Here’s a scary story from Utah:
When Normand and Kathy Girouard set out to buy a 2007 Toyota Prius hybrid last week, they had no idea they would end up with two.
They first went to Karl Malone Toyota, where they spotted a car they liked and signed what they thought was a preliminary “motor vehicle contract of sale,” but did not yet take possession of the car, saying they wanted to set up their own financing through their credit union.
After they found a better deal at Brent Brown Toyota, they called the Karl Malone dealership and said they decided not to buy the car.
When they got home that evening, however, the car was in their driveway and the keys were in the ignition.
They called to let the dealer know of the “mistake” and were informed they had purchased the car.
They already purchased the other car from Brent Brown and are driving it; the Karl Malone car still sits in their driveway.
Kathy Girouard says she has filed a complaint with the state Consumer Protection Division. But Scott Christensen, Karl Malone Toyota’s sales manager, says he has filed a complaint against the Girouards with the state Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division.
He said when you sign a contract of sale, you have purchased the car. Utah does not have a three-day right-of-recision law..
Don’t just assume you know the law. Spend 5 minutes doing internet research before you do something this rash! Your state’s Department of Consumer Affairs is a good place to start.
Paul Rolly: Couple’s bargain buys extra troubles [Salt Lake Tribune] (Thanks, Chris!)
(Photo:Matt McGee)
More From Consumerist
-
Sprint Sets Nextel Execution Date: June 30, 2013
-
Please Stop Almost Killing People Because You’re Staring At The Awesome Driverless Google Car
-
Don't Assume All Customer Service Reps With Accents Are Overseas
-
When Buying Music From Amazon, It Can Sometimes Be More Expensive To Only Buy Mp3s
-
Should I Be Embarrassed That A Supermarket Cashier Assumed I’m Receiving WIC?
@Pro-Pain:
That is a truly brilliant plan of action, since if it went to court, it would require you to commit perjury by lying under oath that you were indeed drunk and drugged at the time you signed the contract. Add to that that the dealership can surely provide a couple of witnesses testifying that you were coherent and signed of your own volition, and sure, that’s exactly the course of action to take.
After all, why pay for your actions with cash, when you can pay for them with cash and jail time?
Say, was that Morons or Mormons? I’m so confused.
While signing the paperwork to buy my last new car, I took note of the very prominently placed sign in the finance office which stated that there was no “cooling off period” on sales contracts, 72 hours or otherwise.
There was a second sign, with much smaller font, that said that the interest rate was in fact negotiable. I figured they want you to see one, but not the other.
At least the Toyota dealership doesn’t ask to see receipts at the door.
If they can’t legally get out of the contract with the first car they should really consider selling it. The Toyota lot here where I live can’t keep them in stock – quite the hot item.
Don’t know how they left the keys in the ignition, considering the Prius has a push-button starter… So, no keys, and no ignition.
@britne: That does seem odd. I haven’t ever bought a car without the dealer running a credit report and having me sign a loan application or collecting payment ahead of time (prearranged financing). This is NOT a blame-the-victim or blame-the-dealer post at all; it’s just a “that’s strange” post.
I also believe they should try to sell it immediately. I’d run ads for it in markets where dealers can’t keep them in stock. Chances are you can find someone who will take it off your hands for the payoff amount. The only downside is that it is technically used so the warranty may be shortened (I don’t know if Toyota does that).
@Sam2k: Their consideration was the promise to buy the car. That’s all that is needed for a valid contract.
In most places (I can speak for Massachusetts at least) the law presumes that a person who signs a document knew and understood its terms.
Even smart people make bonehead moves now and then. I can’t determine whether that’s what happened here, or if the buyers were being a little too cute for their own good.
I find it extremely funny that this post is now located just a few posts below the post of the couple who did not know the law in their state with respect to the right of recision.
I have not really seen an attack the buyer mentality here but I honestly only read about 25% of the posts (I only read the ones I think I will find interesting).
My problem is when several readers defend an alleged victim but the issue is not really one of the ‘victim’ being morally wronged but rather the ‘victim’ did not know the law and all the posters here who have little understanding of the law swoop in to defend the ‘victim’ who themselves have little clue as to how the law opperates. Maybe you see it as attacking the victim but many times, it is correcting other posters who know little if anything about the law. This is especially prevelant with respect to intellectual property law. I am not even going to say copyright because so many people here cannot distinguish between copyright and trademark rules I hesitate to be so specific.
