The One Fatal Sentence in Any Large Consumer Purchase Transaction

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto) 09/16/2014 at 13:00 • Filed to: None

73

100

Are you about to buy a new car, truck, RV or boat? If you see one particular sentence in any of the documents they put in front of you, drop your pen and run.

Some big-ticket-item sellers have begun burying this language, or language similar to it, somewhere in the Purchase Agreement: "Any claim or lawsuit arising out of the purchase or lease of the vehicle against the dealer by the Buyer must be filed no more than 365 days after the date of the delivery of the vehicle."

Got that? If something goes wrong with what you just bought, you can only sue the dealer within the first year of ownership. A year and a day later? You are out of luck. And this is perfectly legal. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! that there is normally a 4-year statute of limitations on causes of action arising from the purchase of goods and the clock starts ticking upon delivery. The parties may, by agreement, shorten it to as little as one year. "Agreement" is a funny concept here because this is never a negotiated term and the parties imposing this term will not alter it for you if you ask (hence my advice: "Run.")

So, you live in Michigan (or one of the many other states that see it this way) and buy a $200,000 RV with a three year warranty. On its first trip you discover that when it rains water pours in around the windshield. You return to the seller and they tell you it will be a while before they can repair it since they are backed up. They have it a few months – common in the industry – and give it back to you. You can't take it out since the season is over. You park it in storage over the winter. The next spring, on its second trip, water pours in around the windshield. Back to the dealer. It sits for another month before they work on it. You get it back. It still leaks.

The manufacturer says they will work on it at the factory if you drive it there. You do, hoping it doesn't rain. They have it for a few months which you find annoying BUT the RV has that 3-year factory warranty so you pay little attention to the one-year anniversary which comes and goes. You get the RV back and on the way home you hit a rainstorm. Water pours in around the windshield.

You call the dealer and they tell you they cannot fix it if the factory can't. And the factory says they'd love to help you. "Bring it back and we'll work on it again."

You contact an attorney and bring in all the papers you signed at the dealer and a banker's box filled with manuals that came with the RV. The attorney notes that you signed the purchase agreement shortening the statute of limitations with the dealer to one year. You cannot sue them. And, buried in the booklets from the factory is one which contains similar language, addressing the manufacturer and its warranty. You cannot sue them outside of the first year of ownership.

You have remaining warranty coverage but no right to demand its enforcement because the statute of limitations lapsed. And yes, RV manufacturers will raise this as a defense and courts will often honor this argument. Some states will interpret this differently - that rendering the remainder of the warranty unenforceable would be inherently unfair to the consumer - but it varies from state to state. In Michigan, I've seen judges go by the letter of the law and simply say that the consumer was the one who foolishly agreed to such harsh terms by buying an RV, boat, etc, with that language in the agreement.And it is not a defense that you did not understand or even see the language. In Michigan, and many other states, you are presumed to have read and understood everything you signed. Otherwise, why did you sign it?

So, next time you are buying a big ticket item, flyspeck the purchase agreement for this language and also the warranty booklets (to see if the manufacturer has hidden the language there). If you see the language, ask the seller if they will waive it in writing. If they will not, go find a dealer that does not use it (these days it is more common in the RV industry but it is starting to pop up on automobile purchases as well.) If a manufacturer has it in the warranty booklets, I would strongly urge you to consider another brand. After all, if they stand behind their warranty, why would they want to restrict your ability to enforce it? Even if you are in a state where it is not so harshly interpreted, why would you want to make this part of your "Agreement"?

Photo by Paul Brennan.

Follow me on Twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for 23 years in Michigan. He taught Consumer Protection at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law for ten years and wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . He also wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:03

56

That's some damn good advice. I've never even heard of that.

(not that I would expect anything less)

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:04

3

Nice article, but for the love of god and all that is holy, don't write your headline like it is from Buzzfeed!

#hassciencegonetoofar

SteveLehto > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 09/16/2014 at 13:04

9

Thanks. This has been popping up for a little while in the RV world and I have now been seeing it with cars. The example I post above (the image) is from a CAR sale (Oakland County).

