Dislike Car Dealers? You’ll Love This
- Thread starter SMB
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Apparently the situation was obvious enough to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Council... but not the dealership?
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/805836--car-salesmen-charged-for-overselling-by-25-000
They aren't charged with failing to see that the woman was unfit to buy the car. They are charged with misrepresenting the product in various ways. They are responsible for their own conduct, not the customer's willful complicity.
Apparently the situation was obvious enough to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Council... but not the dealership?
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/805836--car-salesmen-charged-for-overselling-by-25-000
They aren't charged with failing to see that the woman was unfit to buy the car. They are charged with misrepresenting the product in various ways. They are responsible for their own conduct, not the customer's willful complicity.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
I have a neighbor that has his mentally challenged sister living with his family, so he cares very much about her. She drives, goes grocery shopping, functions pretty well but I could see her being intimidated into something similar. I don't know if he has power of attorney for her.
Their parents have passed away so what if she was an only child? Or her brother was a dummy?
Too bad, so sad?
Atleast this dealer has a place of business that is easily identifiable(which rocks can be thrown through windows) and need a reasonable reputation to do business. Hopefully they get the fine and get fired. A bit of an example to others not to be excessively greedy and amoral with those that are vulnerable.
Recommending a mostly unnecessary alignment with the new tires would be one thing, this was too much.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
I have a neighbor that has his mentally challenged sister living with his family, so he cares very much about her. She drives, goes grocery shopping, functions pretty well but I could see her being intimidated into something similar. I don't know if he has power of attorney for her.
Their parents have passed away so what if she was an only child? Or her brother was a dummy?
Too bad, so sad?
Atleast this dealer has a place of business that is easily identifiable(which rocks can be thrown through windows) and need a reasonable reputation to do business. Hopefully they get the fine and get fired. A bit of an example to others not to be excessively greedy and amoral with those that are vulnerable.
Recommending a mostly unnecessary alignment with the new tires would be one thing, this was too much.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
....I don't know if he has power of attorney for her.
Their parents have passed away so what if she was an only child? Or her brother was a dummy?
Too bad, so sad?
Good point, however, when these sort of stories break, there is usually "concerned" family that comes out of the woodwork after the fact. I don't know if this was in the OP's link since I stopped clicking on links after one too many 404 FORBIDDEN messages at work.
This comes on the heels of a story in the Chicago area where a 100-year old woman was being evicted from her farm by the evil bank. At least that's how the story started out, then it comes out that the woman's own niece was causing the eviction after gaining control of the woman's property from her. Oh, and by the way, over time, the woman had raised 40 (yes, 40) foster kids who all gushed and raved about what a positive influence she was on them and how they wouldn't be where they are now without that start in life.
And yet it appears not one of them cared enough to step in and keep the woman from being fleeced.
There are always exceptions, but like I said to start with, more often than not there is family that becomes concerned only after the fact, when it's time to start suing. And I hold all accountable, I hold the family a bit more accountable.
....I don't know if he has power of attorney for her.
Their parents have passed away so what if she was an only child? Or her brother was a dummy?
Too bad, so sad?
Good point, however, when these sort of stories break, there is usually "concerned" family that comes out of the woodwork after the fact. I don't know if this was in the OP's link since I stopped clicking on links after one too many 404 FORBIDDEN messages at work.
This comes on the heels of a story in the Chicago area where a 100-year old woman was being evicted from her farm by the evil bank. At least that's how the story started out, then it comes out that the woman's own niece was causing the eviction after gaining control of the woman's property from her. Oh, and by the way, over time, the woman had raised 40 (yes, 40) foster kids who all gushed and raved about what a positive influence she was on them and how they wouldn't be where they are now without that start in life.
And yet it appears not one of them cared enough to step in and keep the woman from being fleeced.
There are always exceptions, but like I said to start with, more often than not there is family that becomes concerned only after the fact, when it's time to start suing. And I hold all accountable, I hold the family a bit more accountable.
At some point I'm sure the salesman knew he was stepping 'over the line' and taking advantage, or able to take advantage. Experience has told me, if you do this, the chances are, somehow it will come back at you. As it has.
(ultimately this sale would of resulted in failure for her to make payments anyway)
We cannot ALL protect ourselves (Mentally or Physically) from those that want to take advantage of us. That does not ALWAYS mean we should have a 'minder' with us 24/7.
Better that we have laws to protect us from extortion.
(ultimately this sale would of resulted in failure for her to make payments anyway)
We cannot ALL protect ourselves (Mentally or Physically) from those that want to take advantage of us. That does not ALWAYS mean we should have a 'minder' with us 24/7.