My point being that though it may look like an attack on the ‘victim’ it is not always so. Sometimes it is simply to try and correct people’s incorrect understanding of the law. In short, stop defending copyright violators with the magic words Fair Use when you have no clue how to actually apply the doctrine.
“>http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t64/chickiepea86/fail.jpg=”">
Whether they legally bought it or not, the people running that dealership are a bunch of fucking douchebags. I could understand if they’d driven the car off the lot, but they didn’t. They never took possession. Even if the dealership has the legal right to leave it in their driveway and bill them for it, they have the moral and ethical obligation to be decent about it. The car didn’t lose a penny of it’s value, it can still be resold as new, etc.
That dealership is just scummy. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find they lied about the papers the couple were signing. “Oh yeah, this will just hold the car for a few days, you’re under no obligation here.” Con artist car salesmen pull this shit all the time.
I’m sorry, but that dealership iw working hard to screw these people over. They didn’t ‘deliver’ the car, they dropped it off and ran, leaving it in a state where it could have easily have been stolen. And they only did it as soon as the purchasers tried to back out. Granted the Girouards are the owners of the car given they didn’t read what they signed and they probably have little to no recourse, but that first dealership STINKS.
Not knowing more (what was in that contract, did the dealership truly represent the signing as preliminary, etc..etc.., all things that could affect the validity of the contract) it’s hard to know how it happened.
But a couple things jump out, why in the world did the dealership force the car on them? Toyota Prius are not exactly sitting on lots. Now, they get bad PR, pissed off “customers” and some dubious prospect of recovering their money (even if they repo the car, they can’t sell it as new). Any decent human would have weighted the outcomes and would have realized that the best course of action was to just keep the car since no money was exchanged or financing arranged.
Also, the buyers claim to have called. Where they, at the time, informed that the sale was indeed completed or did the dealer decide to punish them for buying from a competitor?
I would be very surprised if the contract does not contain a contingency for failure to obtain financing (which is usually not in favor of the buyer but there to protect the dealer and/or enable them to pull a good old spot delivery scam)
Now that I think of it, it does sound like a spot delivery scam pushed too far.
Egads, what kind of idiot would sign multiple pieces of paper at a car dealership without having the financing already lined up and, more importantly, without reading it and fully understanding it?!?
Hey Consumerist: Enough of these “waah waah, I was an idiot and now I have to face the consequences” stories, eh?
Man, they really got screwed. Not only did they end up with the 2 cars, but since they didn’t actually work out the financing, they most likely got stuck with the dealer’s lender, and with no down payment, a ridiculously high rate.
Sounds like a shifty salesman is hiding somewhere in this story.
“… they … signed what they thought was a preliminary “motor vehicle contract of sale,” but did not yet take possession of the car…”
What does it mean “they thought?” Are they going to ask the gubberment to pay for their car because they were too stupid, too ignorant, too excited, too naive, too anxious to read the piece of paper in front of them? Don’t they know that car salesmen are scum and anything they say belongs in a bathroom?
The gubberment isn’t letting people or institutions fail anymore and using taxpayer money to bail them out.
I think there are valid comments here about whether the dealership has a moral obligation to undo the sale. That said, agreements have to mean something. The customers seem to have taken a willy nilly attitude to the binding nature of contracts and now want to be set free. In my opinion, a just result would be for the dealership to agree to rescind the contract in return for a payment of $500 or $1000 dollars — something to reflect that the dealership was constrained from selling the car to another purchaser while the initial contract was in force.
Man. I got handed a stack of paperwork to sign in order to test drive a vehicle. Spent 30+ mins going through it, and it seemed to include an “agreement to purchase” I couldn’t figure it out, and so told the sleaze ball to fuck himself and drove off.
I have actually bought a car from Karl Malone Toyota. A new 1996 Dodge Neon. I thought they were very professional. I moved from the state since then however. After hearing the Mormoms tell me “If you dont like our ways, move” a million times, I finally took them up on their offer. Utah is a hell hole if your not “one of them”. 50% non Mormon population, yet the legislature is 97% Mormon. Its like having a religious babysitter watching your back 24 7. I sure dont miss the 15 kids every family has either. Its strange going into a restaraunt and seeing 8 adults but 45 kids running around!
I think the controversy comes down to the following question: Were the Girouards misled into signing the contract? From the article, it’s hard to tell. Let’s not be too hasty in damning either party.
To everyone who jumps on the dealership’s side: if this contract was misrepresented, should the Girouards be at fault?
IF the dealer did misrepresent the paperwork, these people have a good case to not pay for the car (although selling it and trying to lose no money is an option).
Just tow it back to the dealer (so you can say you never even drove it) and never pay for it. After all, they didn’t sign a credit agreement, (can’t go on their credit rating I’d say) and they did ‘cancel’ before delivery. When dealer sues them for payment they countersue for fraud by deception and make a big stink. Picket the dealership if they have time, dealer will back down. Like people say, it’s not like these models are sitting on the lots.
Any claims that it’s a ‘used’ car now are not their problem.
@Mr_D:
“From the article, it’s hard to tell. Let’s not be too hasty in damning either party.” Probably the best thing posted so far, and should be posted in nearly every story on this site.
As to your question: If the contract was misrepresented, they may have a case to back out of it, but I still think that if you are going to sign something, read it and make sure you understand what it is.
(not aimed at Mr_D:)
I’m not saying the dealership is definitely right and they are wrong, but I think it’s ridiculous to automatically say, just because this couple was the consumer and this site is the consumerist, that they are right and the dealership is evil, deceitful, satan incarnate, or any of the other things posted in this thread. The couple says they called to cancel delivery. Maybe the car was already delivered at that point. We just don’t have all the facts. From the facts we do have, though, this looks like an example of ‘bad consumer’, for them not doing better research and being better prepared.
I’ve been to this Toyota Dealership and their customer service is really poor. In fact, all of the Larry Miller owned or founded dealerships have a bad reputation here in Utah. Ironic since that’s how he amassed his fortune.
Maybe they could just appeal to John Stockton? (Come on, people, how many comments and I’m the first to make this crack?)
Am I the only person wondering how/why the car was left in their driveway with the keys in the ignition? Is that standard practice in car sales? Sounds like an opening for car theft to me.
IIRC the law in CA is that the car is not really yours until you “TAKE [PHYSICAL] DELIVERY”.
@BugMeNot2: I’m a native Californian, where (for the most part) anti-consumerist and anti-environmental stuff like this is smacked down hard, and has been, for the most part, since before I was born.
Who’s agog that the fine citizens of the Red States don’t wise up and demand that their local governments look out for them. Utah’s lack of a cooling-off period being today’s case in point.
Got nothing to lose but your shackles, people!
Err, I guess CA is the same as far as no cooling-off.
(shrug) Buying a new car is a sucker’s game, not my area of expertise. Stand by our local gov’t being more consumer- and environmental-friendly than Red States, tho.
it kills me that the only reason they probably didn’t want the first one they bought because they found one cheaper. someone needs to tell them to shop around before you sign, instead of the other way around. that’s why things like this happen. they brought it on themselves and are not claiming stupidity as their excuse for not holding upto their obligation. i see no other reason to buy the same car they already bought unless they found on cheaper. and for that matter it was probably the second dealership that told them there was a three day law (purposely lying) in order to get a sale. are you asking me to believe they never told the second dealership they just bought one exactly like this just moments ago? the second dealer is just as much of scum.
btw, i bet they pulled their credit. most new car dealers have crappy finance companies they know they can finance you through, and in all the paper work they signed i bet they signed one giving permission for them to pull their credit.
@zorville:
@InfiniTrent:
THE OP BLAMES THE VICTIM, BECAUSE IT WAS THE VICTIM’S FAULT. You don’t have to do they “WELL GORSH I CANT ATTACK THE CONSUMER SO I’LL JUST GO OVER HERE AND ATTACK THE CONSUMER WHILE PRETENDING I’M NOT” dance, because the whole point of this post is that the consumer did something stupid, and is now serving as an example.
When we were getting our FJ Cruiser, we had driven to Phoenix 3 hours away, since all of our local dealers mark new cars up $3000-5000 betting you won’t.