SteveLehto > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 09/16/2014 at 13:05

2

I meant "Fatal" to the transaction, does that help? If I said, "Beware the Shortening of the UCC Statute of Limitations," no one would read it.

Perhaps I should seek alternate headlines here?

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:07

11

Wow, it doesn't surprise me that car dealerships, especially used ones would jump on this kind of disclaimer.

Still disappointing though.

These are the things that make people want to cut out dealers like Tesla does. And yes I caught the part about manufacturers being involved in this one with the RV's.

SteveLehto > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 09/16/2014 at 13:09

21

They know they can put almost anything they want in the fine print and NO ONE reads it.

StoneCold > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:11

1

"Diabolical Sentence" ? I think diabolical fits here.

StevenG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:12

5

This is why I read contracts and strikeout stuff like this.
My last landlord had some objectionable stuff in the lease and a statement that paying for the apartment was the same as signing it. I modified the lease, sent a copy back with a notice stating cashing my checks would be considered acceptance of the modified terms. Not sure it would be enforceable, but if they can write stupid stuff into a contract so can I.

SteveLehto > StoneCold 09/16/2014 at 13:12

0

Damn. That is good. Thanks.

StevenG > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 09/16/2014 at 13:14

3

One Neat Trick to Get Out of Honoring Your Customers Warranties.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:14

5

Tragically true

SteveLehto > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:14

7

Many dealers will pretend this stuff is carved in stone. But guess what? Until you sign, you have all the power. Stand up and start walking toward the door. See how fast they agree to strike it, if they don't tackle you first.

foop > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:16

0

Could you likely get around that by having a written record of you asking them to remove it, them replying that the contract was take it or leave it, you sign and buy anyway, then seek to have that provision voided because it was a contract of adhesion?

Buckus > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:17

4

Yeah, I love they whole "I can't change it, everybody does it." stance. Oh, okay, well, let me just leave, then. Suddenly their tune changes...

SteveLehto > foop 09/16/2014 at 13:17

2

Most likely wouldn't help you here. There are dealers that do not use this so you could have gone to one of them.

theonewhoisbasedasfuck > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:18

0

Which manufacturers have this language written in their warranties?

SteveLehto > Buckus 09/16/2014 at 13:18

4

Consumers forget how much power they have BEFORE they sign stuff. After, they have almost none.

pedal-force > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:19

1

Would you be able to do a story sometime on indemnity clauses versus hold harmless or other language? I don't know if it pertains to auto law, but I would think it does to general consumer protection law. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been taught to look for bad boilerplate like that. Often you have no choice but to sign it though, if you want to do the activity or whatever.

My specific example is a waiver for a cycling track (velodrome) that says "Participant hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the Releasees harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, damage or injury as well as all costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs of any suit related thereto), suffered or incurred by Releasees, to the extent arising from any of Participant's actions whatsoever whether now or in the future, including but not limited to negligent, intentional or reckless misconduct, acts or omissions".

From my non-lawyer understanding, that could mean if you're riding on the track, and the track buckles, you could be liable for fixing the track, or something like that. It seems unfair in situations like this that the contract writer has all the power and knowledge, and the signer has zero power or knowledge. If you want to play, you sign. If not, tough cookies.

SteveLehto > theonewhoisbasedasfuck 09/16/2014 at 13:20

1

So far, I have only seen it in the RV industry as to manufacturers. I'd rather not say because this stuff is all subject to change and I have no idea what they may have done recently. This is the kind of stuff which seems to be in flux all the time. I will tell you that the snippet I posted above was from a CAR dealer's purchase agreement that crossed my desk last week. It is what inspired me to write this.

special_k_side > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:21

0

My dad went through a similar thing. Retired, bought a nice Dodge 2500HD and a huge 5th wheel trailer. A week later, massive internal bleeding an a month in hospital. Took 6 months to get strong enough to do anything. Found the new trailer filled with water from a leaky window. 1 month in the shop, gets it back, first trip, the AC falls through the roof. (Someone forgot to install the steel support) Fixed....next trip, slide out won't retract. Out of waranty at this point. He found the issue, fixed it, and went on a rant. Finally emailed the Good Same Club, and got them on his side. Dealer took trailer back and manufacturer paid for a full teardown/inspection. The list of bolts/screws/parts that were missed in assembly was amazing.

