"Hooker" (Hooker)
01/11/2017 at 15:25 • Filed to: None
1
23|
"Hooker" (Hooker)
01/11/2017 at 15:25 • Filed to: None | 1
| 23 |
No, it’s not for me. The Camaro is safely (albeit very dirty) outside my window just waiting for me to get off work and make the suspension do work. Anyway, I have this friend. Let’s call her Narcy (because she is absolutely a narcissist). She bought a brand new Nissan Rogue. I think. Maybe it was a Murano. No, it was definitely a Rogue. Anyway, she has had many many issues with this car. It would shut down and the dash board would like up like a Christmas tree, leaving her stranded. This happened multiple times. The issue? Another Rogue drove by her and caused an interference issue. What? OK, I don’t know if that’s the ACTUAL issue or this car is just fubar’d. But it is what it is and it was definitely a lemon.
The state of North Carolina where we live is traditionally hard to get a lemon law applied to a car. However, Nissan (graciously?) agreed to it and offered her a settlement. If you look at the above chart (pulled directly from Narcy’s buyback settlement agreement) it lays out the terms. She has had this vehicle for what I believe is just over a year. Has put well over 24K miles on it and they are asking her to pay a touch over $2K in difference for them to repurchase the vehicle. My question, is this reasonable?
In my personal opinion, it is. They are buying a now used car at full purchase price, plus all taxes and fees, minus rebates. They are not responsible for what she owes on her car (it shouldn’t matter to them). However, the buyback figures is about 2K less than what she owes on the automobile. I think it’s a fair buyback figure. They broke down the mileage used and the cost of that mileage. Narcy is, predictably, pissed. Calling news channels, demanding money from her friends and family and crying poor me. Again. It’s a never ending story with her, always the victim.
Though, this time, she actually has a legit problem. I’m just having a hard time justifying her claim that they are outright screwing her. What say you, Oppo? Should Nissan up their buyback game? Compensate her more for lost time with her car and a genuinely poor handling of the issue?
OPPOsaurus WRX
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 15:31 |
|
my opinion, which probably doesn’t count for much, but if she owes money and is being a pain in the ass for them, they should just say we’ll pay off the loan and you never come back here again.
they should give her this extra bit because shes probably gone thru massive headaches over the POS car they sold her as ‘reliable’
bob and john
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 15:31 |
|
24K miles isnt a small number.
I think they should just wipe the slate clean and call it a day tbh. but meh.
|
Hooker
> OPPOsaurus WRX
01/11/2017 at 15:32 |
|
Agreed. To a point, however, I feel like she is going about it all wrong. Also, I don’t think their initial offer is problematic at all. I think it’s actually very fair to her. However, it’s their car thats effing up and they have obviously stated they agree that it’s problematic so maybe she will get some peace.
|
Hooker
> bob and john
01/11/2017 at 15:34 |
|
You’re right. She won’t even take into account that she has really put that thing through it’s paces in a short amount of time. In all honesty, I have saved snapchat stories that could bury her because she takes the thing on 100+ mph runs for the hell of it. But I still don’t believe that is what caused the issues. But it would kill her case. And ruin a perfectly awkward friendship. Then where would I get all my good material from?
MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 15:34 |
|
I would probably be pissed too, sure I got use of the car, but how much time was wasted chasing gremlins? And time is money. I’d want Nissan to cover the whole cost of the car. That being said, I don’t think Nissan is outright “screwing her over” either. It’s kind of in the gray area, I can see both sides of the argument being valid.
|
bob and john
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 15:36 |
|
it 100% shouldnt have caused the issues.
I kinda agree with her, but at the same time, I love seeing people get what they deserve.
Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz)
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 15:39 |
|
Seems more than fair considering she’s put 24K miles on it in, as you think, a year! So she has clearly put a lot of wear and tear on it so, again, more than fair.
WilliamsSW
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 15:44 |
|
You’re never going to convince her of this, but as we both know, her loan balance bears no relationship to what the car is worth. I’m guessing she put virtually nothing down, so guess what? She’s upside down. Shocker.
