Buy A Car and Go To Jail

[Jim Koepke]

This car dealer messed up and now the mistake looks small compared to what they are getting now.

A Virginia man spent four hours in jail after purchasing a Chevrolet Traverse from Priority Chevrolet in Chesapeake, VA. The dealer's sales staff accidentally sold the SUV to Danny Sawyer for $5,600 less than they should have, and when Sawyer refused to sign a new, more expensive contract for the correct amount, the dealership called the local police alleging the buyer had stolen the vehicle. Law enforcement then picked Sawyer up and held him for four hours before getting the situation straight.

Dennis Ellmer, president of Priority Chevrolet, says he owes Sawyer an apology on behalf of the dealership, and had intended to do right by the buyer by letting him have the vehicle at the agreed-upon price. But Sawyer's lawyer says it's a little too late for saying, 'sorry.' The briefly-incarcerated owner has filed two lawsuits against the dealer, accusing the business of malicious prosecution, slander, defamation and abuse of process. All told, the suits seek a total of $2.2 million in damages, plus attorney fees.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/02/chevy-dealer-sells-car-for-wrong-price-apologizes-after-having/?ncid=txtlnkwbauto00000002

jtk

[Stephen Cherry]

That's great- a few of these car dealers are real slime balls. One thing is for sure

NEVER GO TO BUY A CAR BY YOURSELF

[Mike Cozad]

How does a person rationalize $2.2 mil is realistic? While I agree some dealers deserve some punishment, that dollar figure seems way over the top of what is reasonable.. I would think his entire purchase is free for the hardship the situation caused, but that figure seems ridiculous to me.

[Mike Henderson]

I agree that $2.2M is excessive, but most lawyers start high as a negotiating tactic. Justice would seem to require some penalty, however, since the guy was picked up by the police and held against his will for four hours because of a contract dispute, which is a civil matter. The dealership's proper course of action was to file a civil suit against him. A contract can be voided in certain cases where a mistake is involved.

Mike

[David Weaver]

I don't know what VA's laws are, but if there was an error made on the contract that was made in good faith, the law is likely going to be on the dealer's side.

Not good publicity, though.

[Troy Turner]

I'd say unless there's some fine print that says "if we screw up the contract is void" then the dealership screwed then certainly he has a case. As for the figure, even if he gets it, the lawyer will get the majority or it anyway. But it's a lot to do with principle than anything. Dealer should just write off the car and give it to him cause in the end it's going to cost them A LOT more.

[Stephen Cherry]

the law is likely going to be on the dealer's side.

Not good publicity, though.

Maybe true, until they had the guy locked up. Ever heard the tip of the iceberg theory? I've dealt with some of these "people", and I do not put anything past them.

[Ole Anderson]

I would think a certain amount of ambulance chasing attorney mentality is involved here for such a ridiculous amount. Remember the attorney gets 1/3 to 1/2 of the settlement or awarded amount, so he is certainly not a disinterested party.

[Kevin Bourque]

Reading this thread has caused me mental anguish. I'm suing Sawmill Creek, the person who started this thread, and that car dealership.

[David Weaver]

Maybe true, until they had the guy locked up. Ever heard the tip of the iceberg theory? I've dealt with some of these "people", and I do not put anything past them.

Well, we don't really know what the whole story actually was. We have a couple of paragraphs. Given what we've seen in the news lately (and historically), I wouldn't be surprised if the details that were left out made the whole story sound a little bit more reasonable.

Here's a possible alternate scenario:
1) The law is on the dealer's side if a material error is made
2) Dealer calls owner and asks him to re-sign contract or take back old car and void it, informs the buyer of the dealer's rights under law (which party do you think will have a better idea of that, a dealer who sells many cars per day or a buyer who buys one every few years)
3) New buyer uses 4 letter words, says "no, I don't care what the law is, i signed paper and I have the car".
4) Dealer calls police to report situation and police decide that fits description of stolen car
5) Guy threatens to sue and run full page ads, etc
6) Insurance company for car dealer says they'll cover it under E&O rather than deal with the buyer, which is more costly

That's a plausible scenario. I don't trust local news to get the facts right. They can't do it anywhere else, they have no incentive to. They have the most incentive to make the story as ridiculous as possible so you keep tuning in to find out the next part of it.

If the suit for this guy gets dismissed, do you think anyone will ever hear about it?

[Jerome Stanek]

Do you think the dealer would refund his money if they screwed up and charged him $5600 to much.

[David Weaver]

If it's something they thought would get caught on audit, I'd imagine they would. I wonder how many times a buyer would let that go, though.

But hypotheticals don't really matter, what matters is what's legal.

