreements rely enormously on trust as well as the written or spoken word? |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:%xJGc.972570$Pk3.569543@pd7tw1no... > Caroline wrote: > > > "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote > > > >>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote: > >> > >>>How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a > >>>whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort > >>>of deception. > >> > >> > >> > >>Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm > >>entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of > >>someone else. > >> > >>Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... > > > > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing > > illegal fraud? > > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. > > > > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the > > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions. > > > > I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business > > deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the > > law will on occasion punish lying in business deals. > > > > > Hi, > The problem is the guy's verbal statement. If it were in black and > white, no problemo. Even if he initialed the contract to that effect. > When something is said, you can't prove it(one mouth against another) > unless there is witness or it's been duly recorded. I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he said/he said situation. For example, suppose this or something like this was reported to the state's Consumer Protection Office before. Same dealer, different customer. That's a pattern that would help Bob's case. There may have been a witness, for all we know. Plus, as Bob wrote, it doesn't make sense to have disability insurance on his wife when she's already disabled. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:y1MGc.4819$sD4.4423@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > "Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote > > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:36:32 GMT, Harry Cox <Cox@SomeDomain.com> sayeth: > > > >The point is, agreements work mostly on trust. > > > > That is patently false, at least in the United States, where presumably > > the author's original exchange took place. > > It's patently true. > > How could anyone think agreements rely enormously on trust as well as the > written or spoken word? Post-o. That should read: "How could anyone think agreements DO NOT rely enormously on trust as well as the written or spoken word?" |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g0MGc.4818$sD4.662@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net... > "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote > > > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm > > > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of > > > > someone else. > > > > > > > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation... > > > > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not > > committing > > > illegal fraud? > > > > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be > > claiming > > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I > > thought > > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. > > > > Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't matter > > what you were "told". > > You're wrong. In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over written. > > > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then > > the > > > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's > > actions. > > > > Fraud by inducement only exists when the written contract is vague and > > purposely left "open to interpretation". > > No, this is not FbI. > > FbI is a very broad category, incidentally. > > |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:43:37 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:
> I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he > said/he said situation. What he/she said has nothing to do with this. As a matter of contract law, the contract rules supreme. The contract most likely also states that any prior verbal agreements are void. Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action) that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that is a whole different matter entirely, and fraud would require intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the poster's description admittedly did not occur, since the customer was not coerced into signing. -- Chris B. furrier@iglou.com |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Chris Bradley wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:43:37 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth: > > >>I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he >>said/he said situation. > > > What he/she said has nothing to do with this. As a matter of contract > law, the contract rules supreme. The contract most likely also states > that any prior verbal agreements are void. > > Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action) > that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the > intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that > is a whole different matter entirely, and fraud would require > intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the > poster's description admittedly did not occur, since the customer > was not coerced into signing. > Hi, One reason I hate buying cars. Tony |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote > > "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote > > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote > > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not > > > committing > > > > illegal fraud? > > > > > > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be > > > claiming > > > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I > > > thought > > > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways. > > > > > > Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't > matter > > > what you were "told". > > > > You're wrong. > > In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over > written. (Note: "Oral contract" is the preferred phrase for a contract achieved by speaking.) From dictionary.law.com: oral contract _____ n. an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract is just as valid as a written agreement. ... _____ You can google and also find other supporting statements like: 1. "As a general statement of law... oral agreements can modify written documents." [This site goes on to discuss the possibilities for a specific, real situation.] http://www.rha-ps.com/q_and_a/oral_a...y_binding.aspx 2. "Proof of an oral agreement that modifies a written contract should be by clear and convincing evidence. Lambe-Young, Inc. v. Cook... " http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...als2004/&invol =030231-1 3. "See Stoddard & Son v. Vill. of N. Troy, 102 Vt. 462, 468 (1930) (oral agreement may modify written contract not under seal or required by statute of fraud)." http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/unpu...03/eo02375.htm I suspect in NY that only certain types of contracts must be in writing to be valid and trump an oral agreement. If you feel otherwise, provide a citation that says oral contracts may not amend written contracts. Despite this, let me say again that I am not optimistic for Bob. As we all seem to agree, written contracts are preferred, if only because they better document the terms of an agreement. People should avoid relying on oral agreements. The turmoil Bob is facing explains why. Still, I am not utterly without hope that Bob might have a case. It will depend on the rest of the facts of the matter. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:52 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands