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.

 

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.

 

"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150710397.099062.171940@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> 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.
>

Which obviously is moot here. Yes, you do have to do these things when
buying from a dealership, if it's a used car.

> 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.
>
Your impatience cost you a lot. You could have cancelled the insurance or at
least told your insurance company what was going on and that you werent'
driving it. The depreciation was moot, you got paid a fraction of what you
were entitled to.

Bottom line, you pretty much made the bed you have to sleep in.

 

"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150710397.099062.171940@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> 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.
>

Which obviously is moot here. Yes, you do have to do these things when
buying from a dealership, if it's a used car.

> 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.
>
Your impatience cost you a lot. You could have cancelled the insurance or at
least told your insurance company what was going on and that you werent'
driving it. The depreciation was moot, you got paid a fraction of what you
were entitled to.

Bottom line, you pretty much made the bed you have to sleep in.

 

"Peter" <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150710397.099062.171940@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> 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.
>

Which obviously is moot here. Yes, you do have to do these things when
buying from a dealership, if it's a used car.

> 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.
>
Your impatience cost you a lot. You could have cancelled the insurance or at
least told your insurance company what was going on and that you werent'
driving it. The depreciation was moot, you got paid a fraction of what you
were entitled to.

Bottom line, you pretty much made the bed you have to sleep in.

 

If you have explained your position to the dealership, or attempted to, and
they won't budge (or you won't), then your next recourse is the court
system. You are alleging fraud here, and a judge should take that into
account when calculating any amount you are due. Another method of
calculation I could suggest is the amount for which the dealer sold the
vehicle, minus the payment of $14,020.50. This, your depreciation
calculation, and the dealer's "lease" calculation, are all basically
something pulled out of a hat. A judge can tell you what is fair, or what
according to Anglo-Saxon common law and tradition is thought to be fair. (I
assume that Newfoundland has some variant of Anglo-Saxon common law.)

In Colorado we have something called "Small Claims Court", where a county
court judge hears cases like this and gives his opinion. There is a minimal
filing fee, no lawyers, and the right to appeal to district court if one
doesn't like the judgment. Parties state their case, show their evidence,
and the judge makes his finding, based on his experience of dispute
resolution and his judgment of the facts. I don't know the court rules in
Newfoundland (although I do know one or two "Newfie" jokes) and my one
reservation is that the amount claimed may exceed county court jurisdiction.
See your local county court clerk's office for details. They can't give you
legal advice, but they should have brochures, forms and all the information
you would need to file, if that is what you want to do. It wouldn't hurt to
consult a lawyer, but get one with expertise in this area.

You are entitled to some consideration for having been deceived. "On 13
January I took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS
was working perfectly.", even though the vehicle didn't have ABS! This is
shocking behavior from a dealer to a naïve customer. Their lying to you
increased the amount of inconvenience you experienced, and may increase the
amount of damages you can claim. This and other instances of stalling and
foot-dragging may invalidate the "lease payments" they say they are owed, or
your depreciation calculation. A judge may decide, that you actually tried
to return the vehicle on numerous occasions, and were tricked into not doing
so. You may be underestimating the amount of consideration you are due in
this regard.

I see nothing wrong with your use of the business' name in this context.
Publicly registered and licensed businesses receive a benefit from whatever
good reputation they have with the public. They put this at risk with every
sale and interaction, especially when they behave badly. You didn't sign
any confidentiality agreement when you bought the car, now did you?

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

 

If you have explained your position to the dealership, or attempted to, and
they won't budge (or you won't), then your next recourse is the court
system. You are alleging fraud here, and a judge should take that into
account when calculating any amount you are due. Another method of
calculation I could suggest is the amount for which the dealer sold the
vehicle, minus the payment of $14,020.50. This, your depreciation
calculation, and the dealer's "lease" calculation, are all basically
something pulled out of a hat. A judge can tell you what is fair, or what
according to Anglo-Saxon common law and tradition is thought to be fair. (I
assume that Newfoundland has some variant of Anglo-Saxon common law.)