[Ted Calver]

I guess he won't be getting the free inspections for as long as he owns the car:(

[Jerome Stanek]

Are you saying that a contract only applies to the buyer. They filed a false police report and had him arrested. It shows up on his record and he did nothing wrong they wrote the prices not him.

[Bill Edwards(2)]

Are you saying that a contract only applies to the buyer. They filed a false police report and had him arrested. It shows up on his record and he did nothing wrong they wrote the prices not him.

I agree, 4 letter words do not a crime make (except here at SMC):D

[John Coloccia]

"Good Faith" means if you agree on $10,000, and the contract says $5000, we all know it's really $10,000 and you just fix it. If we agree on and negotiate $5000, and then later on you realize that you made a mistake, that's really not the buyer's problem. The concept of good faith is that there is no intentional deception going on, so innocent errors in the contract simply lays out the agreed upon terms so errors in the contract aren't fatal. This doesn't sound like an innocent contract error. It sounds more like they botched up, sold the car too cheaply, and now want to re-negotiate. That's much different than agreeing on a price and then accidentally just keying in the wrong price in the contract.

On the flip side, if the buyer over pays by $5000 because he didn't do his research, he can't then go back and say "I made a mistake....give me $5000 back", and then call the police and say the dealer stole $5000 from him. The whole situation seems to be absurd, and a very large settlement seems very appropriate to me. I wonder if the dealership isn't also in violation of criminal law for reporting the car as stolen.

[David Weaver]

Is there an attorney on here who will have access to case data to entertain us with the ultimate conclusion?

We don't know the nature of the error in the contract. If the buyer found an error in the calculations working up the final price, he certainly could make a claim for the $5000. If he just paid an extra $5000 and there was no error in the contract, then it would be hard for him to prove.

Same thing for the car dealer, if the contract shows $25000 for a car with a $30000 sticker price, then it's pretty clear. If there is a mathematical error in the contract, then it's not. We don't know the details.

Needless to say, rather than have the guy thrown in jail (and even at this point, we don't know the details, it could be as it's stated where the dealer just says "a guy stole a car from my dealer, here's his name and address", or it could be that they have retained counsel that told them it qualifies as a stolen car), it would've been a lot smarter to pay a repo firm a few hundred bucks to go recover the car. Then the guy's "person" isn't involved in what's getting retained in the cooler, just the car.

If I was the dealer, and made a legitimate error that was legally recoverable, then I would probably have called the guy and asked him to come back, that I'd cut him a break, but couldn't go the whole 5K and wasn't legally obligated to, either. I'd also tell him if he wasn't warm to that idea, I'd just have the car repossessed instead.

The devil is usually in the details in a story like this, it seems like a minority of the time that it's just as straight up as it's made out to be.

[Jerome Stanek]

[QUOTE=David Weaver;2004541]Is there an attorney on here who will have access to case data to entertain us with the ultimate conclusion?

We don't know the nature of the error in the contract. If the buyer found an error in the calculations working up the final price, he certainly could make a claim for the $5000. If he just paid an extra $5000 and there was no error in the contract, then it would be hard for him to prove.

Same thing for the car dealer, if the contract shows $25000 for a car with a $30000 sticker price, then it's pretty clear. If there is a mathematical error in the contract, then it's not. We don't know the details.

Needless to say, rather than have the guy thrown in jail (and even at this point, we don't know the details, it could be as it's stated where the dealer just says "a guy stole a car from my dealer, here's his name and address", or it could be that they have retained counsel that told them it qualifies as a stolen car), it would've been a lot smarter to pay a repo firm a few hundred bucks to go recover the car. Then the guy's "person" isn't involved in what's getting retained in the cooler, just the car.

If I was the dealer, and made a legitimate error that was legally recoverable, then I would probably have called the guy and asked him to come back, that I'd cut him a break, but couldn't go the whole 5K and wasn't legally obligated to, either. I'd also tell him if he wasn't warm to that idea, I'd just have the car repossessed instead.

The devil is usually in the details in a story like this, it seems like a minority of the time that it's just as straight up as it's made out to be.[/QUOTE


Wouldn't that mean that the dealer is stealing a car back. I had a truck parked in an alley that a business called to have towed but I had permission from the city to park there. The tow truck driver would not budge until I called a police officer over and pointed out that he was stealing my truck. The cop agreed and said he wasn't allowed to tow with out my permission as it was not on the property of the company that called.

[Jim Koepke]

1) The law is on the dealer's side if a material error is made
2) Dealer calls owner and asks him to re-sign contract or take back old car and void it, informs the buyer of the dealer's rights under law (which party do you think will have a better idea of that, a dealer who sells many cars per day or a buyer who buys one every few years)
3) New buyer uses 4 letter words, says "no, I don't care what the law is, i signed paper and I have the car".
4) Dealer calls police to report situation and police decide that fits description of stolen car

That seems like a doubtful scenario. In such a case the means of settlement would likely be repossession. In such a case, the involvement of the police would most likely be limited to the accompanying the tow truck driver.

