Consumerist
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.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.
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..
Paul Rolly: Couple's bargain buys extra troubles [Salt Lake Tribune] (Thanks, Chris!)
(Photo:Matt McGee)
Comments
Oops.
The other story on the linked page is just as disturbing and doesn't add up. The guy says only six people bought any tickets, yet turned away 50 people in one day? I wonder if he is being honest about why he wouldn't let them see the advertised movie.
ouch!
ebay Garage! new hybrid, low miles!
@mindshadow: "Opps I did it again, I..."
That sucks though.
@Buran: Only six people bought tickets the movie's first week, so they canceled the showing(s) for the next one. Nothing shady about that.
Oops indeed. At least they'll get good gas mileage on their way to court?
Don't just assume you know the law. Spend 5 minutes doing internet research before you do something this rash!
ummm, nope. i think you should have said "never sign anything. ever."
Let it sit in front of your house with the keys in it. Let it get stolen, blame the company that delivered it, and collect the insurance.
That's why I don't sign anything unless I know I'm going to go through with it.
Well, I was going to be a villain and criticize these people for making the obviously stupid decision of, you know, BUYING TWO CARS, but according to the earlier posting, I should not, under any circumstances, be attacking the poor consumer who was obviously duped into signing what was obviously a contract of sale, without knowing the law.
Yes I too read the post about not attacking the poor consumer, so instead of attacking I will simply point out what seems so obvious to one even as unenlightened as myself - you do not sign paperwork with one dealership and then go shopping elsewhere for the same car - do the pricing research first, because we have all read enough Consumerist posts to know that some car dealers are not always perfectly honest.
@InfiniTrent: Well, you don't need to be a jerk and call them morons. I think the important point is to remind everyone that you should be really careful what you sign, especially if it involves a high-priced purchase, and that something called "Contract of Sale" should be a red flag that you've committed to buying something.
See, that wasn't so hard now, was it?
@FreemanB: And yet, they still advertised it in the paper, so it doesn't make much sense to me.
@InfiniTrent: So instead of just attacking the victim, you'll attack the victim, Consumerist, its articles, and all the posters on it as well. Good plan, Stan.
What part of "motor vehicle contract of sale" sounds "preliminary"?
They didn't call Malone the Mailman for nothing. Consider the dropped off car an assist, I say.
@Buran: Yeah, I read it like FreemanB -- the movie proved to be disasterously unpopular the first week, so that particular showing was canceled. Bad business guessing, but nothing sinister about it. And nice that the manager let them see another flick for free.
Ouch. An expensive lesson that you should not sign anything unless you're certain you're going to buy it.
But, um, well... I'm just a couple of hours north of Salt Lake, and I need a car, so if they'd like to give me one...
i've done this exact thing - you look at a few cars at a few lots and pit the dealers against each other to get a better deal, but to do that you don't have to sign anything.
and even if you do have 3 days to return the car - that's not so you can buy a few different cars and return the one you don't like, it's to protect you if the car is defective, right? in california we have all sorts of fancy consumer protection laws, but i still wouldn't abuse them in this way. seems like an unnecessary hassle.
@InfiniTrent: They didn't DECIDE to buy two cars. They didn't do their research and severely fucked themselves over. This is more of a cautionary tale of what happens when you don't take a few minutes out of your day to research buying a car, or house, or any big purchase.
@Beerad: ""Well, you don't need to be a jerk and call them morons.""
I missed the part of my post where I called them "morons".
How dare Toyota and the dealers! The people should be allowed to keep both cars and get full refunds for both! Forget DeBeers. I'm voting for Toyota for worst company ever.
@nytmare: said "So instead of just attacking the victim, you'll attack the victim, Consumerist, its articles, and all the posters on it as well. Good plan, Stan."
What they did was foolish. They signed the contract of sale.
The idea that the consumer should never be criticized is ridiculous - that was the point of my tongue-in-cheek comment. And in no way was I attacking Consumerist, or any other specific poster, other than the person who sent Consumerist the letter about "attacking the victim".
I wouldn't attack a true victim. In this case, however, these individuals unfortunately victimized themselves. The car dealer did nothing wrong that I can see.
Whoops.
@demonradio: I agree - I didn't take Consumerist posting this story as some sort of claim by the editors of the site that these people were wronged. I took it as you did, as a cautionary tale.
The issue is that some posters will blame the car dealership anyway, when it's obviously the error of the consumers in this case. That's what spurred my (apparently inflammatory) comments.
@demonradio: good phrasing. maybe there should be a "cautionary tale" tag for this kind of thing!
I appreciate that they're at least not going all hysterical and claiming that the dealership told them that they could get out of the contract of sale and then reneged, but this was their mistake. They should just go ahead and pay for the car and get as much for it as they can on resale, and get the lawyers away from the whole thing.
Now whether Utah should have a three-day recission law to protect consumers could be a matter of debate, but yesteryear already pointed out that it's not really for this kind of thing to start with.
How did they actually buy (pay for) the first car? If they were trying to figure out financing for it where did the money come from for the dealer to deliver it?
There's something missing here...
