That's probably more befitting your position anyway even though it is a GM
product.

Take good care of the sprouts!


"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150641398.640992.171600@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> ...the bride is now driving a 2006 Honda Odyssey minivan (very suitable
> for 3 small kids), thank you for asking, and I am now driving the
> bride's old vehicle which is a 2002 Cadillac Escalade (very comfortable
> but she found the high lift too much when hauling the kids into their
> car seats).. So as I am no longer a Jeep owner I guess I'm kind of
> disqualified from posting in this NG...!
>

 

That's probably more befitting your position anyway even though it is a GM
product.

Take good care of the sprouts!


"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150641398.640992.171600@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> ...the bride is now driving a 2006 Honda Odyssey minivan (very suitable
> for 3 small kids), thank you for asking, and I am now driving the
> bride's old vehicle which is a 2002 Cadillac Escalade (very comfortable
> but she found the high lift too much when hauling the kids into their
> car seats).. So as I am no longer a Jeep owner I guess I'm kind of
> disqualified from posting in this NG...!
>

 

That's probably more befitting your position anyway even though it is a GM
product.

Take good care of the sprouts!


"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150641398.640992.171600@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> ...the bride is now driving a 2006 Honda Odyssey minivan (very suitable
> for 3 small kids), thank you for asking, and I am now driving the
> bride's old vehicle which is a 2002 Cadillac Escalade (very comfortable
> but she found the high lift too much when hauling the kids into their
> car seats).. So as I am no longer a Jeep owner I guess I'm kind of
> disqualified from posting in this NG...!
>

 

You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
such, but you are talking about years to get relief.

My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
reputations.

Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.

PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
to remember it...

"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> Good morning everyone

> 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
>

 

You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
such, but you are talking about years to get relief.

My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
reputations.

Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.

PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
to remember it...

"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> Good morning everyone

> 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
>

 

You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
such, but you are talking about years to get relief.

My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
reputations.

Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.

PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
to remember it...

"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> Good morning everyone

> 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
>

 

I'm having a hard time as well feeling any real concern.
Getting rid of a perfectly good vehicle just due to a mistaken
impression it had ABS sounds a bit harsh. Driving it around for
depreciation and then selling it back again sounds like more wishful
thinking.

The salesmen probably had no clue whatever if the vehicle had ABS, they
rarely know if there are wheels under a vehicle. If that was a big deal
for the sale and the buyer didn't ask for an explicit check or have a
mechanic check [as in a mechanic familiar with the brand and with ABS]
then sounds like someone pretty much failed 100% to do their own
homework and has a bit of an issue with the concept of responsibility.

Just possibly, if the sales order for the vehicle stated it had ABS,
that could be used to void the sale, but very likely not after having
driven it so long. Whether an explicit statement that the vehicle had
ABS would override the common "AS IS" provision on used vehicles is
something only a lawyer familiar with that state law could answer.

And it is trivial to find out if any vehicle for which a VIN is
available had ABS. As would looking in the owners manual for startup
sequences.

Wonder if part of that dealer's buyout included a recommendation to a
competitor? Some folks you just don't need as customers.

Matt Macchiarolo proclaimed:
> You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
> the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
> you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
> aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
> sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
> There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
> such, but you are talking about years to get relief.
>
> My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
> and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
> after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
> reputations.
>
> Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.
>
> PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
> back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
> to remember it...
>
> "Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
>
>>Good morning everyone
>
>
>>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
>>
>
>
>

 

I'm having a hard time as well feeling any real concern.
Getting rid of a perfectly good vehicle just due to a mistaken
impression it had ABS sounds a bit harsh. Driving it around for
depreciation and then selling it back again sounds like more wishful
thinking.

The salesmen probably had no clue whatever if the vehicle had ABS, they
rarely know if there are wheels under a vehicle. If that was a big deal
for the sale and the buyer didn't ask for an explicit check or have a
mechanic check [as in a mechanic familiar with the brand and with ABS]
then sounds like someone pretty much failed 100% to do their own
homework and has a bit of an issue with the concept of responsibility.

Just possibly, if the sales order for the vehicle stated it had ABS,
that could be used to void the sale, but very likely not after having
driven it so long. Whether an explicit statement that the vehicle had
ABS would override the common "AS IS" provision on used vehicles is
something only a lawyer familiar with that state law could answer.

And it is trivial to find out if any vehicle for which a VIN is
available had ABS. As would looking in the owners manual for startup
sequences.

Wonder if part of that dealer's buyout included a recommendation to a
competitor? Some folks you just don't need as customers.

Matt Macchiarolo proclaimed:
> You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
> the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
> you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
> aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
> sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
> There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
> such, but you are talking about years to get relief.
>
> My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
> and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
> after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
> reputations.
>
> Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.
>
> PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
> back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
> to remember it...
>
> "Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
>
>>Good morning everyone
>
>
>>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
>>
>
>
>

 

I'm having a hard time as well feeling any real concern.
Getting rid of a perfectly good vehicle just due to a mistaken
impression it had ABS sounds a bit harsh. Driving it around for
depreciation and then selling it back again sounds like more wishful
thinking.

The salesmen probably had no clue whatever if the vehicle had ABS, they
rarely know if there are wheels under a vehicle. If that was a big deal
for the sale and the buyer didn't ask for an explicit check or have a
mechanic check [as in a mechanic familiar with the brand and with ABS]
then sounds like someone pretty much failed 100% to do their own
homework and has a bit of an issue with the concept of responsibility.

Just possibly, if the sales order for the vehicle stated it had ABS,
that could be used to void the sale, but very likely not after having
driven it so long. Whether an explicit statement that the vehicle had
ABS would override the common "AS IS" provision on used vehicles is
something only a lawyer familiar with that state law could answer.

And it is trivial to find out if any vehicle for which a VIN is
available had ABS. As would looking in the owners manual for startup
sequences.

Wonder if part of that dealer's buyout included a recommendation to a
competitor? Some folks you just don't need as customers.

Matt Macchiarolo proclaimed:
> You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
> the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
> you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
> aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
> sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
> There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
> such, but you are talking about years to get relief.
>
> My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
> and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
> after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
> reputations.
>
> Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.
>
> PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
> back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
> to remember it...
>
> "Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
>
>>Good morning everyone
>
>
>>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
>>
>
>
>

 

Well hang on, this is a bit harsh isn't it? Could I point out FYI
three points:

1. One reason to buy a vehicle from a dealer as opposed to a private
sale is because it comes with warranties etc. and you can take it back
if it goes wrong or if it's not up to spec. If I was buying from a
private buyer I would have had an independent inspection done, checked
the vehicle's history etc. etc but you don't expect to have to do these
things when buying from a dealership - especially a major dealership
with four branches and a major manufacturer's franchise as is the case
here.

2. Having ABS is maybe not so important if you live in Texas or
Florida, but if you've never visited Newfoundland in the winter, I can
assure you that it's a tad more important here.

3. Having found out that the vehicle wasn't to spec and wasn't
suitable, I had to get it off my hands pronto. Otherwise I would be
stuck with paying insurance on a vehicle I wasn't using, and having a
rapidly deteriorating and depreciating asset. Hence the buy back and
the interim payment.