Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
Hey there, welcome back!
At the very least I would think you are due the difference in the retail
amounts of vehicle's value. ie. $19.5k you paid minus the retail value at
the time it was turned in (selling price to the new family)
Your offer of 30% depreciation is not reasonable to you as the vehicle value
would not have dropped that much.
Their offer is outrageous..... no one would lease a 4 year old Jeep for
$800 a month.
That being said...... what is your bride driving now?
..
"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
>
At the very least I would think you are due the difference in the retail
amounts of vehicle's value. ie. $19.5k you paid minus the retail value at
the time it was turned in (selling price to the new family)
Your offer of 30% depreciation is not reasonable to you as the vehicle value
would not have dropped that much.
Their offer is outrageous..... no one would lease a 4 year old Jeep for
$800 a month.
That being said...... what is your bride driving now?
..
"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
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
Hey there, welcome back!
At the very least I would think you are due the difference in the retail
amounts of vehicle's value. ie. $19.5k you paid minus the retail value at
the time it was turned in (selling price to the new family)
Your offer of 30% depreciation is not reasonable to you as the vehicle value
would not have dropped that much.
Their offer is outrageous..... no one would lease a 4 year old Jeep for
$800 a month.
That being said...... what is your bride driving now?
..
"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
>
At the very least I would think you are due the difference in the retail
amounts of vehicle's value. ie. $19.5k you paid minus the retail value at
the time it was turned in (selling price to the new family)
Your offer of 30% depreciation is not reasonable to you as the vehicle value
would not have dropped that much.
Their offer is outrageous..... no one would lease a 4 year old Jeep for
$800 a month.
That being said...... what is your bride driving now?
..
"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
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
Hey there, welcome back!
At the very least I would think you are due the difference in the retail
amounts of vehicle's value. ie. $19.5k you paid minus the retail value at
the time it was turned in (selling price to the new family)
Your offer of 30% depreciation is not reasonable to you as the vehicle value
would not have dropped that much.
Their offer is outrageous..... no one would lease a 4 year old Jeep for
$800 a month.
That being said...... what is your bride driving now?
..
"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
>
At the very least I would think you are due the difference in the retail
amounts of vehicle's value. ie. $19.5k you paid minus the retail value at
the time it was turned in (selling price to the new family)
Your offer of 30% depreciation is not reasonable to you as the vehicle value
would not have dropped that much.
Their offer is outrageous..... no one would lease a 4 year old Jeep for
$800 a month.
That being said...... what is your bride driving now?
..
"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
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
plain and simple they misrepresented the sale and the product you got
don't move a inch and threaten to go public such as the news and papers
they love that
and vocal with a firm voice in the showroom in front of other customers
sometimes help
Peter wrote:
> 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
don't move a inch and threaten to go public such as the news and papers
they love that
and vocal with a firm voice in the showroom in front of other customers
sometimes help
Peter wrote:
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
plain and simple they misrepresented the sale and the product you got
don't move a inch and threaten to go public such as the news and papers
they love that
and vocal with a firm voice in the showroom in front of other customers
sometimes help
Peter wrote:
> 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
don't move a inch and threaten to go public such as the news and papers
they love that
and vocal with a firm voice in the showroom in front of other customers
sometimes help
Peter wrote:
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
plain and simple they misrepresented the sale and the product you got
don't move a inch and threaten to go public such as the news and papers
they love that
and vocal with a firm voice in the showroom in front of other customers
sometimes help
Peter wrote:
> 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
don't move a inch and threaten to go public such as the news and papers
they love that
and vocal with a firm voice in the showroom in front of other customers
sometimes help
Peter wrote:
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
....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...!
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...!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
....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...!
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...!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel
....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...!
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...!