|
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:
>> >Fraud in the inducement. >> >> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced >> into signing the contract. > >We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement. We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business and contract law would make this point evident to you. I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly signed the contract. He admits this fact outright. -- Chris B. furrier@iglou.com |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bCUGc.11084$yy1.588@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > "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. ... And I'm not disbuting that an oral contract is just as valid as a written one, EXCEPT when a written one exists. An oral contract can come down to a case of he said/she said. A written one is in black and white. _____ > > 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 Can is the key word. Hardly ever does is reality. > 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 And the convincing evidence is? Especially in this case that started the whole thread? > 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. And I never said his contract must be in writing. But in Bob's case, he has "hearsay" vs. a written contract. Written wins. > 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. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On 7 Jul 2004 15:17:23 -0400, furrier@iglou.com (Chris Bradley) wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth: >>> >Fraud in the inducement. >>> >>> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced >>> into signing the contract. >> >>We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement. > >We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business >and contract law would make this point evident to you. > >I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but >what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly >signed the contract. He admits this fact outright. I've been listening to the to and fro of this argument and don't really know who is right, but one thing is clear, you are not a sincere debater. Your opinions are very black and white. You resort to personal attack. You shout "you are wrong" without developing a clear case to convince anyone that this is so. Caroline on the other hand has kept a cool head and advanced balanced and (IMHO) informed points of view. Thank you, Caroline. H. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote > On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline : > >> >Fraud in the inducement. > >> > >> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced > >> into signing the contract. > > > >We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement. > > We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business > and contract law would make this point evident to you. I disagree you have a handle on business and contract law, basic or otherwise. <shrug> You're talking like fraud in the inducement does not even exist. > I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but > what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly > signed the contract. He admits this fact outright. People willingly sign papers said to be contracts and that are subsequently invalidated (on one grounds or another) all the time. Willingness to put one's signature to paper hardly fulfills all the requirements of a legal contract. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:bCUGc.11084$yy1.588@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > > "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. ... > > And I'm not disbuting that an oral contract is just as valid as a written > one, EXCEPT when a written one exists. Not so. > An oral contract can come down to a > case of he said/she said. A written one is in black and white. As I've repeatedly said, a written contract is preferable for many reasons, but it does not necessarily trump an oral contract. _____ > > > > 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 > > Can is the key word. Hardly ever does is reality. Whatever that means. Sounds like you're conceding the point, anyway. > > 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 > > And the convincing evidence is? Especially in this case that started the > whole thread? You're not reading me carefully. I have repeatedly said that Bob's chances of winning a claim here are slim. However, I would not say he has no chance of winning a claim here. > > 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. > > And I never said his contract must be in writing. But in Bob's case, he has > "hearsay" vs. a written contract. Written wins. We do not have all the facts. BTW, you're using the word "hearsay" incorrectly. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Harry Cox" <Cox@SomeDomain.com> wrote
snip > I've been listening to the to and fro of this argument and don't > really know who is right, but one thing is clear, you are not a > sincere debater. Your opinions are very black and white. You resort to > personal attack. You shout "you are wrong" without developing a clear > case to convince anyone that this is so. > > Caroline on the other hand has kept a cool head and advanced balanced > and (IMHO) informed points of view. Thank you, Caroline. Likewise, Harry, your post shone above others as being rational and carefully considered, with an excellent point. It is strange to me that so many people think the law is hesitant to punish lying when harm from the lying is shone. As you noted, every agreement relies on a certain amount of tacit trust, and the courts do in general recognize this. People have to be smart, to be sure, but when a Person says X is in a contract, sign here, and X is not in the contract, then something's wrong. Again, I'm not hopeful for Bob, but I wouldn't say without knowing a lot more that he has no chance of recovery at all. The internet is a great resource for getting a good start on questions like this. I hope Bob has now asked at some of the legal newsgroups, taking what is said with the appropriate grain of salt and recognizing that paid advice is more valuable than the doggerel he might be getting here. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YFZGc.5375$sD4.778@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net... > "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:bCUGc.11084$yy1.588@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > > > "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. ... > > > > And I'm not disbuting that an oral contract is just as valid as a written > > one, EXCEPT when a written one exists. > > Not so. Keep telling yourself that and it may one day become true. > > An oral contract can come down to a > > case of he said/she said. A written one is in black and white. > > As I've repeatedly said, a written contract is preferable for many reasons, but > it does not necessarily trump an oral contract. > _____ > > > > > > 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 > > > > Can is the key word. Hardly ever does is reality. > > Whatever that means. "Can" (as in "oral agreements can modify") is the key to that sentence. "Can" doesn't mean it does, and in most cases it doesn't. In NY, it "hardly ever does", and I suspect in most jurisdications it is the same. > Sounds like you're conceding the point, anyway. Not likely. > > > 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 > > > > And the convincing evidence is? Especially in this case that started the > > whole thread? > > You're not reading me carefully. Every word. > I have repeatedly said that Bob's chances of winning a claim here are slim. And that is no longer the entire basis of the ongoing thread. > However, I would not say he has no chance of winning a claim here. Would you bet on it? Better odds can be had at O.T.B. > > > 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. > > > > And I never said his contract must be in writing. But in Bob's case, he has > > "hearsay" vs. a written contract. Written wins. > > We do not have all the facts. No, but the discussion has morphed into a discussion of oral vs. written contract law. > BTW, you're using the word "hearsay" incorrectly. How so? "But Judge, he told me...". That is hearsay. Hearsay doesn't always have to be in the 3rd party. When you are testifying to what someone else said, it is hearsay. The (sticky) way around it in a case such as this is "Based on what I was told, I understood it as", but unfortunately that is a half-admission on the part of the person testifying that they might not have understood what was actually told to them. Which might work in a civil case, until the WRITTEN contract that was signed and agreed upon AFTER the oral statements comes into evidence. Let's just say I have a little experience in this area, at least in NY state. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
