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/c...wbauto00000002

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)