In Colorado we have something called "Small Claims Court", where a county
court judge hears cases like this and gives his opinion. There is a minimal
filing fee, no lawyers, and the right to appeal to district court if one
doesn't like the judgment. Parties state their case, show their evidence,
and the judge makes his finding, based on his experience of dispute
resolution and his judgment of the facts. I don't know the court rules in
Newfoundland (although I do know one or two "Newfie" jokes) and my one
reservation is that the amount claimed may exceed county court jurisdiction.
See your local county court clerk's office for details. They can't give you
legal advice, but they should have brochures, forms and all the information
you would need to file, if that is what you want to do. It wouldn't hurt to
consult a lawyer, but get one with expertise in this area.

You are entitled to some consideration for having been deceived. "On 13
January I took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS
was working perfectly.", even though the vehicle didn't have ABS! This is
shocking behavior from a dealer to a naïve customer. Their lying to you
increased the amount of inconvenience you experienced, and may increase the
amount of damages you can claim. This and other instances of stalling and
foot-dragging may invalidate the "lease payments" they say they are owed, or
your depreciation calculation. A judge may decide, that you actually tried
to return the vehicle on numerous occasions, and were tricked into not doing
so. You may be underestimating the amount of consideration you are due in
this regard.

I see nothing wrong with your use of the business' name in this context.
Publicly registered and licensed businesses receive a benefit from whatever
good reputation they have with the public. They put this at risk with every
sale and interaction, especially when they behave badly. You didn't sign
any confidentiality agreement when you bought the car, now did you?

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

 

If you have explained your position to the dealership, or attempted to, and
they won't budge (or you won't), then your next recourse is the court
system. You are alleging fraud here, and a judge should take that into
account when calculating any amount you are due. Another method of
calculation I could suggest is the amount for which the dealer sold the
vehicle, minus the payment of $14,020.50. This, your depreciation
calculation, and the dealer's "lease" calculation, are all basically
something pulled out of a hat. A judge can tell you what is fair, or what
according to Anglo-Saxon common law and tradition is thought to be fair. (I
assume that Newfoundland has some variant of Anglo-Saxon common law.)

In Colorado we have something called "Small Claims Court", where a county
court judge hears cases like this and gives his opinion. There is a minimal
filing fee, no lawyers, and the right to appeal to district court if one
doesn't like the judgment. Parties state their case, show their evidence,
and the judge makes his finding, based on his experience of dispute
resolution and his judgment of the facts. I don't know the court rules in
Newfoundland (although I do know one or two "Newfie" jokes) and my one
reservation is that the amount claimed may exceed county court jurisdiction.
See your local county court clerk's office for details. They can't give you
legal advice, but they should have brochures, forms and all the information
you would need to file, if that is what you want to do. It wouldn't hurt to
consult a lawyer, but get one with expertise in this area.

You are entitled to some consideration for having been deceived. "On 13
January I took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS
was working perfectly.", even though the vehicle didn't have ABS! This is
shocking behavior from a dealer to a naïve customer. Their lying to you
increased the amount of inconvenience you experienced, and may increase the
amount of damages you can claim. This and other instances of stalling and
foot-dragging may invalidate the "lease payments" they say they are owed, or
your depreciation calculation. A judge may decide, that you actually tried
to return the vehicle on numerous occasions, and were tricked into not doing
so. You may be underestimating the amount of consideration you are due in
this regard.

I see nothing wrong with your use of the business' name in this context.
Publicly registered and licensed businesses receive a benefit from whatever
good reputation they have with the public. They put this at risk with every
sale and interaction, especially when they behave badly. You didn't sign
any confidentiality agreement when you bought the car, now did you?

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

 

In article <1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
Peter <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote:
#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).

Take a Kelly Blue Book and figure out the value for it when you bought
it and when you sold it. The difference (either the actual sum or the
percentage) is what they should subtract.

/herb

 

In article <1150628506.183124.7750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
Peter <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote:
#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).

Take a Kelly Blue Book and figure out the value for it when you bought
it and when you sold it. The difference (either the actual sum or the
percentage) is what they should subtract.

/herb