Haze > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:21

0

Interesting. I have never heard of this here in PA, which means either it has never come up for me, or the Commonwealth does not agree with this section of the UCC. I might look that up, but in the short term, do you think it is possible to raise an action for false advertising under the Lanham act because they claim a warranty of three years in advertising literature, but in reality they have only applied a 1 year warranty to the good since they will not honor the warranty past a year? I guess that is why they keep bringing it into the shop, let it sit, then send it back out giving the appearance of warranty service? Interesting conundrum.

SteveLehto > pedal-force 09/16/2014 at 13:22

0

That's not really my area but I'll take a look. In MICH, that would not be interpreted that broadly but I can't speak to the other 49 states.

pedal-force > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:22

6

Which should be illegal, somehow. That's fine when it's two big companies going up against each other, with their high paid lawyers actually "negotiating" the contract. But when it's Joe Schmoe who barely finished high school against a team of lawyers, and it's not even a negotiation, it's just "take it or leave it" the average guy is at such a huge disadvantage it's ridiculous.

I understand contracts can't be written in plain language because all those special terms have 300 years of common law cases backing them up, and mean very specific things. But there must be a better way. It's the same with the "agreements" you sign online all the time. Nobody reads that stuff. I wouldn't even understand it if I did.

pedal-force > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:23

0

Customer's hate him!

StevenG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:23

2

If they tackle me, do I call you or is that a different kind of lawyer?

Haze > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:24

1

Thanks for putting this up! I am now going to look for this.

SteveLehto > Haze 09/16/2014 at 13:25

0

Are you an attorney? If so, I will add some legalese. The states that address this come to the issue - Is a "repair or replace" warranty one of future performance? IF so, you get one result. If not, you get the other. The states are split on that. I gave this topic to my students every year and split the groups. And each year they found a plethora of cases to support each position - even ones with absurd results - from all over.

It is hard to say what other remedies there because if you lose warranty, you lose a lot of other stuff. And I have seen an attorney, with a straight face, tell a judge that the warranyt is still intact. You just can't sue to enforce it.

djskitzy > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:25

0

don't buy a bus that costs more than your house then... that's another option they don't tell you about

StevenG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:25

0

Even negligence?

I thought that was one of those things you could not sign away. If so I am even more disappointed in the state of our legal system.

pedal-force > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:26

0

That's a pretty good one. It'd be interesting to see what happened if that went go court. Although I'm sure there's already case law somewhere explaining exactly what would happen.

SteveLehto > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:26

0

Whose negligence? I was talking more about his example of damage to the track.

SteveLehto > djskitzy 09/16/2014 at 13:27

1

That too. I've had people who bought cars worth more than their homes. I cannot opine (like that word?) on the reasonableness of the purchase - just the enforceability of the warranties.

deekster_caddy > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:28

9

When I bought my new car almost two years ago, the guy in the finance office was lightly giving me crap for reading all of the documents I was signing. He would summarize each document for me and I would sit there and read the whole thing before I signed it. By the end he was like "you really don't need me to summarize these for you anymore huh?" and I was like "yeah, I'm not signing anything I haven't read word for word. I asked him some questions he was surprised by along the way. Fortunately nothing of that magnitude was jammed in there.

Great advice!

SteveLehto > deekster_caddy 09/16/2014 at 13:30

3

You are my hero. If everyone did that, they wouldn't try sneaking stuff like this into contracts.

Thanks for the note.

StevenG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:30

0

I was more thinking if the velodrome committed negligence like say a poorly repaired track buckling and injuring him. The language seems to say he can't go after them for anything.

kaneda989 > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:31

1

So here's my question:
Say I see this in the purchase agreement for a new car, and then I just line it out and initial off to the side. I hand it back to the dealer and they never notice the change I made. Would that be enough to render that section non-enforceable?

JaggerTheDog > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:31

0

Awesome advice!