What do you think the car would be worth, in a private party sale, assuming it wasn’t a lemon? It’s probably less than what Nissan is offering (??). If that’s true, the difference is essentially what they’re paying her for her troubles. If that seems reasonable, then it’s a good deal.
|
Hooker
> bob and john
01/11/2017 at 16:04 |
|
That’s fair.
jimz
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 16:04 |
|
yes, “mileage offsets” are common in Lemon Law statutes (hat tip to Steve Lehto.) The reason being is that she still got 24,000 miles of usage out of the car so it’s not reasonable for the manufacturer to refund the entire purchase price.
|
Hooker
> WilliamsSW
01/11/2017 at 16:05 |
|
Oh, significantly less. I gaurantee it. She doesn’t understand that if she even tried to trade it in anywhere, she’d be so far upside down it would be prohibitive. I believe firmly that Nissan is making a good faith offer. Could it be better? Sure, they could pay off the note, but they don’t HAVE to.
|
Hooker
> MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s
01/11/2017 at 16:07 |
|
See, that’s the thing, effectively they are covering the cost of the car. Plus all taxes/tag/title fees. Less her use (which, would be far worse if she traded it in or sold it private party). I feel like it’s a fair deal. Not great, however, what she owes on the car really isn’t any of their concern.
|
Hooker
> Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz)
01/11/2017 at 16:08 |
|
Agreed, Nissan is just going to turn around and auction this vehicle anyway. Now, if they have to take it back a second time it will likely just got a crusher. We had an Equinox here at my dealership one time that just cut off at random times. Never could figure out the problem. New motor. New trans. New computers. Still killed itself. They (GM) gave it to a technical college and let them tear it apart.
|
Hooker
> jimz
01/11/2017 at 16:09 |
|
Couldn’t agree more, however, she doesn’t see it that way. She got screwed dammit and they’re gonna pay for that! All her pain and suffering!
|
WilliamsSW
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 16:12 |
|
Yeah- more is always better, but if they’re paying her a few grand more than a good condition, 24k mile Rogue is worth, that seems like pretty reasonable compensation for her troubles to me.
My only advice on trying to convince her of that is to not bother- the only impact will be to give you a headache, probably.
But hey, maybe she can squeeze more out of them by being a PITA.
|
Hooker
> WilliamsSW
01/11/2017 at 16:15 |
|
Well she is definitely that! Haha. I’m hoping they make her hire a lawyer. Then it will cost her. It will be her own doing.
|
jimz
> OPPOsaurus WRX
01/11/2017 at 16:18 |
|
they can’t really tell her “never come back again” since she bought the thing from a Nissan dealer, yet Nissan North America is the one actually buying the car back.
Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 16:24 |
|
You/her could read the law. There is some account for finance charges but not all.
“(1) The full contract price including, but not limited to, charges for undercoating, dealer preparation and transportation, and installed options, plus the non-refundable portions of extended warranties and service contracts;
(2) All collateral charges, including but not limited to, sales tax, license and registration fees, and similar government charges;
(3) All finance charges incurred by the consumer after he first reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer; and
(4) Any incidental damages and monetary consequential damages.”
|
Hooker
> Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle
01/11/2017 at 16:38 |
|
I’m going to forward her this. She may have a leg to stand on for the interest. Though, her rate is stupid low so she may not get much but it could help. Thanks!
|
MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 16:53 |
|
Yea, the less mileage use part is the part that is kind of murky. Sure, she drove 24k miles but how then again how much time did she spend dealing with issues? So she’s taken some value out of the car by driving it the amount she did, but Nissan’s also taken some value out of her time. If there was a “+Inconvenience Reimbursement” line I’d tell her to shut up and take the deal. If I buy a brand new car I expect it to function properly so I don’t have to deal with inconveniences.
thatsmr
> Hooker
01/11/2017 at 19:07 |
|
Did she, like many, roll negative equity from another vehicle into the note on the Rogue?
|
Hooker
> thatsmr
01/12/2017 at 10:58 |
|
Surprisingly, not. It was paid for, however, it wasn’t worth much either.
|
Hooker
> MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s
01/12/2017 at 12:26 |
|
Agreed with all of this.