Job 2 Promised, Job 1 Received

[1929]

Yes, I did know that and I did contact the dealership and I was assured that the my order was not affected. Also told that some of the Job 2 builds could start on the January 6th build date. I was on top of this so no, I do not accept that this was on me. I never got to see or test drive the truck before the purchase process and a short conversation with the sales rep that same day we spoke about the Pro Assist debocal and I was assured again that it was all good. I did not see the truck for another two days when I picked it up. It was also on the dealer to tell me that it was not to build and to reimburse the cost of the package. The dealer was notified and they confirmed that they had the notifications. Dealer never informed me that it was received different from the order and they did not provide the Ford directed reimbursement. And then to find out that this has happened to others. So all on me, No.

Never buy a vehicle without inspecting it first.
Buyer has responsibility. It's your money.

Sponsored

 

[A.Bursell]

Here is what the Job 1 - 2 problem would have played out in court:
1 - Did Ford provide memo to dealership about orders built under Job 1 would not have the Pro Trailer Assist? - Confirmed
2 - Did Ford privide a notice affixed to the vihicle stating that it is was not built to order? - Not confirmed, but suspected there was
3 - Did dealership Finance inform buyer that vehicle was not built to order? - No
4 - Did dealership Finance reimburse cost of deleted option to the buyer - No
5 - Did this issue cause emotional stress to the buyer? - I would say Yes
6 - Did Buyer find out about the difference between Job 1 and Job 2 builds and was that notified to the dealership sales for confirmation and/or adjustment? - Yes. Reply was that there was no issue that I would be receiving the correct ordered package.
7 - Was this issue discussed with Sales Rep after delivery? - Yes, and led to belive that it was a non-issue.
7- There were a few other things but the above stuck out to me the most.
Lawer stated that likely outcome would be that the dealership would have been liable for (Some type of Legal term that I cannot recall but basically a Deceptive Sales Practice) where they could possibly be held fully responsible and would have to provide me the buyer with an New Correctly Built vehicle at NO charge.

Your lawyer didn't say anything like that because the first question would be, what loss did you suffer? When your documentation says you got exactly what you paid for, nobody charged you for features that you didn't get, it ends right there. You're lucky the dealership was willing to work with you, you should be extremely thankful for them correcting your error.

 

[getrealPO]

I don't believe you are correct. The damage would be the cost of selling this truck and purchasing the one he was assured the dealership was going to provide. There were damages. He still needs to prove what they told him -if it went to that. I'm quite sure it wasn't worth the hassle to Ford and Ford did the right thing by fixing the problem. He now has to wait through the process again. Personally I would still look for another dealership - maybe find a truck that's available that meets his needs and cancel this one - might cost him more though.

 

[A.Bursell]

I don't believe you are correct. The damage would be the cost of selling this truck and purchasing the one he was assured the dealership was going to provide. There were damages. He still needs to prove what they told him -if it went to that. I'm quite sure it wasn't worth the hassle to Ford and Ford did the right thing by fixing the problem. He now has to wait through the process again. Personally I would still look for another dealership - maybe find a truck that's available that meets his needs and cancel this one - might cost him more though.

Admittedly not a lawyer, but I don't think you get very far with "a guy at the dealer said this" vs. the signed contract and full documentation that shows you got exactly what you paid for. Even if you could somehow prove what some guy said -- he misspoke or made a mistake or whatever...but you had a chance to inspect the paperwork and the vehicle and then agreed that everything was right and signed away.

Imagine if you went to a grocery store and asked for a pound of ground beef for $10/pound and the butcher said ok I'll give you a pound of ground beef for $10. He packaged everything up for you puts it on the scale and shows you it's 3/4 of a pound and it costs $7.50. You say ok and go to the cash register and pay $7.50. Then when you get home you decide you really wanted a pound. Do you have damages? Do you sue the grocery store because some guy said he would give you a pound? Or, is it your fault?

If the paperwork actually said it had something that it didn't and he was charged for something he didn't get, that could be different.

 

[getrealPO]

I'm not either. Yes - you are correct - It would come down to being able to prove that he was mislead and the fact they had you sign before inspecting was intentional.
I personally would never buy a vehicle without inspecting.

 

[npaladin2000]

You signed a document stating that the car was as you expected, without verifying for yourself that the car was as you expected. All on you, sorry. You got lucky.

 

[Blue_Max]

You signed a document stating that the car was as you expected, without verifying for yourself that the car was as you expected. All on you, sorry. You got lucky.

But surely the lawyer's time is billable.

Sponsored