Question: If you buy a vehicle with a 3 year warranty, but sign the agreement with the 1 year clause, doesn't that mean the dealer is selling you an invalid warranty? You pay for three years, but it pretty much gets negated after 1 year because of that shitty clause. How can that even be legal?

pedal-force > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:31

0

Interesting. I signed it anyway, because the odds of them actually ever suing me for something stupid are basically nil. I asked them first if I could strike it and initial, and they of course said "haha, no". Good to know though. I understood that indemnify basically means you take on someone elses liabilities?

deekster_caddy > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:32

1

I did the same thing for my house and a recent condo purchase. At least for those we got the documents to review in advance of the closing, so I didn't have to read them all there! I did skim them all to make sure they were the same though.

SteveLehto > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:32

0

In MICH, there is a good chance he couldn't, so long as it wasn't an intentional tort.

dataPOG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:32

0

Isn't this the same as the as is box or is that a different hornet's nest?

pedal-force > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:32

0

That part comes before the indemnity clause, and it's even better, but basically non enforcable.

"Participant hereby waives, releases, and discharges, on behalf of Participant and Participant's executors, administrators, heirs, next of kin, successors, and assigns, the City and the American Track Racing Association, and their respective council members, directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, event holders, event promoters, event sponsors, event volunteers, event permit grantors, event property owners, and event participants (collectively "the Releasees"), from any and all liability for Participant's death, disability, personal injury, property damage, property theft, lost income, or any other losses, costs, or actions of any kind whatsoever, which hereafter may directly or indirectly accrue to Participant by virtue of Participant's training for this event or any future event, Participant's participation in this event or any future event, Participant's volunteering for this event or any future event, or Participant's travel to or from any activity or event at or related to the Velodrome, due to the negligence, carelessness, or recklessness of the Releasees or due to any dangerous or defective equipment or property that is owned or that is negligently, carelessly, or recklessly maintained, operated or controlled by the Releasees"

Basically, "we'll do whatever the fuck we want, even if we're negligent or reckless or careless, and you still can't sue us, even if you die." Sucks for you. From what I've read, this type of language is pure BS and isn't actually binding. Which makes you wonder why it's even there.

SteveLehto > pedal-force 09/16/2014 at 13:33

0

Kind of but it is strange. There are a few different waivers, releases, and covenants not to sue . . .etc . . . that people use. Many of them overlap with nuanced meanings that only lawyers understand (and only dogs can hear).

Mr. MiniBig, where's my coffee? > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:33

1

The practice of placing the burden on the consumer to carefully read through all the fine print somehow comes across as unfair IMO. Is there any law precluding me to draft my own contract terms and bring it into the dealership for THEM to read, sign and agree to?

spanfucker retire bitch > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:34

0

That sort of reminds me of that shit that some companies (as well as Healthcare Professionals) tried - and are still trying - to do to control reviews and feedback about their services and products. Hidden real deep in their contracts or purchase agreements is the statement that they own your reviews via some nebulous interpretation of copyright law. If they don't like the review you gave them, they'll sue and/or fine you until you remove it.

Luckily those have all so far been defeated in court under 1st Amendment rights. Sadly it doesn't sound like there's much legal ground to stand on this instance though.

SteveLehto > dataPOG 09/16/2014 at 13:35

0

Different. I wrote about that before. That means there is no warranty of merchantability. THIS means that if you have a valid cause of action, it is barred one year from the date of purchase (if a court upholds this language). Scary stuff. Consult an attorney.

anastos > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:35

0

So is this a 50 state deal and, if so, are there some states you stand a better chance at fighting such a clause?

StevenG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:35

0

WTF?
How is that possible? I can't understand that at all.

SteveLehto > Mr. MiniBig, where's my coffee? 09/16/2014 at 13:36

0

No. You can try but they would never do it. My advice is to tell them you will make the purchase if they strike this clause. If not, get up and start walking out. See what happens THEN.

SteveLehto > anastos 09/16/2014 at 13:37

0

It is a 49 state deal in a way. My understanding is that all states but LA have adopted the UCC. Most have done it verbatim. BUT, about half the states read this the other way. So, if you know enough to find an attorney, they might tell you that this can be overcome (although it might take litigation). I do not have a list of the states which go each way (and they change from time to time.) Be aware of it and consult with an attorney if need be.

