svttim Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Okay... I call bullshit on you. Do you even fucking know how old some of these dealerships are? Older than the need to put the kind of language in a contract that would allow Ford to pull their franchise. Get a fucking clue. Ford does not have as much control as you would think. Why isn't Mercury dead yet? Because the dealers won't allow it. Why is there a Lincoln pickup? Because the dealers made it so. I have bougt Ford products since 1977. I have to disagree, Ford can, and will have to start pulling dealeships. Like it or not, dealerships represent Ford to the consumer. I had a deposit down and a contract on a new GT 500. The dealership had my deposit for almost 2 years when they decided they could get more money from someone else. They never offered my deposit back but finally did send it. Yes, I could have sued them for the car and most likely would have been able to force the issue but at great expense. Some of the dealerships are giving Ford a black eye. I understand nothing that happened was Ford's fault. But, I really dont relesh the idea of going back into a stealership. I will buy a Ford product again, but it will be a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Many of the dealerships need updating, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 I have bougt Ford products since 1977. I have to disagree, Ford can, and will have to start pulling dealeships. Like it or not, dealerships represent Ford to the consumer. I had a deposit down and a contract on a new GT 500. The dealership had my deposit for almost 2 years when they decided they could get more money from someone else. They never offered my deposit back but finally did send it. Yes, I could have sued them for the car and most likely would have been able to force the issue but at great expense. Some of the dealerships are giving Ford a black eye. I understand nothing that happened was Ford's fault. But, I really dont relesh the idea of going back into a stealership. I will buy a Ford product again, but it will be a while. you can choose to disagree... but you'd be wrong. the dealer association is a powerful group. more powerful than the UAW when it comes to Fords fortunes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 (edited) I have bougt Ford products since 1977. I have to disagree, Ford can, and will have to start pulling dealeships. Like it or not, dealerships represent Ford to the consumer. I had a deposit down and a contract on a new GT 500. The dealership had my deposit for almost 2 years when they decided they could get more money from someone else. They never offered my deposit back but finally did send it. Yes, I could have sued them for the car and most likely would have been able to force the issue but at great expense. Some of the dealerships are giving Ford a black eye. I understand nothing that happened was Ford's fault. But, I really dont relesh the idea of going back into a stealership. I will buy a Ford product again, but it will be a while. I take umbrage to this sort of dumbass comment. There are TWO stupidittys here, ONE..a yo-yo putting cash down on a product before it has even been greenlighted..what in hell is this person trying to acheive, 2) the dealership had to be run by MORONS for taking the cash before finding out what the market was on a certain vehicle. It is beyond me what consumers think they acheive by laying deposits before product is avail...it acheives NOTHING without a vin number, perhaps on the offchance you may have first dibs when the vehicle arrives and the dealership has decided the market...THATS IT! And pi$$ and moan and name tag "stealerships" all you want....but markets on limited edition vehicles are and always will be what the market will bear! Edited April 4, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 4, 2007 Author Share Posted April 4, 2007 (edited) I take umbrage to this sort of dumbass comment. There are TWO stupidittys here, ONE..a yo-yo putting cash down on a product before it has even been greenlighted..what in hell is this person trying to acheive, 2) the dealership had to be run by MORONS for taking the cash before finding out what the market was on a certain vehicle. It is beyond me what consumers think they acheive by laying deposits before product is avail...it acheives NOTHING without a vin number, perhaps on the offchance you may have first dibs when the vehicle arrives and the dealership has decided the market...THATS IT! And pi$$ and moan and name tag "stealerships" all you want....but markets on limited edition vehicles are and always will be what the market will bear! Well, as much as I would really like to stupe to your low level, I will refrain. You dot know a damn thing about me and you dont have a clue about law. What part of contract dont you understand? What part of legal document dont you understand. What kind of person defends such dispicable behaverior, I have no issue with dealers who chose to do ADM's. I have an issue with dealers who breach contracts because they realize they can get more for