Car salesman are crafty like that. I went in to buy a car with my brother and while I went on a test drive, the salesman was writing up an "estimate" for my brother. When I came back, my brother had pen in hand about to sign something. I stopped him and asked what was going on. The salesman insisted it was price estimate to see if he would qualify. I read it and it said it was a bill of sale and he was buying the car for more than the sticker price. He was lying out of his teeth and we just left the dealership.
I for one would totally dig having 2 Weinermobiles.
Let's see... they signed a contract for sale. Then they were given a car. They didn't have to give any money in order to receive the car. Don't you usually have to pay for something before getting it? Sounds like a free car to me.
@InfiniTrent: Damn the torpedos. What were these people thinking?
They did not actually purchase the car if they did not know they had entered into a contract of sale. Additionally, it would not be a valid contract because in their minds, they had not yet offered consideration.
Furthermore, what kind of dealer delivers a car to someone's house without their consent without receiving payment of some sort?
I hope they at least get the tax break on both cars. That would help soften the blow.
hmm... i'm looking for a prius... wonder if they'll let me take one of them off their hands cheap.
Utah yet again proving why its only happy inhabitants are gila lizards and Republicans.
@Anks329:
Actually, at this point the delivery of money doesn't matter in determining whether a sale has been consumated. The dealer delivered the car because they had a signed contract of sale. Now that the dealer has delivered the car, their end of the contract is complete and they can bill the Girouards for it. Its up to the Girouards to figure out how to pay for it.
An expensive lesson in contract law, indeed.
Karl Mal0wned.
I'm sorry.
The reason they were allowed to take possession before lining up financing was because you don't actually have to pay for the car on the day you buy it. This gives you a chance to do exactly what these folks did, which is line up appropriate financing and get the check to the dealership. You have X number of days to do this (and this is specified on the contract) I expect this is for folks that need a car TODAY, but their bank that they would like to deal with is not open.
If you fail to pay the dealer in the alloted time, they obtain financing for you at an awful rate.
I don't think there was anything shady going on here, just a consumer not understanding what they were signing.
I also think that the dealer's hands are tied here. If the consumer signed a contract of sale, they now own the title. Since the vehicle has been titled, it can no longer be sold as "new". To anybody. No dealer is going to take that loss.
SirWired
yeah i sell cars and i can't tell you how many people have been sued over this (mainly customers). they get buyers remorse and think they know the laws, but most of those types of laws aren't laws anymore. i know in my state their is no lemon law on a used car...anymore.
however, if someone signs all the paperwork but does not take possession of the car, they can still back out of the deal. i'm in the bhph biz so i'm sure it's different once a loan company cuts a check, and therefore puts you on the hook. in my biz, once you drive it off the lot....it IS your baby. sorry if you went home an blue booked it only to find out you got ripped off, that's not a legit reason for a return, especially in the bhph biz.
@Trai_Dep:
Just going out on a limb here, but would you happen to be a Democrat, or at least non-Republican? I only ask because it's not clear from your Republican-bashing in every thread, whether it fits or not.
I would have went inside and got drunk, stinking fall down pass out drunk. Then call the dealer and tell them I'm on painkillers and alcohol. The deal is VOID. Come pick up your fucking car. Have a nice day.
I agree with Carencey that this should be considered a 'Cautionary Tale'. And at the risk of 'blaming' the customer, it sounds like they could have done more to avoid this situation. That being said, maybe this could help:
[dmv.utah.gov]
"When financing a vehicle through a dealership, the financial disclosure section on the purchase agreement must be completely filled out, or the entire contract of sale is null and void."
They need to check their copy of the contract of sale (I hope they have a copy).
@Sam2k: But since the law seeks to put people into contracts, and since they weren't taking possession yet because they were off to secure financing, the argument could be made in court that they did indeed know that they were entering into a contract and that their actions affirmed the contract. I'm not sure that there was no consideration -- it's wholly possible that they haggled on the price before signing the contract.
It's pretty complicated, and I don't know that I would try to fight this on the back end unless I was a contract attorney or had enough money to get a good one.
On the other hand, it can be tricky to learn about the laws regarding contracts in your state (even though ignorance of the law is no excuse and you should always try to know the law, expecting every layman to know it is probably unrealistic).
So, in trying to protect yourself, I would back up everyone on here saying not to sign anything until you are sure you are ready to buy. I wouldn't even count on rescissions, since as I recall they are discretionary (and may be contingent on things like actual defects, like yesteryear said).
@InfiniTrent: Fair enough. You simply snarked about how you apparently weren't supposed to "criticize" or "attack" people for their "obviously stupid decision," but you didn't call them morons.
I was generalizing about what not to do rather than quoting you, but if you're that upset than I apologize.
"Gentles, do not reprehend.
If you pardon, we will mend."
It's "rescission", like "scissor". Yes I work for lawyers.
WTF? I don't care about attacking the customer, she should have done some research first.
If she didn't take the first car with her then I would definitely be on her side but a used car is a used car, and there is no cooling off period in many states. At least in CA the salespeople have little placards that warn you about this.
@SOhp101: She didn't take the first car with her! And what 'used' car are you talking about?