SteveLehto > spanfucker retire bitch 09/16/2014 at 13:38

0

That is another scary area and I have been following that too.

evil.archkittens > pedal-force 09/16/2014 at 13:39

2

Counter Example: http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/man-writes-…

SteveLehto > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:40

0

The court would tell you that you had the choice to not ride at that track OR sign the waiver and ride. So long as the waiver spelled out what could happen to you, you were informed and made the choice to do it anyway. Ever go skydiving?

MFEJAL grey because who knows... > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:40

0

is there a law about the size of the "fine print"?

pedal-force > evil.archkittens 09/16/2014 at 13:42

1

That's awesome. I can't believe the bank has the gall to say he's guilty of fraud. He just did the EXACT thing they always do, but somehow when they do it it's ok?

SteveLehto > MFEJAL grey because who knows... 09/16/2014 at 13:42

0

Generally, but that is a tough argument to make. A judge will always ask why you signed it if you claim to not have read it.

MikeofLA > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:42

0

Now, in the case of a new car, wouldn't the manufacturer back it? I don't see Ford or Hyundai wishing to deal with this kind of issue and the back lash associated with it...

SteveLehto > MikeofLA 09/16/2014 at 13:44

1

So far I have not seen an auto MFR try it. But there are some causes of action you'd like to have against the dealer. Like what if they defrauded you at the purchase? The statute on that is usually longer than a year. But here, it would be shortened to a year.

This clause cannot help the consumer - it can only harm the consumer.

$ 8 > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:47

0

If someone rushes you to sign something can you file a lawsuit for that? Perhaps this is a dumb question, but I really would like to know as I have frequently felt pressured to rush signing these things, and therefore seldom read them.

Txspeed3 > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:48

0

I think this is odd because at a car dealership with an adjoining service department the idea is to get the customer to come back to service with them and hence buy their next car from them. Service departments are a huge part of any dealership and they keep the customers loyal to that dealership. Why would a service department deny coverage on a manufacturer or after market warranty when they know it will hurt business? And they most definitely won't try to delay the work done on the car because of the same reason. They want to provide the best customer service.

StevenG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:48

0

That argument is pants on head. If you offer a service/product for sale it should be fit for use. If not, don't offer it for sale.

I have not, but even the instructor mispacks the parachute, I or my heirs sure as hell should be able to sue him. He offered skydiving, which should include proper parachutes. No reasonable person would expect otherwise.

If I offer you lemonade and you give me a dollar for, I should not be allowed to hide in the fine print it is actually 50% urine. I sold lemonade, not urinade. In the UK they have fit for purpose laws, clearly we need those.

The lack of basic consumer protection or even apparently common sense from our courts is downright shocking.

SteveLehto > $ 8 09/16/2014 at 13:49

1

That's how the system is usually designed. But to prove you were coerced into signing something is tough, short of them having a literal gun to your head..

SteveLehto > Txspeed3 09/16/2014 at 13:50

0

That's not what this is aimed at. This is to keep you from taking any legal action against them outside of one year. There are many legal causes of action which might arise which have longer statutes of limitation which you would lose here.

Nova Prime > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:51

1

holy moly batman, this is good advice. I will keep an eye on these tricksters.

SteveLehto > StevenG 09/16/2014 at 13:51

1

I am not saying I disagree with you. I am merely pointing out the law. And in some states (like MICH) if you sign a waiver and acknowledge things which can go wrong, when they go wrong, you are usually out of luck.

Zippitydont > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:51

0

You say drop your pen and run. But where too? Aren't most doing this? Is it common practice for certain brands? Have you found that this language is negotiable when found?

SteveLehto > Nova Prime 09/16/2014 at 13:52

1

Thanks!

cazzyodo > deekster_caddy 09/16/2014 at 13:52

2

I just did the same thing with an apartment lease. Turned a five minute session to sign and get keys into a 45 minute test of who can stand the awkward silence better.

