Apparently he was given the choice but refused, and used the original car as leverage to back out of the deal. If it is as she says she will win the case in the D T. He hasn't honoured the CGA. The only conflict will be if the original car was part of the deal, but she tells us it's not, so we can only take her word for it.
thunderbolt,
Jan 13, 11:51pm
Is this in response to any post in particular?
billyfieldman,
Jan 14, 12:31am
The intention was for the 4WD to be a trade in.
kazbanz,
Jan 14, 12:33am
SOOOO--how many cases have you put to the MVDT? You do know that a DT case would be refered to the MVDT don't you? You do know that one piece of evidence required will be the paper trail 1) Purchase agreement for your old vehicle 2) VOSA for the new car 3) bank statements from you and the dealer showing both transactions. How do you intend to prove that the transactions were totally separate and not part of the same deal? Keeping in mind that the dealer will be asked to sort the matter and will reiterate that he offered to return your trade in and refund your $2000 he will reiterate that the offer stands. You will go to court with all your receipts etc--once you get a court date and the dealer will stand up in court pull out the bank statements/paper trail and the offer made via the MVDT to refund your $2000 and return your trade. The judge will ask you why you refused to be refunded in full. Maybee you don't understand that by making this offer the decision for you to make is simple -accept the offer and walk away scott free or not .
bigmuz1,
Jan 14, 12:37am
Or DT decide dealers offer to roll back whole deal on both cars did constitute offer for full refund, which you chose not to accept and dismisses your case, and warranty company bills you for a large chunk of the repair bill because it's now in better condition than before it broke down. Be interesting to see how this all pans out, I could be wrong but I don't think it's going to be all roses for you somehow.
tigger8,
Jan 14, 5:05am
THEY DIDN'T HAVE A TRADE-IN, their vehicle was purchased off them. separate deal!
minischnauzer,
Jan 14, 5:39am
OP did have a Trade In. I bet the dealer would not of purchased the OPs car if she was not going to buy one from him. Thus in the eyes of the court the two transactions are not separate. Also OP doesn't seem to understand the CGA very well and it is going to end up costing her.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 14, 6:05am
Just a query kazbanz, but would this be the normal way of doing things? "Car dealer bought my vehicle for $3000 cash. It was going to be a trade in but he instead bought the vehicle and put the cash in my account. " Seems a bit odd in comparison to any time I have traded in a car.
grangies,
Jan 14, 6:17am
OK metabot. How much is the vehicle going to cost to repair?
kazbanz,
Jan 14, 6:20am
Is it a normal situation?--NO Does it happen? --YES Have I done this exact thing--ALMOST. If the vehicle sold is an on behalf then the old owner wants cash They don't want some cash and a trade in they then have to dispose of. So to make the deal happen the dealer ON PAPER buys the trade in for "cash" and then sells the car for "cash" Why haven't I ever done it?--start from post 1 of this thread and understand that there is a big section of the population like this.
kazbanz,
Jan 14, 6:24am
THAT is going to be the point the entire MVDT case will hinge on. If the op can prove that they went into the dealer just to sell their 4x4 - NO intention at all to trade it in or purchase a car from the dealer then they have the dealer bang to rights. But if there is a clear and legitimate link between the two transactions then I really don't rate their chances very high at all
bumfacingdown,
Jan 14, 6:36am
But in the scenario you describe you would not be paying the potential customer the money. Anywho, suffice to say from an outsiders point of view, it don't look right. That is a perception and for the sake of good customer relations I would shy clear of it to if I was a car salesman. Thanks for the reply.
newtec1,
Jan 14, 6:51am
Yep that is the only point in contention,all the rest is clear as crystal.
newtec1,
Jan 14, 6:54am
You have no idea if it was a trade in. She may have sold it seperately 2 days before she went back to purchase another car. We can only take her word for it at this stage.
newtec1,
Jan 14, 6:55am
Two seperate transactions,therefore no trade in.
stevo2,
Jan 14, 8:21am
Lets assume the OP had not sold/traded their car and had simply paid cash, then the car died. Can the dealer refuse to fix it if it costs to much and simply refund their money or does it have to be repaired or replaced with another?
kazbanz,
Jan 14, 8:29am
The dealer can refund payment in full for the car. What genuinely puzzles me is that in that situation the buyer is perhaps inconvenienced but definitely not worse off.
kazbanz,
Jan 14, 8:31am
The great news with the original scenario is that the truth will come out. OP takes dealer to court. Results of DT are a matter of public record.
stevo2,
Jan 14, 8:32am
I hope we actually do get to hear the outcome of this but I seriously doubt it.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 14, 8:33am
Still creates an unfavourable perception to the public doing it that way, far better off with a one total deal, no he bought this car and then I bought that car. As can be seen in the OP and other posts in the thread
kazbanz,
Jan 14, 9:07am
depends on the MVDT findings really. There are two sides to every story. MAYBEE the dealer is a scumbag-surprize surprize--it does happen BUT equally maybe hes just a decent guy who did his very best to look after the OP. --the DT result will find the truth
grangies,
Jan 14, 9:20am
Would suck to be that person, failing.
I cannot understand why some one would go to the lengths that the O.P has?
attitudedesignz,
Jan 14, 8:12pm
Come on kaz', you can't honestly say the decision of the DT will be the TRUTH. It will come down to who had the better case to argue.
kazbanz,
Jan 14, 8:26pm
Yea they have made some bizarre decisions-but equally they aren't stupid.
1grasshopper,
Jan 14, 9:31pm
Having been through the motor vehicles disputes with a dealer (and I did win $4000 compensation which I never received due to the dealer going into liquidation) I would just take what they are offering you now. It is a long drawn out process, I think it took at least 6months and I had to take a day off work to go and in the end got nothing. You dont need that stress and a baby
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.