So this is how they will enforce flipping vehicles-$1.00 Lien

[CKN]

There was a recent thread about the Ford Lightning and the owner of the new vehicle not being able to resell it for 12 months. I brought up how are they going to enforce it-this is how GM is apparently doing it-

The GM dealer in Canada put a $1.00 lien of the vehicle so the owner could not resell it in the first year of ownership. Will other manufacturers follow?

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/02/gmc-yukon-owner-cant-sell-vehicle-because-dealer-has-1-lien-on-it-video/

 

[PimTac]

If this was not fully disclosed at the time of purchase I would think the owner would have legal recourse? Then again this is Canada. They have surprised a lot of people as of late.

 

[BHopkins]

I can see in today's auto market, where auto dealers would feel this a fair practice. At least those dealers that are selling for MSRP, and not tacking on big markups.

If a dealer is trying to treat customers fairly, by selling at MSRP, then have a customer buy a high demand car, only to flip it, then that could be a little frustrating to the dealer.

But, as Pim Tac points out, it would need to be fully disclosed, just like it was in the linked story. Since this is not a normal practice, I would think it would need to be pointed out and have it's own "initial here" line, to be sure the buyer is aware.

 

[CKN]

Anybody got one of those "First World Problems" memes?

What if he lost his job and the vehicle wasn't paid off? And he needed to get out from the payments? You have a fully paid off asset and can't do want you want with it. It's not first world under certain circumstances. OR-if it happens TO YOU.

 

[tyman]

Lol absolutely stupid

 

[BHopkins]

What if he lost his job and the vehicle wasn't paid off? And he needed to get out from the payments? You have a fully paid off asset and can't do want you want with it. It's not first world under certain circumstances. OR-if it happens TO YOU.

I would hope that, under just circumstances, any respectable dealership would release a buyer from the clause. The example mentioned in the link seems like a good reason. And a situation mentioned by CKN seems like a just reason too.

But I can see a dealer learning afterwards that someone in one of these circumstances, was actually able to turn a nice profit, even though that wasn't the primary intent of selling. Then the dealership gets their nose bent out of shape, and is unwilling to waive the clause for the next person.

 

[Imp4]

What if he lost his job and the vehicle wasn't paid off? And he needed to get out from the payments?

All of these scenarios should be considered by the buyer before he or she signs the contract.

You have a fully paid off asset and can't do want you want with it.

You can do exactly what you contractually agreed to do when you signed on the dotted line.

You do read contracts before you sign, right?!?

 

[Kestas]

Intuitively this doesn't pass the smell test. Doesn't this cross over into restraint of trade, which is illegal?

 

[Wolf359]

What if he lost his job and the vehicle wasn't paid off? And he needed to get out from the payments? You have a fully paid off asset and can't do want you want with it. It's not first world under certain circumstances. OR-if it happens TO YOU.

Then it's tough luck. If you think that might happen, shouldn't enter into a contract like that. It's an agreement between two parties. They both agree to the conditions. Something happening to one party doesn't give them a right to break it.

 

[Zee09]

Sounds like sour grapes to me...

 

[Astro14]

Intuitively this doesn't pass the smell test. Doesn't this cross over into restraint of trade, which is illegal?

While Canada derives its legal heritage from Commonwealth tradition, they’ve strayed pretty far from that tradition in other areas. So, what makes sense to those of us South of their border, may, or may not, hold true up there.

 

[Wolf359]

Intuitively this doesn't pass the smell test. Doesn't this cross over into restraint of trade, which is illegal?

It would be if it was a condition imposed by one party. Where both parties agree to it, then it's just contract enforcement. Sorta like enter into a contract to rent a place, then lose your job and then can't pay. Is that a legitimate reason not to pay your rent?

Why are people always trying to weasel out of an agreement? Whatever happened to honoring an agreement?

 

[Kestas]

The comments section is interesting.

 

[Astro14]

It was in the contract. The owner “discovered it” after “reading the fine print” several months later.

Maybe read the fine print before you sign, eh?

 

[dishdude]

This is from the comment section under the article, take it with a grain of salt but sounds likely.

No need to feel sorry for him.

He said he was unaware of some of the restrictions dealers have put in place to avoid people buying these vehicles to flip and make a huge profit.

In a very short period of time he bought at least 3 high end vehicles 2 of which where already resold and ended up in the states by the time this article was posted. He is on the exporter list GM circulates twice relating to the sale of 2 of these vehicles. No GM dealer in Canada could sell him another vehicle at this point.

This is such a problem here that I guarantee he was made well aware of the conditions at each and every sale. When you can’t find the vehicle you want locally and see them being resold at hugely inflated prices elsewhere thank people like him.

 

[mcdonnell]

I think its so the dealer gets the points on a loan when financing

 

[Kjmack]

Private property rights anyone ?

 

[PimTac]

It was in the contract. The owner “discovered it” after “reading the fine print” several months later.

Maybe read the fine print before you sign, eh?

I would have to think this would come up when registering and insuring the vehicle as well.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I would have to think this would come up when registering and insuring the vehicle as well.

I would also think he could get around it by simply PAYING the $1 "lien".

 

[Job]

It’s nothing to do with rights. It’s in the contract by the dealer, you don’t have to sign it. Lots of things are in contracts with an auto sale. The Ford article says it is recommending dealers do this, not requiring. I hope they do put it in. Let more people who need a car get a car. Without the requirement, car flippers will be the first in line.