something. I guess that says a lot about our society. It used to be a man's word was all you needed. Now, even legal agreements mean nothing. I guess thats alright with you! Edited April 4, 2007 by svttim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 4, 2007 Author Share Posted April 4, 2007 you can choose to disagree... but you'd be wrong. the dealer association is a powerful group. more powerful than the UAW when it comes to Fords fortunes. I misspoke, I dont know the leverage the dealers have and I will take you're word for it. I am saying Ford needs to take control regardless of that power. Otherwise there will be no need for any dealers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 (edited) Well, as much as I would really like to stupe to your low level, I will refrain. You dot know a damn thing about me and you dont have a clue about law. What part of contract dont you understand? What part of legal document dont you understand. What kind of person defends such dispicable behaverior, I have no issue with dealers who chose to do ADM's. I have an issue with dealers who breach contracts because they realize they can get more for something. I guess that says a lot about our society. It used to be a man's word was all you needed. Now, even legal agreements mean nothing. I guess thats alright with you! yes I do have a clue...20 years of clues...I sell the damn things...a contract is just a piece of paper and without a serial or vin number means NOTHING/ ZILCH/ NADA...so what part of a 2 year pre-emptive piece of paper do YOU not understand???? The Unserialised piece of paper is NOT worth the paper it is drawn up on...contact an attourney to satisfy your ignorance. I'm not defending the dealer AT ALL, I beleive I called the idiots morons, however shame on you for thinking you had a binding contract on a car that wasn't even built yet! Now...if you had a piece of paper signed by a Dealer principle stating you had first option at an incoming unit AND that you would not be charged over X amount THEN you may have issue...that said HOW CAN A DEALER KNOW WHAT STICKER ETC IS GOING TO BE ON A VEHICLE YEARS AWAY!!!!! And please don't stoop...just wake up and use common sense otherwise Dealers like this yo yo will take advantage of naiveity.... I HATE HEARING THIS SORT OF IDIOT CRAP! Not so much your fault at all, I am guessing you knew no better...beleive me you NEVER did have a contract OR anything legally binding....and I'm with you...unfortunately the days of a handshake are LONG gone...and BOTH parties are as guilty as one another...and that truley abores me, if I shake a hand i mean it...if I make a mistake after that..it's on MY shoulders. Edited April 4, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerbyFord Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 yes I do have a clue...20 years of clues...I sell the damn things...a contract is just a piece of paper and without a serial or vin number means NOTHING/ ZILCH/ NADA... IANAL... but as I understand it a contract is a contract and doesn't even have to be "just" a piece of paper. If the dealer implied agreement by taking a deposit, signing a paper, verbally agreeing or even by handshake then thats it - they committed to the contract. Serial numbers, VIN numbers, not knowing the price etc don't void that agreement unless explicitly detailed within the contract. If the dealer entered into a contract to sell the car for a few magic beans then too bad for the dealer if it turns out to be worth more but it's still a contract. If they didn't know the market value but took the man's deposit only to then turn around and sell the car to the highest bidder, then they broke the contract. Now if the price had not been established and the "contract" was only for first shot to buy at whatever the dealer deemed the value of the vehicle at time of delivery, then that's another issue and the dealer was within their right in the contract to refuse an offer if it was too low. Either way, "contracts" shouldn't be taken lightly and are certainly NOT just a piece of paper just because it lacks some arbitrary information or no longer suits a persons or dealers tied to it. Basically a contract is an agreement. That's it. Make the agreement and you are then legally bound to follow through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 5, 2007 Author Share Posted April 5, 2007 yes I do have a clue...20 years of clues...I sell the damn things...a contract is just a piece of paper and without a serial or vin number means NOTHING/ ZILCH/ NADA...so what part of a 2 year pre-emptive piece of paper do YOU not understand???? The Unserialised piece of paper is NOT worth the paper it is drawn up on...contact an attourney to satisfy your ignorance. I'm not defending the dealer AT ALL, I beleive I called the idiots morons, however shame on you for thinking you had a binding contract on a car that wasn't even built yet! Now...if you had a piece of paper signed by a Dealer principle stating you had first option at an incoming unit AND that you would not be charged over X amount THEN you may have