Bacon > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:52

3

I had a friend try to defend himself in court against a "No turn on red" citation. He had, what seemed to me, a valid argument about the placement of the "no turn on red" sign. However, the judge wasn't hearing it, and yelled at him, saying, "YOU are not qualified to understand these laws!". Funny, that people are qualified to understand complicated purchase agreements, but not qualified to understand criminal or civil law...

SteveLehto > Zippitydont 09/16/2014 at 13:53

0

Run to another dealer. Not all of them are doing it. I'd guess half the RV dealers are doing it that I have run into (in MICH) and just a handful of car dealers. I have yet to meet someone who even knew what this language meant before they signed it - so, no - they did not ask to negotiate.

SteveLehto > Bacon 09/16/2014 at 13:54

1

A sad description of the legal system. And it shouldn't be that way.

Thanks for the note.

Peptide > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:54

0

This precisely why I have any purchase or loan agreement I'm considering reviewed by counsel. I simply can't believe the number of people that I know that will spend a couple of hundred thou on something, but balk at paying $500 to get the related contracts look at. Boggles the mind...

SteveLehto > Peptide 09/16/2014 at 13:56

0

Dealerships must HATE when you ask them for a copy to be reviewed. Do you get resistance?

Big Block I-4 > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:56

0

Steve, do you and Vince Menga ever get together to hang out and talk about Lemon Law? If so can you video tape it, because I want to see Vince bring one of his cardboard cut-out buddies to a restaurant.

StevenG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:57

1

I understand, I was merely expressing my frustration with the answer.

I just think we need more consumer protection laws. At least enough to say, nope you can't sign away some basic subset of stuff.
Like this article, it should not be legal to do that. They are clearly trying to advertise a long warranty length but make it actually quite short.

SteveLehto > Big Block I-4 09/16/2014 at 13:57

0

I know OF him but do not know him. Maybe some day . . .

SerialThriller > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 13:58

1

Hooray for Napoleonic Code!

SteveLehto > SerialThriller 09/16/2014 at 13:59

0

I'd love to talk to a Louisiana attorney someday, find out how different things REALLY are down there . . . .

evil.archkittens > pedal-force 09/16/2014 at 14:00

0

I think the fraud is that he represented himself as someone willing to be screwed by replying to their offer of credit, but was in fact not willing to be screwed per the terms of the agreement.

KnowNothingKnowItAll > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:00

0

I used to represent Plaintiffs in breach-of-warranty lawsuits involving automobiles.

As a general matter, a buyer is not able to sue a dealer if the product fails because the dealer is not the party that issues the warranty. The manufacturer does. And, with the exception of Tesla, dealers are independently owned. That is why you sue American Honda Motor Company, General Motors, etc. (check your warranty booklet) and not the dealer. Of course if you buy a used vehicle with a dealer-issued warranty (Carmax does this), that presents a different story. Reading the article, I see a contract clause like that being more germane to the transaction itself.

RVs and Boats are a mess in warranty and defect situations because different parts are manufactured and warranted by different companies. In my experience, the electrical, motor, and drivetrain would be manufactured/warranted by one company, and the cabin by another. When you have a leak or something of that nature which damages the whole product, you often end up with the two manufacturers of the end product pointing the finger at you, at the dealer who is unsuccessfully trying to make repairs, and at each other. It sucks. Because the parts are manufactured by different companies, the terms of the warranties are also different as far as the length of coverage and the scope of the coverage.

As the author pointed out, the moral of the story here is that these contract terms are never negotiable and you are never in a superior or equal bargaining position. If you got screwed by something like this or a binding arbitration clause, you can try to argue the terms are unconscionable.

Nice article.

Haze > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:01

1

It is an interesting mess.

SteveLehto > KnowNothingKnowItAll 09/16/2014 at 14:02

0

Thanks. What state were you practicing in? In some states (like MICH) you do sue the dealer but just not for the Lemon Law. Like Revocation of Acceptance must name the seller and so on. But the BULK of the claims arise from the manufacturer's warranty in most cases. I just hate to see consumers signing away rights they did not even know they had (or know they were signing away).

yupimtall > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:05

0

When I bought my first car a couple years back, I read every single word in the contract, and the guy at the dealership seemed to be shocked. "Here's where you sign." "Yeah, I know, I'm just reading it." "Oh." Not that he was pushy about it, thank god, but very befuddled that I would bother. I threw off his rhythm.

