Tom Benson Nightmare (and a happy ending)

[mikenmar]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

I couldn't agree more.

And I also appreciate you taking your time to educate us here. Very valuable information that you are giving us for free.

Thank you Sir.

My pleasure.

[jdanza]

Originally Posted by mikenmar

My pleasure.

Yes, thank you for your input, we need all the information we can get

[mikenmar]

Originally Posted by nards444

i would find it easier just to go buy somewhere, else, in the end they lose your business. Why would you want to buy from a crook.

Well if you win your lawsuit, that doesn't mean you get to buy the car from them, it means they owe you money (the difference between the agreed-upon price and the market value, e.g. $5k or whatever).

Then you can take that money and buy the car somewhere else.

[ShAgMaN]

Originally Posted by Blue Joe

I don't understand.People are saying they will never buy GM again because they didnt get signed agreement with the dealer.Thats like saying you are never going to buy a sony tv because Sears is too expensive.But then they make a statement of possibly buying a challenger instead?? Wake up ,challengers sold for $10,000-$20,000 over MSRP less than a year ago.

Let me explain......my trust is lost for the dealer, and it does fall back to GM (at least to a degree). GM has (or is spose to have) a close relationship with the dealer. They are to ensure ethical practices are upheld. After a nights sleep, I've decided to give GM a chance if the dealer doesn’t hold their word.

Ya, the Challengers sold for more........and? I would be fine with this if a dealer was upfront with the costs. If they lied, its another story isn’t it?

I'm wide awake, and I'm not gonna take this BS.

[nards444]

how can you get the money for something that you never owned or paid on? Dont think that would happen. Best case scenario the court makes them sell you the car for MSRP

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by ShAgMaN

Let me explain......my trust is lost for the dealer, and it does fall back to GM (at least to a degree). GM has (or is spose to have) a close relationship with the dealer. They are to ensure ethical practices are upheld. After a nights sleep, I've decided to give GM a chance if the dealer doesn’t hold their word.

Ya, the Challengers sold for more........and? I would be fine with this if a dealer was upfront with the costs. If they lied, its another story isn’t it?

I'm wide awake, and I'm not gonna take this BS.

Sahgman,

I'm with you but we all have to understand that GM has zero power to control how a dealer handles the selling of a car.

Federal and state franchise laws strictly forbid it. Trust me if GM could they would force dealers to sell at MSRP...

Something I recently learned If a car is sold for 10K over msrp and that car is returned under lemon law, GM pays the full sales price not the dealer they get to keep the 10K....

I'm not trying to detract from your problem and you are totally justified in your frustration. You should be able to take them at their word.

But GM can't do anything nor do they have any influence...

Just FYI.

[ShAgMaN]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I think it's interesting that Tom Benson would be involved in this kind of thing. I'm purchasing mine from Freedom Chevy, and I don't really have anything signed per se. I know they're going to try to charge me an extra $1000 for random stuff like window tinting, Wash Tub car washes for who knows how many years, and other random stuff, but they're not marking up the price 4-5k. If it helps any, you can let your dealer know that other dealers in town, in fact, are not adding any "market adjustment" mark-up to the Camaros at all.

Be sure to let us know how things go down.

I actually avoided them because I didnt want to pay the extra $1000 on crap. I talked to a bunch of dealers in town, and finally chose Benson and who assured me there would be no increase over MSRP.

Still no word from them yet........

[ShAgMaN]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

Sahgman,

I'm with you but we all have to understand that GM has zero power to control how a dealer handles the selling of a car.

Federal and state franchise laws strictly forbid it. Trust me if GM could they would force dealers to sell at MSRP...

Something I recently learned If a car is sold for 10K over msrp and that car is returned under lemon law, GM pays the full sales price not the dealer they get to keep the 10K....

I'm not trying to detract from your problem and you are totally justified in your frustration. You should be able to take them at their word.

But GM can't do anything nor do they have any influence...

Just FYI.

Maybe this is all true, but I'm still pissed at both parties, and rightfully so. The fact that GM cant do anything is mind boggling. It's like I really dont care if they can or cant - they need to do something - their name is on the freaking product and its new. Its like a loop hole for GM, they really dont have to deal with the customer??? Lame........

[Rockies4]

I would take a few minutes to calm down. Take a deep breath.

Now, take your paperwork and go down and personally speak to the owner and not some small fish in the pond.

Explain your situation in a calm manner.

Here's how I would start the conversation.

"Thank you. I appreciate you taking time to meet with."

"I believe there has been a disconnect from the previous salesperson and the one who called me on the phone."

Then I would show them your paperwork and explain your side in a calm manner.