If the law is on the dealers side it would likely be a quick summary judgement with repossession papers issued.

Also, consider the lawyer that filed the case against the car dealer. If the dealer had acted within the law, the law suit would be classified as a "frivolous action." It wouldn't be good for the plaintiff's lawyer, unless he was already known for being a shyster.

jtk

[Jerome Stanek]

did both parties sign the contract. When I go to buy a car the contract is gone over by more than one person. Do dealers get a Mulligan on deals if they don't like the outcome.

[John Coloccia]

I actually had a similar thing happen to me, BTW. When I bought my Forester (I bought is used), I knew exactly what is was worth and was prepared to simply make an offer, take it or leave it. They surprised me when he made me an offer first...about $1500 under the number in my head. I took it...duh. They started drawing up the contract and suddenly someone noticed something...woops, they could have gotten more for it. Someone goofed and sold it to me too cheap.

So you know what happened?

"Oh well, I guess you got a GREAT deal instead of a good one today. Enjoy your car, sir."

:D

[Rich Engelhardt]

did both parties sign the contract. When I go to buy a car the contract is gone over by more than one person. Do dealers get a Mulligan on deals if they don't like the outcome.
In Ohio, back when I sold Chevy's, before the buyer was let out the door, we (sales people) had to go to a manager for a "paper check".
If/when everything checked out ok, the manager would sign the agreement where it said:
Authorized (something or other - agent maybe? It's been a long time).
The buyer's signature was already on the agreement and so was mine as the sales person.
The agreement wasn't final though until it had an authorized signature - in other words - a manager or part of the management.

Even then, there could still be some post sale negotiation from either party since the mumbo jumbo wording referred to taking title.
Title transfers typically took 2 days.

While it was very rare, I seem to recall a couple of people coming back after delievery and getting a partial refund.
I do know for a fact that my wife and I renegotiated the price of our 1984 Dodge Charger a day after we'd taken delievery.
I believe it was for around $400 or so.

On the other side - if for some reason or another a customer was undercharged, I don't recall the dealer ever going after them.
That wasn't all that uncommon either.
Somebody would slip up and the cost of decals, rust proofing, paint sealant, dealer installed options, etc would get missed and discovered only after the unit had been rolled.
That would come out of the sales person's commisson.
However - there was a $50.00 minimum commission on each unit delivered.
So, if the salesperson was to get a $200 chit on the deal, and the skipped rustproof was worth $199, they only took out $149.


We did have one case where the same truck was sold and delievered to two different buyers.
That one was - interesting. I have no idea what was worked out there.
Nobody told, and all of us were too afraid to ask.

[David Weaver]

I actually had a similar thing happen to me, BTW. When I bought my Forester (I bought is used), I knew exactly what is was worth and was prepared to simply make an offer, take it or leave it. They surprised me when he made me an offer first...about $1500 under the number in my head. I took it...duh. They started drawing up the contract and suddenly someone noticed something...woops, they could have gotten more for it. Someone goofed and sold it to me too cheap.

So you know what happened?

"Oh well, I guess you got a GREAT deal instead of a good one today. Enjoy your car, sir."

:D

That'll lower the salesman's commission a little! I don't know what the markup is, but I'm guessing you were below dealer cost if they were $1500 below your deal. Good job!

I had the opposite happen to me. A dealer called and told me they'd do a number on trade spread, I went in, two hours later after sitting around they lied outright and the guy who told me the number over the phone (gave me his name, and was hard to mistake due to a huge lisp) said he hadn't talked to me on the phone at all. Gave me a number $3500 higher for trade spread and told me I was lying to them.

I went to a different dealer.

This dealer in the case attached to this may have lost their mind because they panicked, why I really want to know what the result is is due to the disclosure of facts that would happen in the actual filings. My general thought on dealers is they know usually how far they can screw you over if they think you're an easy target, and you're better off just taking your business elsewhere if they do.

[Tom Winship]

I'm filing suit on the government. Had they not bailed out GM, they would not be around for this to happen, therefore, I would not have wasted my time and emotions in reading it.

(Besides they have more money than the dealership, I'm sure. Now if I can get John Keeton to take the case on contingency)

[Jerome Stanek]

I bought a used truck that I test drove about a week before they had 2 on the lot and advertised the one I drove at the other price I went in and bought it for that price and later they called and said they made a mistake and the financing was screwed up and come back to fix it. I said what financing did my check not go through.

[Myk Rian]

When I go to buy a car the contract is gone over by more than one person.
Same here.
Sounds like the dealership had an all-night party, then relied on coffee in the morning.