We went to one, did all the paperwork for the special order, gave them the deposit check, then the salesman launches into how he thought we shouldn’t list as many options on the ‘unwanted’ side of the preference sheet, since it would take much longer and it was unlikely that Toyota would be sending any with the options we wanted. (We were going pretty bare bones, since we really wanted the car, but it was at the high end of what we could afford, and the jerk kept crossing stuff off the sheet that we signed before the check was written, then scribbling it back in)
We said we’d take our chances, and left, with a gut feeling that in a couple months, we’d get a call that ‘our’ FJ was in, but had a couple thou of extra options. On a whim, my wife called another dealer, whose sales manager confirmed our suspicions that Toyota was building them to exact preferences, so we called the first place back, got our deposit back, and ordered one from the second place since they were more honest to us. (And in the end, the best dealer I’ve ever dealt with, Avondale Toyota by the way).
Four months later, not a week after driving home our FJ from Avondale, I come home to a message on the machine from the first place, letting us know that our FJ was in. Apparently the salesman or sales manager had left the order in the system, hoping it’d beat another dealer’s if we tried what we did.
@redheadedstepchild: Geez, where do you people buy cars? I’ve never had to sign a single scrap of paper to take a test drive, it’s just “I wanna take out the 6spd V8″ or whatever and off we go. Sometimes they’ll want to make a copy of my DL, I Just Say No – you can check to see I have one, no problem, but you aint photocopying it. Don’t worry, I have perfect credit, now you wanna set up a test drive and try to sell me a car or not?
re: Bugmenot2′s comment:
That is a truly brilliant plan of action, since if it went to court, it would require you to commit perjury by lying under oath that you were indeed drunk and drugged at the time you signed the contract. Add to that that the dealership can surely provide a couple of witnesses testifying that you were coherent and signed of your own volition, and sure, that’s exactly the course of action to take.
After all, why pay for your actions with cash, when you can pay for them with cash and jail time?
Hhhm. Did Bill Clinton get any jail time for HIS perjury???
“When they got home that evening, however, the car was in their driveway and the keys were in the ignition.”
Um, where do you put the key in here: [www.hybridexperience.ca]
@aaron8301:
In the slot labeled #2, smart-ass [blogue.canoe-inc.com]
that is what you get for purchasing a prius.
burn!
@picshereplz: “What part of “motor vehicle contract of sale” sounds “preliminary”?”
The part where they had never signed a contract to purchase something before and had also yet to give the dealer any money.
Are there people in the world who sign stuff without understanding what they read? Yes. Are there slimy douche bag car salesman out there? Yes. When the two mix, there is sometimes a winner that emerges out of the deal and it’s usually the 2nd buyer of the vehicle.
Case in point, my sister bought a used 2007 Toyota Sienna last year with only 426 miles on it. The original purchaser bought it new from a dealer in Show Low AZ. They kept it for a few weeks, enough to run one tank of gas through it and then traded it back in to the dealership. Why? It would not fit in their garage! They were forced to buy a smaller vehicle because they didn’t even measure it. OOPS comes in all shapes and sizes.
Well, they ate the depreciation on it as soon as it left the dealer’s lot and my sister bought it used from the dealer $3000 cheaper than a “new” one. For all intents and purposes, it’s new but technically and legally, it’s used.
As a rule of thumb, once a car leaves the dealer’s lot and a transfer of title is recorded with the DMV, it’s considered used and it depreciates, there is a definite loss in value.
Even if the dealer takes the car back with only a few miles on it, the odds are that he’ll want to re-coup that depreciation from the Girouard’s if the title transfer was recorded.
Even if the contract is dissolved, they’ll probably still owe a few thousand.
@zumdish
The reason dealers ask for driver’s licenses before allowing you to take test drives is two-fold. First, (at the dealerships I worked at) they did not allow a customer to take the car without having a salesperson present in the car for the test drive. Being a female salesperson, I know that I wanted the dealership to know who I got into the car with in case something happened to me. This is a *safety* issue, and has nothing to do with your credit.
Second, if the dealership allows you to test drive the vehicle without a salesperson present, they need to know who you are and where to find you should you not return with the car.
This story is a bummer for the couple, but I couldn’t help but think….
“Remember when you had to wait months to get a Prius?”