issue...that said HOW CAN A DEALER KNOW WHAT STICKER ETC IS GOING TO BE ON A VEHICLE YEARS AWAY!!!!! And please don't stoop...just wake up and use common sense otherwise Dealers like this yo yo will take advantage of naiveity.... I HATE HEARING THIS SORT OF IDIOT CRAP! Not so much your fault at all, I am guessing you knew no better...beleive me you NEVER did have a contract OR anything legally binding....and I'm with you...unfortunately the days of a handshake are LONG gone...and BOTH parties are as guilty as one another...and that truley abores me, if I shake a hand i mean it...if I make a mistake after that..it's on MY shoulders. I did consult an attourney and he assured me the contract was enforcable. It stated, as you have pointed out above, I was to receive the first unit the dealership received, at whatever the MSRP was set at by the manufacturer. I still have the contract but decided against the legal fees. I would have been better off purchasing a car with an ADM with a dealer I could return to than to enforce the contract. In the state I reside in, all I could do is to sue for the car and could not recover any other costs, so, I decided to pass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_K Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I did consult an attourney and he assured me the contract was enforcable. It stated, as you have pointed out above, I was to receive the first unit the dealership received, at whatever the MSRP was set at by the manufacturer. I still have the contract but decided against the legal fees. I would have been better off purchasing a car with an ADM with a dealer I could return to than to enforce the contract. In the state I reside in, all I could do is to sue for the car and could not recover any other costs, so, I decided to pass Now that's a bit more information that might have helped early on in the thread here. At any rate, I would agree that it's poor practice to renig on a contract just because you think you can do better. Imagine trying to buy a house and having the seller first agree to your price, then pulling it because someone offered more. That wouldn't be much fun now would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovaltine Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 (edited) you can choose to disagree... but you'd be wrong. the dealer association is a powerful group. more powerful than the UAW when it comes to Fords fortunes. Are Hyundai dealers part of the the Dealer Association? The reason I ask is, HERE is what Hyundai is doing regarding 50 of its underperforming dealerships. Oh HOW I wish that the word Ford could be substituted for Hyundai in this article! http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/02/hyundai...-on-50-dealers/ Hyundai brings down the hammer on 50 dealers Posted Apr 2nd 2007 "Shape up or ship out seems to be the message that Hyundai is sending to 50 of its worst performing dealers. Automotive News is reporting that Hyundai Motor America COO Steve Wilhite sent a "strongly worded" letter to 50 'chronic underachievers.' Poor sales and customer service is at the heart of Wilhite's threats: "We're giving them six months to correct the mistakes. If they can, we're thrilled to have them. If they can't, we want them to turn in their franchises." As Hyundai is moving towards a reputation that nearly equals that of the Japanese automakers, it is important that its dealer network match the company's commitment to delivering top-notch vehicles. Wilhite hopes the dealers will improve and stay on board, but if they don't, they will be forced out. Sort of. The dealers can still take their cases to the motor vehicle board in their state or even appeal to out-of-state courts before losing their franchise rights." Key statement at the end of the article, and one Ford should very MUCH take to heart (in light of their improved product quality/design of late): "Good product will get people into the dealership, but good customer service will sell the marque and guarantee repeat customers and higher resale values. " Maybe Ford has been down this path before and has come to the conclusion that it's too costly to remove the bad eggs. Maybe that's a lesson Hyundai will have to learn on its own. But damn, it sure is NICE to see a car company that acknowledges a problem (one that's been haunting Ford for decades) and at least TRIES to do something about it! -Ovaltine Edited April 5, 2007 by Ovaltine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I misspoke, I dont know the leverage the dealers have and I will take you're word for it. I am saying Ford needs to take control regardless of that power. Otherwise there will be no need for any dealers. Tim, its like in your response to Dean. Its about a contract. Ford has franchise contracts with dealers. Some dealers are so old that the franchise agreements don't necessarily contain modern language. GM had the same problem with trying to shut down Olds. They had to spend a lot of money buying off dealers. Which is why they are not in any hurry to shut down any other divisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Are Hyundai dealers part of the the Dealer Association? The reason I ask is, HERE is what Hyundai is doing regarding 50 of its underperforming dealerships. Oh HOW I wish that the word Ford could be substituted for Hyundai in this article! http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/02/hyundai...