Can I get my money back?

If they don't deliver the right car (to your satisfaction) on time they have to refund your deposit!

Al

Reply to
ajtessier
Loading thread data ...

Doesn't apply because the car has not been delivered, it's on order.

Al

Reply to
ajtessier

BULL, he hasn't taken delivery of the car! You may not have a leg to stand on after you take delivery but your talking about a vehicle that's on order. He has the right to look it over and drive it before he accepts it. If for any reason it doesn't please him he should refuse delivery. If there's anything (at all) different from the original order this is also reason to refuse delivery, at which point they would have to refund the deposit. No car is perfect, don't accept delivery unless YOU find it is perfect.

Al

Reply to
ajtessier

When ever you go into a dealer, don't fall into the "what payments do you want" trap. Work out the best price for the car first, then work out financing.

Reply to
L Alpert

BTW, in many states, you have the right to withdraw on the deal within 72 hours.

Reply to
L Alpert

Have you read the contract? I didn't think so. It may very well say he has no right to inspect the car before taking delivery. It probably also says he has no right to sue them and must submit any disagreements to binding arbitration. Unfortunately, those type of ridiculous clauses are often enforced these days by judges because people elect politicians like Bush to federal, state, and local offices and in some cases, judgeships. We live in a very anti-consumer society these days.

Reply to
Art

Virtually all consumer contracts have a three day "cooling off" period which is mandated by federal law. IOW, you can back out of a signed contract. Regarding a "non refundable" deposit, consult an attorney if necessary.

JT

IrieDahta wrote:

Reply to
Grumpy AuContraire

Yes probably so; just looking for loopholes real or created Steve

Reply to
Stephen H

Actually it can and often does constitute fraud. When you use a bank to commit said breach it can (and often is) prosecuted as check fraud. Not looked upon too differently than if you went into a store and bought groceries using a check from an empty account. All a merchant has to do is "dispute" the check and then take that form down to the local court and a bench-warrant will be sworn out on the writer of the check.

Simply stopping a check cause you don't like something is not the proper way to handle it. One should take the other party to small claims (for amounts under your jurisdictions small claims cap. The courts don't look too kindly on those who submit to "self help" rather than using the proper channels.

Reply to
Seth

I know that sounds underhanded, but considering the dealer's tactics it isn't out of line. It also sounds like it has a good chance of working if it goes that far - the snakes wanted to make a quick buck, and if it turns into a big headache for them they will welcome a way out. Being a jerk isn't illegal.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

The difference is that no value has been received. It is more as if you went to the store and asked to have groceries delivered, then refused delivery. Bad checks and checks drawn on closed accounts do constitute fraud because the writer is reasonably expected to know the check is no good, while in the case of stopping payment the writer knows the check was good and is entering a dispute.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

Actually, that subject came up here just a couple days ago. My son-in-law, graduating next month with a BS in criminal justice, says unenforcable clauses in contracts and unenforcable forms like waivers of responsibility are common as dirt and worthless in court. A contract may specify anything but all are subject to prevailing law.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

"Seth" wrote

The courts do however strongly encourage settling disputes outside of them. It's not unusual for a judge to chew two or more parties out for not being 'reasonable' and so wasting the taxpayers' dollar (or billing one or more of the parties for its time!).

Only a tiny fraction (less than 1% IIRC) of cases that reach two or more lawyers actually make it to a courtroom precisely because it is more efficient, and about as fair, to settle outside the courts.

Hopefully the Original Poster will update us. This could be a very instructive lesson for others. I personally am optimistic that a positive outcome for him/her will result, if s/he applies a fair amount of the suggestions here. Maybe it won't be totally smooth sailing, but who among us had every car transaction go perfectly?

Reply to
Elle

Thanks for the clarity.

Reply to
Alan

Unfortunately your son may be wrong. It depends on what state you are in. He might be correct in California and Massachussetts but these riduculous clauses are being enforced against consumers in most states these days. In fact there is a federal law that overrides state laws regarding binding arbitration clauses and forces state judges to enforce them. You can thank the right wing business interests for that.

Reply to
Art

Before you do anything. You could be opening yourself up for a world of trouble if you stop payment on the check. The lawyer making a phone call to the dealership manager for you could do a world of good.

Reply to
grinder

First, send a certified letter stating you were misled and you want a full refund. Do this NOW before another day goes by. By dicking you around, your 72 hours will go by and you are screwed.

Then threaten a lawyer. Ask for whomever is in charge of their legal department so you can have the papers sent to the correct individual.

They won't let it go that far.

G-Man

PS, your dealer stinks!

Reply to
G-Man

Absolutly. But one-sided "self help" is not settling a dispute outside of court.

And by following the "proper" steps it probably never will see a courtroom.

Reply to
Seth

"Seth" wrote

I don't think this does justice to the circumstances or what the OP has indicated s/he is contemplating, re stopping the check.

Reply to
Elle

That is what I make of it. Failure to stop payment actually could be construed as tacit acceptance of the contract, and that won't do. The money, which she (rightly, IMHO) feels she was cheated out of, would probably be gone forever.

Again, the whole thing would be much dicier if the OP had taken possession of the car. There's a good reason they want us to leave the lot in the car!

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.