Next, I would say, "Now, lets use empathy for a moment. What would you do in my situation?"

And I would look the person in the eye.

If they start to give you the same price, then say, "That is an unacceptable price after I've been told by your salesperson who was an agent of your dealership. She told me I would receive MSRP."

Wait for an answer. If no budge, then say...

"Is this a common practice at your dealership?" "You quote one price and when the car comes in you quote another price?"

pause.

"How can we come to a reasonable resolution to this manner?"

If no reply or no straight answer, then...

"I'll give you 24 hours to reconsider the situation. I'll come back tomorrow at X o'clock and we'll discuss the manner after you've had time to consider this situation and come up with a reasonable solution."

This will give the person some time to reconsider your position.

Then the minute you get home, let everyone on the site know how it went.

This would be my suggestion.

I hope everything works out for you. I wish you the best.

Best Regards,
Rockies4

[2SSJIM]

Originally Posted by ShAgMaN

Ok, so after some rather harsh post attempts – all which were blocked – let me explain how I’m being screwed over by Tom Benson in San Antonio. Oh, and by the way, I sold my cherry 67 SS 350 Camaro to buy a 2010 1SS Camaro.

In December of 2008 I sold my beloved 67, and ordered a 2010 in January. I ordered my Camaro at MSRP and was assured it would remain at this price. This Monday I received a call that my Camaro would be delivered within the next ten days. Today I called my salesman and asked if I could get the VIN, which he said he would send on Monday but forgot. While talking, he mentioned the price of 35,700 and some change…………..huh?

I specifically ordered a Camaro that had an MSRP shy of 31K. It was a 1SS with the only option of the polished wheels. I’m so flipping pissed I cant think straight and don’t know what to do. I have worked my @ss off to get this car and now my dream is fading.

I’m now considering saving to buy a Challenger and selling my Tahoe to spite GM, which may be wrong, but I’m emotionally disturbed.

Help………………

$35,700 - Was this the price before or after tax/title and tags?

[mikenmar]

Originally Posted by nards444

how can you get the money for something that you never owned or paid on?

It happens all the time.

You made a contract to get something at a certain price. Then, the other party breached the contract. You're entitled to get the monetary equivalent of what you would have gotten if the other party had enforced the contract. That's the whole point of contract law.

For example, suppose you enter into a contract to buy an ounce of gold at today's price, $980. Then, before the seller can deliver the gold (and before you've had a chance to pay for it), the market price goes up to $1000. If the seller backs out of the contract, he's cheating you out of $20, because you could have turned around and sold the gold for the extra $20 if he delivered it to you. You're entitled to that $20 -- that's your "damages".

If that wasn't true, people would reneg on contracts all the time. Anytime the price of gold moved -- and it moves constantly -- one party or the other would drop out. If the price went up, the seller would cancel. If the price went down, the buyer would cancel. Nobody would be able to buy or sell gold unless they could exchange the cash and the physical gold at the exact same instant. Contract law is designed to avoid that necessity by letting people make promises in advance, and letting them enforce the promises in a court of law.

Originally Posted by nards444

Best case scenario the court makes them sell you the car for MSRP

Courts almost never order the other party to perform on the contract. They almost always award money damages, unless the item bargained for is absolutely unique (e.g. a certain painting by Van Gogh). In this case, the dealer has probably already sold the car to someone else, so they couldn't even sell it to you even if the court ordered it.

[mikenmar]

BTW, here's the source of law on this topic -- it's the Uniform Commercial Code. This is a "model" set of codes that has been adopted by all 50 states in a nearly identical form. There are slight differences from state to state, but this is by far the best reference for a forum like this, which includes people from many states.

As you can see, the definition of a "contract for sale" includes agreements to "sell goods at a future time":

(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires "contract" and "agreement" are limited to those relating to the present or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time.

There are other state laws that specifically regulate what car dealers can do, but so far I have not seen a law that would make the above invalid.

If someone points me to such a law in some state, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by mikenmar

BTW, here's source of law on this topic -- it's the Uniform Commercial Code. This is a "model" set of codes that has been adopted by all 50 states in a nearly identical form.

As you can see, the definition of a "contract for sale" includes agreements to "sell goods at a future time":



There are other state laws that specifically regulate what car dealers can do, but so far I have not seen a law that would make the above invalid.

If someone points me to such a law in some state, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong.

So based on your understanding of the UCC, do you think this is something GM can enforce with it's dealerships?

[ShAgMaN]

Originally Posted by 2SSJIM

$35,700 - Was this the price before or after tax/title and tags?

Before, with the only upgrade being polished wheels on a 1SS.