Better that we have laws to protect us from extortion.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
+1. Very well said.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
+1. Very well said.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
I have a neighbor that has his mentally challenged sister living with his family, so he cares very much about her. She drives, goes grocery shopping, functions pretty well but I could see her being intimidated into something similar. I don't know if he has power of attorney for her.
Their parents have passed away so what if she was an only child? Or her brother was a dummy?
Too bad, so sad?
Atleast this dealer has a place of business that is easily identifiable(which rocks can be thrown through windows) and need a reasonable reputation to do business. Hopefully they get the fine and get fired. A bit of an example to others not to be excessively greedy and amoral with those that are vulnerable.
Recommending a mostly unnecessary alignment with the new tires would be one thing, this was too much.
So is your solution punishment? Does that mean we are now allowed to make judgments about folks. Someone earlier mentioned the trend to allow challenged folks to be placed in the general population. While on the surface, that seem right and fair, this is an example of the unintended consequences.
The reality is life really isn't fair. We'd all like it to be fair, but that isn't going to happen.
There will be a small number of folks who are challenged in such a fashion. There will be a small percentage of that small percentage that will not have family who can care for them.
So are you saying we need to have a large nanny state to care for this small number of folks, at a significant cost to others? Why not start with those who DO have family and say, this person is YOUR charge, YOU are responsible for taking care of them, society cannot be the watchdog for your family member.
So where is the call for that?
I see all sorts of edge and exception cases bandied about here as if they were the principle problem. The bigger problem, in my mind is that no one wants to care for their families any more, and instead they sit around and say, "THEY ought to do something about XYZ."
Very few are saying, "What can I do to better take care of my family member?"
I'd be happy to discuss what to do about the very small percentage that doesn't have family after all those who do have family are cared for by the family.
If she's not responsible enough to make a deal for a car, how is she responsible enough for some government agency to provide her with a disability check?
Someone thought she could handle money, otherwise, why is she given money from the public treasury?
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort 24/7. As I said, you probably never had to deal with elder care.
I'm sorry, but this is just shifting the responsibility from the family to society.
This person was likely part of someone's family. They didn't take the time to take care of her, but want others to be penalized if they took advantage of her while they didn't have time to take care of her themselves.
My answer is MAKE TIME if the person is part of your family. Don't say oh, it's too hard, we need laws to protect the people we are not willing to protect with our own time, talent and treasure.
No one said it would be easy.
I'm simply saying that taking care of someone like this should be the responsibility of the family, not the whole community.
What's worse, the dealership who doesn't know her condition taking advantage of her, or the family who does know her condition who fails to establish protections for her.
The real criminals here are her family.
And this is coming from someone who moved back home years ago to take care of his aging "Granny" who raised three generations of our family even though she gave birth to ZERO children.
If someone is important enough to you, you'll find a way to take care of her.
I have a neighbor that has his mentally challenged sister living with his family, so he cares very much about her. She drives, goes grocery shopping, functions pretty well but I could see her being intimidated into something similar. I don't know if he has power of attorney for her.
Their parents have passed away so what if she was an only child? Or her brother was a dummy?
Too bad, so sad?
Atleast this dealer has a place of business that is easily identifiable(which rocks can be thrown through windows) and need a reasonable reputation to do business. Hopefully they get the fine and get fired. A bit of an example to others not to be excessively greedy and amoral with those that are vulnerable.
Recommending a mostly unnecessary alignment with the new tires would be one thing, this was too much.
So is your solution punishment? Does that mean we are now allowed to make judgments about folks. Someone earlier mentioned the trend to allow challenged folks to be placed in the general population. While on the surface, that seem right and fair, this is an example of the unintended consequences.
The reality is life really isn't fair. We'd all like it to be fair, but that isn't going to happen.
There will be a small number of folks who are challenged in such a fashion. There will be a small percentage of that small percentage that will not have family who can care for them.
So are you saying we need to have a large nanny state to care for this small number of folks, at a significant cost to others? Why not start with those who DO have family and say, this person is YOUR charge, YOU are responsible for taking care of them, society cannot be the watchdog for your family member.
So where is the call for that?
I see all sorts of edge and exception cases bandied about here as if they were the principle problem. The bigger problem, in my mind is that no one wants to care for their families any more, and instead they sit around and say, "THEY ought to do something about XYZ."
Very few are saying, "What can I do to better take care of my family member?"
I'd be happy to discuss what to do about the very small percentage that doesn't have family after all those who do have family are cared for by the family.
If she's not responsible enough to make a deal for a car, how is she responsible enough for some government agency to provide her with a disability check?
Someone thought she could handle money, otherwise, why is she given money from the public treasury?
Basically, I see our society only working well if most people do "the right thing" most of the time. Having enough laws and enforcement to make doing "the right thing" the only possible and legal option isn't practical.
Obviously many mentally or physically challenged people don't have family available or capable taking care of them, it would be best if everyone did but that's not realistic.
Also I don't mind paying the taxes to cover the expenses of treating people half decently even if they don't make the best decisions with their money all the time.
Most of the time, most people doing business with folks like this try to help them instead of trying to legally rob them.
Obviously many mentally or physically challenged people don't have family available or capable taking care of them, it would be best if everyone did but that's not realistic.
Also I don't mind paying the taxes to cover the expenses of treating people half decently even if they don't make the best decisions with their money all the time.
Most of the time, most people doing business with folks like this try to help them instead of trying to legally rob them.
The insanity of this is that she is trusted with a 2000/month disability, but when she proves she can't manage it properly it's someone else's fault.
Maybe the problem is someone deemed her capable of managing that disability check.
Either she's able to manage that check, and deals with the consequences of the decisions, or she shouldn't be getting the check in the first place.
One cannot have it both ways.
Maybe the problem is someone deemed her capable of managing that disability check.
Either she's able to manage that check, and deals with the consequences of the decisions, or she shouldn't be getting the check in the first place.
One cannot have it both ways.
There is the law, and there is right and wrong.
Being a good businessman, in my view, prohibits one from taking advantage of people like the elderly lady in question. I know first hand that you don't need to cheat people to be successful.
Cheating people is a one shot deal - there is far more business to be had treating people fairly, and reaping the benefit of their future business and referrals of friends and acquaintences.
Situations like this are easy to deal with - when in doubt, do what's right. The business in question could not possibly have thought they were doing the right thing. Shame on them.
I hope Canadian law affords her some relief.
Being a good businessman, in my view, prohibits one from taking advantage of people like the elderly lady in question. I know first hand that you don't need to cheat people to be successful.
Cheating people is a one shot deal - there is far more business to be had treating people fairly, and reaping the benefit of their future business and referrals of friends and acquaintences.
Situations like this are easy to deal with - when in doubt, do what's right. The business in question could not possibly have thought they were doing the right thing. Shame on them.
I hope Canadian law affords her some relief.
Originally Posted By: Win
There is the law, and there is right and wrong.
Being a good businessman, in my view, prohibits one from taking advantage of people like the elderly lady in question. I know first hand that you don't need to cheat people to be successful.
Cheating people is a one shot deal - there is far more business to be had treating people fairly, and reaping the benefit of their future business and referrals of friends and acquaintences.
Situations like this are easy to deal with - when in doubt, do what's right. The business in question could not possibly have thought they were doing the right thing. Shame on them.
I hope Canadian law affords her some relief.
+1
There is the law, and there is right and wrong.
Being a good businessman, in my view, prohibits one from taking advantage of people like the elderly lady in question. I know first hand that you don't need to cheat people to be successful.
Cheating people is a one shot deal - there is far more business to be had treating people fairly, and reaping the benefit of their future business and referrals of friends and acquaintences.
Situations like this are easy to deal with - when in doubt, do what's right. The business in question could not possibly have thought they were doing the right thing. Shame on them.
I hope Canadian law affords her some relief.
+1
If she had been a "normal" person (ie, not "intellectually disabled"), would what the dealer did be any more or less inappropriate? People get "taken" into deals they can't afford all the time. A friend of mine was paying on a Suzuki Grand Vitara a few years ago, and all went well until one evening the dealer called him at home to casually mention they'd just got in a shipment of NEW Grand Vitaras that, well, he thought my friend would like. Ever faithful, my friend went on in to the dealer and sure enough traded in his vehicle on a brand new one and at a much higher rate for a longer loan. And he's "normal". Unfortunatly he couldn't afford it and it was repossessed in less than a year.
To the dealer, this woman probably didn't appear "disabled" in any way (IE, if she wasn't drooling all over herself, unable to speak, etc) and as such was fair game just as my friend was.
To the dealer, this woman probably didn't appear "disabled" in any way (IE, if she wasn't drooling all over herself, unable to speak, etc) and as such was fair game just as my friend was.
I don't think your IQ would have to be too far left of centre on a Bell curve to fall awry of an unscrupulous sales person.
In this case the salesman was not content to Legally take advantage, he went further an Illeagaly took advantage.
I once read that 20% of people have an IQ score of about 80.
Is that enough for them to be finacally responsible in this day and age of 'Easy Credit'?
In this case the salesman was not content to Legally take advantage, he went further an Illeagaly took advantage.
I once read that 20% of people have an IQ score of about 80.
Is that enough for them to be finacally responsible in this day and age of 'Easy Credit'?
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Quote:
If she has such severe mental difficulties that she can't handle this kind of transaction, may be she shouldn't be out on her own, handling her own finances?
I assume those people who make these statements haven't had to deal with elder care on a personal level.
That's my thinking as well. When they try to strip an elderly person of their liberty and dignity, they will find out it is a lot easier to talk about it, than it is to do it.
Quote:
If she has such severe mental difficulties that she can't handle this kind of transaction, may be she shouldn't be out on her own, handling her own finances?
I assume those people who make these statements haven't had to deal with elder care on a personal level.
That's my thinking as well. When they try to strip an elderly person of their liberty and dignity, they will find out it is a lot easier to talk about it, than it is to do it.
Originally Posted By: expat
In this case the salesman was not content to Legally take advantage, he went further an Illeagaly took advantage.
But was it really "illegal"? Does being "intellectually disabled" provide her additional protection under the law? Maybe the article mentions it but the link is blocked on this computer.
In this case the salesman was not content to Legally take advantage, he went further an Illeagaly took advantage.
But was it really "illegal"? Does being "intellectually disabled" provide her additional protection under the law? Maybe the article mentions it but the link is blocked on this computer.
Originally Posted By: Win
Situations like this are easy to deal with - when in doubt, do what's right. The business in question could not possibly have thought they were doing the right thing. Shame on them.
As an exercise in morality. Can I ask you this question?
Assuming the lady was competent enough to purchase the 3 and not get ripped off, lets say the dealer had sold her the 6 at full retail. Instead of ripping her off a lot, maybe they just sell her the car for full boat retail with a couple spiffs added on. Would that be the "wrong thing"?
If every guy who walks in off the street can get the same car for a couple grand off retail, is it the "wrong thing" to sell the same car to someone else at full retail?
Is this just insulting because of the amount they ripped her off? I've seen plenty of people pay full retail for things that are available for much less. I'm wondering if this would even be a story if the lady had paid full retail and a couple grand for paint/cloth protection and maybe a little croak/choke from the friendly FI guy. Would that be just as wrong?
Situations like this are easy to deal with - when in doubt, do what's right. The business in question could not possibly have thought they were doing the right thing. Shame on them.
As an exercise in morality. Can I ask you this question?
Assuming the lady was competent enough to purchase the 3 and not get ripped off, lets say the dealer had sold her the 6 at full retail. Instead of ripping her off a lot, maybe they just sell her the car for full boat retail with a couple spiffs added on. Would that be the "wrong thing"?
If every guy who walks in off the street can get the same car for a couple grand off retail, is it the "wrong thing" to sell the same car to someone else at full retail?
Is this just insulting because of the amount they ripped her off? I've seen plenty of people pay full retail for things that are available for much less. I'm wondering if this would even be a story if the lady had paid full retail and a couple grand for paint/cloth protection and maybe a little croak/choke from the friendly FI guy. Would that be just as wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I think the dealer should unwind the deal.
However, we don't need more laws, we need more families who take care of their own, rather than ship granny or the slow child off to some group home or elder care facility because they can't be bothered 24x7.
My concern with getting into fair/not fair is the argument cited above. One half of all people are "below average." Does that mean we have to look out for all of them.
What if a dealer or a business is below average, are we going to tell the above average businesses that they have to care for their below average competitors? After all, those business are owned by and employ people. So even if one thinks it's a faceless corporation, it's still a business owned, staffed and run by people.
So do we make things fair for them too, since 1/2 will be below average?
However, we don't need more laws, we need more families who take care of their own, rather than ship granny or the slow child off to some group home or elder care facility because they can't be bothered 24x7.
My concern with getting into fair/not fair is the argument cited above. One half of all people are "below average." Does that mean we have to look out for all of them.
What if a dealer or a business is below average, are we going to tell the above average businesses that they have to care for their below average competitors? After all, those business are owned by and employ people. So even if one thinks it's a faceless corporation, it's still a business owned, staffed and run by people.
So do we make things fair for them too, since 1/2 will be below average?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked