Good morning everyone
Thank you for your help in sorting out (well, starting to sort out - see below) my Jeep Cherokee ABS problem. I promised I would let you know how things turned out, but they haven't turned out yet, they are still rumbling along, so this is an interim report and a request for some more help.
The details of the original problem can be found by searching this NG for "Jeep Cherokee ABS problem" in January and February this year, but for your convenience here is a summary of what happened.
On 9 September last year I bought a 2001 Jeep Cherokee from Humber Motors Ford of Stephenville, Newfoundland (yes, I am getting so mad about this that I am naming names and pointing fingers this time). I paid $19,540.50 for it and they told me (among other things) that it had ABS fitted. In January this year I noticed while driving on snow covered roads that the ABS didn't seem to be working. On 13 January I took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS was working perfectly. I still didn't think it was working so after a great deal of help from this NG and some time with my head under the hood I realised that there was no ABS fitted. On 3 February I took it back to the dealership again and this time they admitted that it didn't have ABS and said they would see what they could do about it. That's where we left it at the close of the last discussion thread. Now read on...
After many weeks of delay and numerous exchanges of e-mails, letters and telephone calls we have reached an impasse. We have agreed that the vehicle does not have ABS fitted, that it was mis-sold to me and that I am entitled to return it and get a refund. What we are still arguing about is the amount of the refund and specifically the amount to be deducted for usage of the vehicle.
I bought the vehicle on 9 September 2005 for $19,540.50. I returned it to the dealership on 17 March 2006 for an interim payment of $14,020.50 pending agreement on the final amount. The dealership sold it on again a couple of weeks later so the vehicle itself is now out of the picture.
My position on the refund is that I had it for 6 months and I should be entitled to a refund of the purchase price less six months' depreciation. If we assume depreciation of 30% per annum, the buy-back price should be 85% of the purchase price or $16,609.42.
Humber Motors has adopted an alternative method of calculation. They say that they want to calculate it on the basis of a usage charge of $800 per month, or $4,800 over six months, plus tax. This is what I would have paid them if I had leased the vehicle from them. They work this out at $5,520, which when deducted from the purchase price leaves a refund of $14,020.50 (the amount of the interim payment).
As you can see, there is a difference of $2,588.92 between the two methods of calculation. The dealership has since increased its offer by a further $1,619.50 but I have not accepted it because it still leaves me about $1,000 short of what I think I should get, and because as a matter of principle I don't think they should get away with this. They mis-sold me a vehicle, they performed a shoddy inspection in which they failed to identify a completely missing vehicle component, they dragged their feet for weeks before even beginning to negotiate about a refund, and now they want to rip me off $1,000 as well. This was a sale, not a lease, and any refund should be calculated on the same basis. Plus, I have been quite reasonable about the amount I am claiming from them. I have not, for example, claimed for a complete new set of winter tires which I put on the vehicle and left on it when I returned it to them (because they were no further use to me).
So I'd be interested to hear what people here think would be a fair refund, or better still, does anyone know of any reported similar cases or precedents which would indicate how the refund should be calculated?
Peter