-on-50-dealers/ Hyundai brings down the hammer on 50 dealers Posted Apr 2nd 2007 "Shape up or ship out seems to be the message that Hyundai is sending to 50 of its worst performing dealers. Automotive News is reporting that Hyundai Motor America COO Steve Wilhite sent a "strongly worded" letter to 50 'chronic underachievers.' Poor sales and customer service is at the heart of Wilhite's threats: "We're giving them six months to correct the mistakes. If they can, we're thrilled to have them. If they can't, we want them to turn in their franchises." As Hyundai is moving towards a reputation that nearly equals that of the Japanese automakers, it is important that its dealer network match the company's commitment to delivering top-notch vehicles. Wilhite hopes the dealers will improve and stay on board, but if they don't, they will be forced out. Sort of. The dealers can still take their cases to the motor vehicle board in their state or even appeal to out-of-state courts before losing their franchise rights." Key statement at the end of the article, and one Ford should very MUCH take to heart (in light of their improved product quality/design of late): "Good product will get people into the dealership, but good customer service will sell the marque and guarantee repeat customers and higher resale values. " Maybe Ford has been down this path before and has come to the conclusion that it's too costly to remove the bad eggs. Maybe that's a lesson Hyundai will have to learn on its own. But damn, it sure is NICE to see a car company that acknowledges a problem (one that's been haunting Ford for decades) and at least TRIES to do something about it! -Ovaltine Hyundai has dealers that have been around for 10-20 years. Ford has dealers that are 50, 60, 70 years old. How many dealer does Hyundai have? How many dealers does Ford have? Which dealer group has enough power to hurt the manufacturer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 5, 2007 Author Share Posted April 5, 2007 Tim, its like in your response to Dean. Its about a contract. Ford has franchise contracts with dealers. Some dealers are so old that the franchise agreements don't necessarily contain modern language. GM had the same problem with trying to shut down Olds. They had to spend a lot of money buying off dealers. Which is why they are not in any hurry to shut down any other divisions. Thanks, that does put things in perspective. It is nieve to think someting in buisness could be that easy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovaltine Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 (edited) Hyundai has dealers that have been around for 10-20 years. Ford has dealers that are 50, 60, 70 years old. How many dealer does Hyundai have? How many dealers does Ford have? Which dealer group has enough power to hurt the manufacturer? Well in response, it looks like Messrs. Mulally and Fields and share *my* sentiments, and may be poised to DO something about it. That's a good start. Good luck to them! http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070404/auto_show_ford.html?.v=2 Mulally: Ford Needs Consolidations in Dealership Network Wednesday April 4 Mulally said the company's restructuring was going pretty well, but described some steps the venerable automaker needs to take to make itself more competitive. He cited "overcapacity in our distribution network" and said when that occurs, "you need to consolidate to match capacity to demand." The automaker has more than 4,000 dealerships across the nation, but Mulally declined to cite a target number of reductions. Mulally said buyouts would not be a likely option, saying "there isn't enough money in the world to do something like that." Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas, said the company had a "good dialogue" with dealers but asserted that "if you don't have a profitable and healthy distribution network, you're going to see unhappy customers" and lower resale values. "That will trash your brand, trash your product, trash your residuals," he said. I suspect that the word 'consolidation' used in this article is a kinder, gentler way of saying what the Hyundai article described as "bringing down the hammer" on "'chronic underachievers". B) -Ovaltine Edited April 5, 2007 by Ovaltine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Well in response, it looks like Messrs. Mulally and Fields and share *my* sentiments, and may be poised to DO something about it. That's a good start. Good luck to them! http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070404/auto_show_ford.html?.v=2 Mulally: Ford Needs Consolidations in Dealership Network Wednesday April 4 Mulally said the company's restructuring was going pretty well, but described some steps the venerable automaker needs to take to make itself more competitive. He cited "overcapacity in our distribution network" and said when that occurs, "you need to consolidate to match capacity to demand." The automaker has more than 4,000 dealerships across the nation, but Mulally declined to cite a target number of reductions. Mulally said buyouts would not be a likely option, saying "there isn't enough money in the world to do something like that." Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas, said the company had a "good dialogue" with dealers but asserted that "if you don't have a profitable and healthy distribution network, you're going to see unhappy customers" and lower resale values. "That will trash your brand, trash your product, trash your residuals," he said. I suspect that the word 'consolidation' used in this article is a kinder, gentler way of saying what the Hyundai article described as "bringing down the hammer" on "'chronic underachievers". B) -Ovaltine I can suggest a few to start with!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I did consult an attourney and he assured me the contract was enforcable. It stated, as you have pointed out above, I was to receive the first unit the dealership received, at whatever the MSRP was set at by the manufacturer. I still have the contract but decided against the legal fees. I would have been better off purchasing a car with an ADM with a dealer I could return to than to enforce the contract. In the state I reside in, all I could do is to sue for the car and could not recover any other costs, so, I decided to pass I'm calling bullshit....what color?.....what options?????? YOU KNEW NOTHING...HE DIDN"T EVEN KNOW....and besides that you WOULD have taken him to the cleaners if IT WAS BINDING....AND I am sure if you did get an attourney he would have been all over it and you could have recouped costs by reselling the vehicle just to teach a lesson so as no money out of your pocket., besides that....if it WAS binding all you had to do is take a trip and report to DMV.... ....sorry..now I definitely do not beleive anything....you had NOTHING but a pipe dream two years ago and a worthless piece of paper now...whicj car was contracted...the white one with vin XYZ, the blue one with JFK? oh....thats right there was no vin so there was no car..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Now that's a bit more information that might have helped early on in the thread here. At any rate, I would agree that it's poor practice to renig on a contract just because you think you can do better. Imagine trying to buy a house and having the seller first agree to your price, then pulling it because someone offered more. That wouldn't be much fun now would it? Rob...trust me ...unfortunately he never had a contract....the dealership did what was called de-horsing him.....with no vin he had nothing because there was actually NO CAR! I feel for the guy if he actually beleives this and scorn on this type of Dealeraship practice....however by NOT contracting until vins etc has been designated avoids what ( I used to sell ferraris as well ) the speculators that ar attempting to wrap a car up and resell it for a profit in THEIR back pockets.....and unfortunately the housing market can be the same....unless all parties involved have SIGNED the contract is NOT binding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 IANAL... but as I understand it a contract is a contract and doesn't even have to be "just" a piece of paper. If the dealer implied agreement by taking a deposit, signing a paper, verbally agreeing or even by handshake then thats it - they committed to the contract. Serial numbers, VIN numbers, not knowing the price etc don't void that agreement unless explicitly detailed within the contract. If the dealer entered into a contract to sell the car for a few magic beans then too bad for the dealer if it turns out to be worth more but it's still a contract. If they didn't know the market value but took the man's deposit only to then turn around and sell the car to the highest bidder, then they broke the contract. Now if the price had not been established and the "contract" was only for first shot to buy at whatever the dealer deemed the value of the vehicle at time of delivery, then that's another issue and the dealer was within their right in the contract to refuse an offer if it was too low. Either way, "contracts" shouldn't be taken lightly and are certainly NOT just a piece of paper just because it lacks some arbitrary information or no longer suits a persons or dealers tied to it. Basically a contract is an agreement. That's it. Make the agreement and you are then legally bound to follow through. problem is they could say it was for just that regular GT over there in the corner....or that focus.....without a vin they can pin it an ANY car.....Not justifying what the dealer did...just trying to underline the fact he had a piece of Toilet paper.