Sponsored
- Banned
- #92
Well technically, all "their" owned so called vehicles have a lien on them, just like you will until you have paid off any vehicle, so it really isn't yours either. they haven't been titled in their name, and yours neither. Spend time studying rules of civil procedure and contract law. My point is a scumbag dealer could care less what contract you think they gave you, if they choose to not honor it, then what? https://www.dealertraining.org/dealer-floor-plans.html#:~:text=A dealer floor plan is,“dealer floor plan providers”.
"Intermediary in the 'DELIVERY' of a new product???" Does that mean you think that the dealership cannot make a binding contract with me because they actually obtain the truck from Ford. That is completely wrong.
Think for a minute... Almost everything we buy is made by someone other than the seller. For example, I contracted with a builder to put a new metal roof on my house. The builder bought the metal slats from a metal roofing company. But my contract was with the builder, not the maker.
I'm wondering why you keep making these claims. So let me hazard a few guesses and you can tell me if I am right.
- Did you order your truck without an agreement signed by both you and the dealer?
- Are you worried that your dealer will add a bunch of charges onto the price?
- Are you trying to convince yourself that you didn't make a multi-thousand-dollar mistake?
- First Name
- Don
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Threads
- 3
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 363
- Location
- Charlotte Mi
- Vehicle(s)
- 2014 Ford Focus
- Engine
- 2.0L EcoBoost
You made me look. My Maverick truck deal was signed by the dealer. If it ever comes in, hopefully they stick to the contract price.
This is a common misunderstanding. You own your house, or your truck, or whatever even if it has a lien on it. It's the same with the dealer and the floorplan company that has a lien on their inventory. People who say things like "the bank owns my truck" either don't understand liens or (more likely) are just using a shorthand way to describe the situation.
The bank (or floor planner) doesn't own the trucks. It has a security interest in the trucks. The dealer owns the trucks and can sell them. But they are bound by their agreement with the bank to pay off a portion of the loan when their inventory (the security for the loan) shrinks.
Sponsored
Some of the discussion here has me confused from a legality standpoint. I am not a lawyer but have successfully pro-se litigated a $280k contract settlement in Texas (i.e., spent quite a bit of time in the state law library as well as researched hundreds of contract law cases). I have also helped write over $1B in sales contracts over the last 20 years. Under EUTA, an e-mail is considered a signed contract in most states. Even if it did not, promissory estoppel also applies in most of the cases I have seen on MTF (i.e, (1) a promise; (2) foreseeability of reliance thereon by the promisor; and (3) substantial reliance by the promisee to its detriment.) .
In either case, the dealership giving me a piece of paper to sign (either directly or via e-mail) constitutes an offer. As long as I don't make changes to the offer and just sign it, that constitutes acceptance. There seems to be plenty of case-law (at least from New York, Florida, and Texas) that I don't even have to sign the attachment and an e-mail stating "I agree with the terms as written" is enough to form a binding contract (or could even be a series of e-mails). The dealership entering my order with Ford is consideration (and if there was a deposit, even more-so). Intent would be self-evident. Finally, there is damages since the buyer would be out both time and money. Having a physically signed (buyer) and countersigned (dealer) Buyer's Order is not required for there to be a legally binding contract at least in many (most?) states.
Does this mean that the dealer can't break the contract? No. There are situations where the court has said that breaking a contract is OK. I remember one sited case (from the 1940s?) was something like: Buyer agreed to buy a desk for $300 that was agreed to be worth $400. Afterwards, seller sold the desk to someone else for $500. The buyer won the lawsuit and was paid $100 in order to be "made whole" while the seller was still up $100 as well. I would think that concept applies to many of the situations mentioned here.
I have a feeling that most dealerships just rely on the ignorance of the buyer and would back-down pretty quickly if faced with a competent legal challenge. From a dishonest dealership perspective this just makes sense (i.e., if only 1:20 customers challenged them legally that still means they made $$$ from the other 19). They know that there is not enough money involved for a buyer to get legal counsel so only those that are already lawyers or willing to do it pro-se could be a threat.
Am I missing something? Is there any case-law specific to dealerships to the contrary?
In either case, the dealership giving me a piece of paper to sign (either directly or via e-mail) constitutes an offer. As long as I don't make changes to the offer and just sign it, that constitutes acceptance. There seems to be plenty of case-law (at least from New York, Florida, and Texas) that I don't even have to sign the attachment and an e-mail stating "I agree with the terms as written" is enough to form a binding contract (or could even be a series of e-mails). The dealership entering my order with Ford is consideration (and if there was a deposit, even more-so). Intent would be self-evident. Finally, there is damages since the buyer would be out both time and money. Having a physically signed (buyer) and countersigned (dealer) Buyer's Order is not required for there to be a legally binding contract at least in many (most?) states.
Does this mean that the dealer can't break the contract? No. There are situations where the court has said that breaking a contract is OK. I remember one sited case (from the 1940s?) was something like: Buyer agreed to buy a desk for $300 that was agreed to be worth $400. Afterwards, seller sold the desk to someone else for $500. The buyer won the lawsuit and was paid $100 in order to be "made whole" while the seller was still up $100 as well. I would think that concept applies to many of the situations mentioned here.
I have a feeling that most dealerships just rely on the ignorance of the buyer and would back-down pretty quickly if faced with a competent legal challenge. From a dishonest dealership perspective this just makes sense (i.e., if only 1:20 customers challenged them legally that still means they made $$$ from the other 19). They know that there is not enough money involved for a buyer to get legal counsel so only those that are already lawyers or willing to do it pro-se could be a threat.
Am I missing something? Is there any case-law specific to dealerships to the contrary?
These are good questions. I understand what you are saying and I agree that it should be that way. But I don't agree that it actually is that way. The details of what exactly was said (or written) make a difference.
First, I agree with your statement that: "Having a physically signed (buyer) and countersigned (dealer) Buyer's Order is not required for there to be a legally binding contract at least in many (most?) states." That's true, a legally binding contract can be formed in many ways, not just with a Buyer's Order. But whether there are multiple ways to form a binding contract is not the question. The question is whether an order form (DORA) -- without more -- is one of those ways.
The "piece of paper" that most people sign when they place their Ford order is a "DORA." It describes the vehicle, but the language on the DORA talks only about making an order. For example, my original DORA says "Preview Order," "Order Summary," "This order has not been submitted to the order bank," and "This is not an invoice."
Nothing on the DORA says that the dealer is offering that vehicle to you at that price. On its face, it appears that you are simply ordering a vehicle. There isn't even a place on the form for the dealer to accept the order or sign in any capacity. (Contrast that to a formal "Buyer's Order" 00 mine has places for both buyer and seller to sign and says "This Order is not binding until accepted by the seller... .")
In short, I compare the DORA to a Purchase Order used in the absence of a framework agreement. A purchase order is signed by the buyer and given to the seller. But it does not become a contract until the seller accepts it. I think that's why I haven't seen any reports that a buyer has successfully sued a car dealer in contract on a DORA or anything like it.
But... I agree with you that if you have an email that says: "We offer to sell you this car at this price, sign and return the attached document," then you probably have a contract. There is plenty of law saying that an email from someone can constitute a signed writing and (perhaps combined with other information) establish a contract.
[Note: I am not talking here about fraud, deceptive trade practices, or anything other than contracts. That's because I'm talking about how people can protect themselves ahead of time, not how they can try for relief later. And I'm not ignoring your promissory estoppel argument -- which is legally valid -- it's just that it too would require some proof that a promise was made and I don't think the DORA provides that.]
Last edited:
Lawyer here. NOT in ARKANSAS. NOT TO BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
See if there is a consumer protection attorney you can speak with in that area. There may be laws that permit them to recover the fees and costs in these situations. That would make them inclined to take the case. This case is unlike a lot of others on the forum where the person walks and damages could be hard to quantify. Here this is likely fraud (treble damages?), but the lawyer would file for breach and unjust enrichment as well. Assuming this is how it all went down, I would give you a more likely than not chance of success. The GM sounds like a total shitface, and will likely present himself as one in court too.
- Banned
- #104
Guess the concept of having a "clear title" to something isn't in your database either? Still blaming customers instead of the scumbags? Are you a volunteer or do they pay you? Guess Ford doesn't "own" the vehicles once they come off the transporters? Whose name is the title in? Who pays sales tax first? WOW, so much insider info you seem to have! Awesome! Bad consumers, not ever rotten dealers? OK!
I was just waiting for another fan of Lehto to post here.One problem with Lehto's vid today: that's for _advertised_ price not being OTD price. This thread's gripe is that the markup is already being advertised, so I don't think the Maryland case will help.
Here's Lehto on markups _after_ ordering, so the real problem for Mavs, but it isn't good news:
Sponsored