SteveLehto > yupimtall 09/16/2014 at 14:06

1

That's great. So many people don't read it, trust the salespeople and then get all perplexed when they go back and the salespeople aren't so responsive anymore. Once you sign, the honeymoon is over.

kerryjoni > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:07

0

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

 www.jobs7000.com

foop > deekster_caddy 09/16/2014 at 14:10

0

Keep in mind that you can draw a big ass X through any provision you don't agree with!

miken > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:11

0

THANK YOU. I am familiar with the "arbitration" crap and have X'ed it out of several contracts. But this is a new one on me. If you're ever in Austin, please allow me to buy you a beer!

dataPOG > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:11

0

Ok, I'll have to remember that in a few months when I start looking.

SteveLehto > miken 09/16/2014 at 14:11

0

Gladly! And the arbitration mess is a topic for another day.

Thanks.

cmusic > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:12

1

This reminds me of when I bought a vehicle for my wife a few years ago. I spent about 4 hours haggling out a deal with the salesman only to have to business manager want me to hastily sign the paperwork because it was 4:45pm on a Friday afternoon, and he had leave for a personal appointment at 5pm. When I got home I started reading over the paperwork to find out the business manager upped the loan interest rate by 3% over what I agreed to with the salesman. I consulted a lawyer but since I had signed the papers he said the chances of me winning a lawsuit against the dealership or even them restructuring my loan to the verbally agreed interest rate was low. I did file complaints with the manufacture and the BBB, which only got me a free set of winter floor mats from the manufacture as a way of saying "sorry". The salesman, which had worked there less than 30 days and was on probation, was forced to take the fall for the complaints I filed and was fired. I don't know if the business manager is still working there but I will never buy from them again. BTW the vehicle we bought has been excellent and we are very happy with it, but we despise the dealer we bought it from.

The next time I buy a car I will take the time to read all the paperwork before I sign even if it takes a whole day!!!

Seano > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 09/16/2014 at 14:12

1

Any idea if this 'fine print' gem is making its way north of the 49th?

Perhaps it's already here..........should have got out my magnifying glass while I put down my faith in general decency.

Good to know though, thanks for the heads-up Steve.

miken > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:14

1

But you do have to be ready to walk...for real. I walked on a new Miata several years ago because a dealer wouldn't change similar language regarding so-called "arbitration" and they did not chase me at all.

SteveLehto > cmusic 09/16/2014 at 14:14

0

Sad that it's come to that but its necessary. And you know that what happened to you was no mistake. It's just that so few people catch those things. And when they do it's too late.

Thanks for the note.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > Seano 09/16/2014 at 14:15

0

you replied to me not Steve, he'd give you a better answer.

SteveLehto > miken 09/16/2014 at 14:15

1

I suppose it is easier when the buyer lives in an area like metro Detroit and there are dealerships on every corner. But yes, threaten to walk and be willing to do so. 9 times out of ten, they will shift gears when they see you are serious.

GreenN_Gold > kaneda989 09/16/2014 at 14:17

0

I don't know the answer to your question, but in my experience both parties initial the change. Seems very unlikely that they wouldn't notice your edit also.

klurejr > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:20

0

Can we get a full list of what States allow this kind of (lets call it what it is) scam.

SteveLehto > klurejr 09/16/2014 at 14:22

0

I don't have that list. It's about a 50/50 split from the last time I had students write papers on it. But even those can change from time to time since it comes down to judicial interpretation.

Seano > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:22

1

Any idea if this 'fine print' gem is making its way north of the 49th?

Perhaps it's already here..........should have got out my magnifying glass while I put down my faith in general decency.

Good to know though, thanks for the heads-up Steve.

p.s. thanks to MontegoMan562 for setting me straight on who to reply to, my bad.

Wittyname > SteveLehto 09/16/2014 at 14:25

0

Also most of us, myself included, don't know what we really should push to have changed. I would bring it up and the dealer would strongly tell me that this is customary and that they can't change it and I probably wouldn't know enough to stand my ground.