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Well in response, it looks like Messrs. Mulally and Fields and share *my* sentiments, and may be poised to DO something about it. That's a good start. Good luck to them!http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070404/auto_show_ford.html?.v=2 are they go use Blue Oval Cerification as a means to do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 (edited) are they go use Blue Oval Cerification as a means to do it? I certainly hopeso...because if there is an iota of truth to Mr "plonk down a deposit on a car not yet in production" hopefully that sort of practice may be restrained....kinda feel i came down on him a little hard, just hard for me to fathom he beleived what he did....IF that is the WHOLE story.......... Edited April 5, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_K Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Rob...trust me ...unfortunately he never had a contract....the dealership did what was called de-horsing him.....with no vin he had nothing because there was actually NO CAR! I feel for the guy if he actually beleives this and scorn on this type of Dealeraship practice....however by NOT contracting until vins etc has been designated avoids what ( I used to sell ferraris as well ) the speculators that ar attempting to wrap a car up and resell it for a profit in THEIR back pockets.....and unfortunately the housing market can be the same....unless all parties involved have SIGNED the contract is NOT binding Actually, when any dealer takes a customer's deposit on a factory order there's never a VIN. There's no car. So, technically, your argument isn't holding up. I know folks that have done this exact thing with other cars (BMW to be exact) and the dealers kept up their end of the bargain. I realize you aren't standing up for this low life dealer that sat on this poor guy's deposit for two years, but don't call him an idiot for expecting the dealer to live up to their promise. It actually does happen sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 (edited) Actually, when any dealer takes a customer's deposit on a factory order there's never a VIN. There's no car. So, technically, your argument isn't holding up. I know folks that have done this exact thing with other cars (BMW to be exact) and the dealers kept up their end of the bargain. I realize you aren't standing up for this low life dealer that sat on this poor guy's deposit for two years, but don't call him an idiot for expecting the dealer to live up to their promise. It actually does happen sometimes. Rob...I am going to state this one more time....THERE WAS NO DAMN CAR! It was TWO YEARS BEFORE PRODUCTION.....and hey I have a deposit on the Mustang with 800 hp and IRS....the kid would have been thrown out of court in a heartbeat....speculation and wishful thinking with NOTHING verifiable in the slightest....and Bimmers take deposits on upcoming vehicles for sure...ALL IT GIVES IS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY.....and as for their lineup go put a deposit on their M3 ( not out yet )......there will be no set in stone price...all iot will give you is the first opportunity...THATS ALL...if the dealear doesn't decide to sell you the car because of a better offer...go ahead...call Larry h Parker and see how far you get.....it would be totally different if you had a vin number WITH a selling price documented...but if you are missing one or the other it is TOTALLY up to the dealers disgression.....soory..i feel like I am kicking a dead horse here....and if you or I was in the same boat....and had a BINDING ( NOT HALFASSED ) contract i would have pursued it and paid the lawyer with MY markup over MSRP....case closed! Edited April 5, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Rob...I am going to state this one more time....THERE WAS NO DAMN CAR! It was TWO YEARS BEFORE PRODUCTION..... I think Dean is correct on this one. Take it to court. They will just refund your money and leave it at that. Espoecially if your desposit didn't state that you were first in line. It was just a deposit for a car. Also, if there was no specified date of delivery... they still have it over you. Doesn't make it right. It just makes it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I think Dean is correct on this one. Take it to court. They will just refund your money and leave it at that. Espoecially if your desposit didn't state that you were first in line. It was just a deposit for a car. Also, if there was no specified date of delivery... they still have it over you. Doesn't make it right. It just makes it so. J ...we agreed?????? say it isn't so my friend!.....he can't take it to court...he would get thrown out in a heartbeat....besides that do you think if the bloodsucking Attourney thought he had a case he wouldn't have jumped all over it to begin with???? Something doesn"t jive....and if the Attourney actually DID tell him he had a case...please...frmo ME...tel him he need to pursue a different occupation...should be a bounty on those dudes....and also i think they did give him back his deposit...which LEGALLY they have too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.