C wrote > > I have repeatedly said that Bob's chances of winning a claim here are > slim. > > And that is no longer the entire basis of the ongoing thread. You don't get to change the basis of a discussion between you and me without my agreeing. Or you can, and I'll just ignore you. Unfortunately, I googled a few minutes ago, and right now I am concerned Mr. Travis posted a fiction. He can just post back here and explain further, if he wishes. He knows about misc.legal , from previous posts a year old there, some involving insurance. > No, but the discussion has morphed into a discussion of oral vs. written > contract law. > > > BTW, you're using the word "hearsay" incorrectly. > > How so? "But Judge, he told me...". That is hearsay. No, it is not. Look it up. Bob says the guy told him such-and-such. That's allowable testimony (for one), violating no hearsay rule. I'm not going to instruct you on the basics of law here. Believe whatever you want. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
In article <bCUGc.11084$yy1.588@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote: > > In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over > > written. > > (Note: "Oral contract" is the preferred phrase for a contract achieved by > speaking.) absolutely, because in both cases it involves words--which is where the term "verbal" comes from. EVERY contract is "verbal". |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
is this a case where the dealer may win the battle, (the contract is valid),
but lose the war, (poor customer relations and a lack of business that more than offsets the monetary benefit of the contract)? Hugh Graham "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlin k.net> wrote in message news:dDZGc.5371$sD4.3160@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... > > "Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote > > On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline : > > >> >Fraud in the inducement. > > >> > > >> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced > > >> into signing the contract. > > > > > >We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement. > > > > We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business > > and contract law would make this point evident to you. > > I disagree you have a handle on business and contract law, basic or otherwise. > <shrug> > > You're talking like fraud in the inducement does not even exist. > > > I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but > > what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly > > signed the contract. He admits this fact outright. > > People willingly sign papers said to be contracts and that are subsequently > invalidated (on one grounds or another) all the time. > > Willingness to put one's signature to paper hardly fulfills all the requirements > of a legal contract. > > |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:47:48 GMT, Harry Cox <Cox@SomeDomain.com> sayeth:
>I've been listening to the to and fro of this argument and don't >really know who is right, but one thing is clear, you are not a >sincere debater. Your opinions are very black and white. You resort to >personal attack. You shout "you are wrong" without developing a clear >case to convince anyone that this is so. > >Caroline on the other hand has kept a cool head and advanced balanced >and (IMHO) informed points of view. Thank you, Caroline. I'm irritated because Caroline is posting misinformation that could lead the original poster (and others) to believe that the power of a written contract is anything less than absolute unless there are mitigating significant circumstances. That is just not true. From past observations, she is a poster who will always try and "have the last word", and it just bothers me to see someone who posts something as fact, when in reality, they do not have a strong grasp of the topic about which they are debating. My last word on the subject is advice to the original poster. Call an attorney, explain the situation in detail, and be prepared to pay the lawyer their hourly fee for their services. I'll shut up now. -- Chris B. furrier@iglou.com |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:47:48 GMT, Harry Cox <Cox@SomeDomain.com> sayeth: > > >I've been listening to the to and fro of this argument and don't > >really know who is right, but one thing is clear, you are not a > >sincere debater. Your opinions are very black and white. You resort to > >personal attack. You shout "you are wrong" without developing a clear > >case to convince anyone that this is so. > > > >Caroline on the other hand has kept a cool head and advanced balanced > >and (IMHO) informed points of view. Thank you, Caroline. > > I'm irritated because Caroline is posting misinformation that could > lead the original poster (and others) to believe that the power > of a written contract is anything less than absolute unless there > are mitigating significant circumstances. I have repeatedly said as much. If you think fraud by inducement has never occurred, oh well. For the umpteenth time, though, I am not optimistic Bob has such a case. And again, I'm pretty sure "Bob Travis" posted a fiction here at his Usenet playground. |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Caroline wrote: > > "Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote > Caroline wrote > > > 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. > > A contract may be oral or written. > > If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this. > > > The contract most likely also states that any prior verbal agreements are > void. > > When we know this is true, then I'll be happy to discuss this point. > > > 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, > > No it's not. > > > and fraud would require > > intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the > > poster's description admittedly did not occur, > > He admits nothing of the sort. > > > since the customer > > was not coerced into signing. > > Bob claims he was misled into signing. The law does not at all necessarily > accept contracts signed by using deception. Where did you get your law degree? K-Mart?? Once the ink is dry, it's a done deal... -- JT Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4 |
Re: Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?
Caroline wrote: > > "Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote > > On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Caroline : > > >> >Fraud in the inducement. > > >> > > >> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced > > >> into signing the contract. > > > > > >We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement. > > > > We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business > > and contract law would make this point evident to you. > > I disagree you have a handle on business and contract law, basic or otherwise. > <shrug> > > You're talking like fraud in the inducement does not even exist. > You hafta prove it and that ain't easy and most times not practical > > I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but > > what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly > > signed the contract. He admits this fact outright. > > People willingly sign papers said to be contracts and that are subsequently > invalidated (on one grounds or another) all the time. > > Willingness to put one's signature to paper hardly fulfills all the requirements > of a legal contract. -- 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: snip > > You're talking like fraud in the inducement does not even exist. > > > > You hafta prove it and that ain't easy and most times not practical I agree. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:42 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands