Dislike Car Dealers? You’ll Love This

Status
Not open for further replies.

SMB

Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
308
Location
Orlando, FL
http://www.ridelust.com/dislike-car-dealers-youll-love-this

I just hope they get what they deserve.

Quote:

A 56 year old Canadian woman, who lives on a disability income of $1,900 CDN per month and is listed as “intellectually disabled”, brought her 2004 Mazda 3 into Mazda of Orangeville (outside of Toronto) for a new set of tires. By the time she was through, a fast talking salesman had convinced her to trade up to a new Mazda 6. Madeline Leonard, the victim, was confused by all the numbers but signed for the deal anyway. And what a deal it was.

First, Leonard agreed to pay $45,846 CDN for a car that should have stickered at $39,969 CDN. And that’s if it was new, which the car Leonard purchased wasn’t: it had accumulated some 6,000 miles as a dealer demonstrator. The fast talking salesman then proceeded to sell her add-ons, like a window etching and undercoating package for $4,500 CDN. They were kind enough to arrange 8 year financing as well, which ultimately added another $16,000 CDN to the price (including a final balloon payment of $7,000 CDN). When the dust settled, Leonard had agreed to pay $66,000 CDN for a car that, if new, should have sold for around $41,000 CDN.


The dealership’s business manager, who’s identity we’ll protect by calling him “Kien Trung”, can’t understand what the fuss is about. In his own words:

“We didn’t do anything wrong in the case of this transaction. We made a little bit of money on the deal. I guess she was not happy with it.”

Surprisingly, the Ontario Motor Vehicle Council didn’t agree with Trung and filed legal action against the dealership. The defendants, who maintain their innocence, are facing fines of $95,000 CDN each; in addition, the dealership is facing a fine of $240,000 CDN. Mazda Canada is waiting for a court decision before they decide what action to take against the dealership.
 
Very wrong, but then again if one is "intellectually challenged", perhaps they should not be in direct control of finances to make such decisions.

While the dealer is wrong for doing this, the lady did sign for it. Tells you something about her reasoning ability. Can't have your cake and eat it too...
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Very wrong, but then again if one is "intellectually challenged", perhaps they should not be in direct control of finances to make such decisions.

While the dealer is wrong for doing this, the lady did sign for it. Tells you something about her reasoning ability. Can't have your cake and eat it too...

Agreed in full. This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

I'm interested to hear the details of the case.
 
The main reason I only buy a car every 13 years is I hate dealing with dealerships.
 
I think the punishment is simple. The lady gets her car, the salesman pays every penny according to the terms of the deal. But then, I'm the only one that lives here in my world, and I am king and supreme ruler of it.
 
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?

Heck, if she's that challenged, why is she out DRIVING???

I can't stand people who are stupid expecting everyone to protect them from everything that can go wrong. If you think you're smart enought to go and mix it up in the world, and get a bad deal, suck it up!

What has the dealership done that is actually WRONG? Accessories cost money. Finacing costs money. They didn't steral from her - they charged her for stuff they gave her!
 
We don't know the actual story and the occurence of events, however it may seem that the dealership was making money for their christmas party due to the exhorbitant price to "relative" price ratio.

addyguy has spoken like a true Canadian, suck it up and move on. That said, others have mentioned it as well, if you don't got the joneses then leave the premises.

It is events like this that require changes to the laws in Canada. Perhaps their should be an ID for these disabilities on her license. Perhaps she SHOULD NOT be able to drive, logic in my opinion, is a defining factor to driving ability.
 
The dealership has a fiduciary duty to make as much money for its owner as possible. There is a matter of social contract for fair business practices but we get screwed by businesses all the time.
 
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. This could have easily happened to my mother. Unlike people under 18, there is no expiration date of having rights as an adult. There is no way to put a stamp on an old person's forehead that says "I'm old, demented, and I can't make rational decisions for myself, and therefore my signature isn't valid on documents." There are a lot of old people out there who shouldn't make financial decisions, but insist on doing so anyhow. They don't realize what they're doing. These things happen way more often than you know. The worst is in the transitional period during the onset of dementia. And the worst vultures are door-to-door salesmen. I can fill a thread with the nightmare of dealing with my mother and her problems.

Thankfully, there are Ontario Provincial officials looking out for this lady, and recognizing what's what. The rest of you guys need to grow up.
 
I understand that this happened in Canada and the laws/atmosphere there may be different, but here's my take.

It's a shame this happened and I'm no fan of dealers, but at the same time, "tolerance/diversity/PC" or whatever you want to call it dictates that we're not allowed to label anyone, that everyone is to be treated as equals and that the "challenged" are to be mainstreamed with the rest of the population. So it's not "acceptable" in this instance to ask "are you competent enough to enter into this transaction?"

And this is the result. You can't have it both ways, either you're independent and functioning and you takes yer chances, or you're not and shouldn't leave the house without an escort. If I'm not allowed to ask, then it's not on me to protect you from yourself. That task should fall on the family, who no doubt will come out of the woodwork to make a stink now.
 
Originally Posted By: opus1
If I'm not allowed to ask, then it's not on me to protect you from yourself.

EXACTLY. Well said!
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
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?

Heck, if she's that challenged, why is she out DRIVING???

I can't stand people who are stupid expecting everyone to protect them from everything that can go wrong. If you think you're smart enought to go and mix it up in the world, and get a bad deal, suck it up!

What has the dealership done that is actually WRONG? Accessories cost money. Finacing costs money. They didn't steral from her - they charged her for stuff they gave her!



Good god i think we found the salesman!!
 
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Not every family can afford an escort.

I don't think anyone is saying they don't have sympathy for this woman's condition. It's just that the dealership can't be held responsible if they don't have the means to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Of course, we don't know the details of the case, so that's a big "if" here. I'm assuming the aforementioned comments were made in a general context.
 
Apparently the situation was obvious enough to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Council... but not the dealership?

You guys are looking at this black and white. You need to realize there is a transitional period to a person's dementia.
 
"intellectually challenged" How is the dealer supposed to know this? Agreed what they did is wrong but they saw a fat deal.I bet nobody complained about it when they took $100 over invoice on a skinny deal.
I would think the deal would be void anyway if the person wasn't fit to make any sort of legal transactions.
 
Screwing someone to pay 50% more for a car is a pretty shady practice - they saw they could do it and went for it. The elderly get taken advantage of all the time - they are the primary target of fraud and all kind of schemes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom