BG Legal/Automotive... was sold a possibly unsafe car. What to do?

[archibaldcrane]

If I were you, I'd really try my hardest to get the dealership to buy it back from you. Best of luck.

Because of a tire that was on backwards that is easily corrected?

Good lord.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's been a while since i've refreshed myself on contractual law so correct me if I'm wrong.

If the dealer did in fact expressly state that he would buy your car back if you got the letter then he made a verbal contract and is now legally required to carry out his end of the bargain should you fulfill yours. I think it fulfills all aspects of a contractual agreement and you should be able to sue should he attempt back out.

Pretty much but he can still revoke up until performance begins. This sounds like a unilateral contract to me, so acceptance isn't effective until he's completed performance 100%. Once he begins performance though an option contract is created and he can't revoke.

[Heavencloud]

Because of a tire that was on backwards that is easily corrected?

Good lord.

Considering the place actually said they'd buy it back from him if he got a written statement from Mazda, they probably would. It's obvious the car has many other problems (transmission on such a new car?)

[jmc]

Pretty much but he can still revoke up until performance begins. This sounds like a unilateral contract to me, so acceptance isn't effective until he's completed performance 100%. Once he begins performance though an option contract is created and he can't revoke.

You also have to go by your state law, not all states accept a verbal contract for large ticket items like a car.

[Brill Weave]

I'm kind of floored this car was sold to you in this condition. You may want to seriously consider looking into the Lemon Law.

[jmc]

I'm kind of floored this car was sold to you in this condition. You may want to seriously consider looking into the Lemon Law.

Lemon law is iffy, but all depends on the state.

I'll speak for MA law here on the lemon law......... from the problems he has had with the car, the only issue he would have thats covered under the law would be the tire that was not installed correctly. The dealer gets 3 chances to repair the problem before they have to refund the price of the car under the lemon law....... but the fix for the tire is just a new one

[Brill Weave]

If he's in PA they take it very seriously. Which is pretty damn surprising considering how low priority it is everywhere else.

[jmc]

If he's in PA they take it very seriously. Which is pretty damn surprising considering how low priority it is everywhere else.

I hate MA for their lemon law....... they never take it seriously.

A buddy purchased a 2007 mustang GT, that takes in water from the front wheel area into the passenger seat. Its been to the dealer 4 times and "repaired" but the problem keeps coming back a few days later, dealer refuses to refund him his money under the lemon law....and the state won't do shit about it. Buddy had to sue the entire dealership in a attempt to get his money back. Lemon law is a joke here

[Brill Weave]

That just goes to show you how boring it is here in PA.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You also have to go by your state law, not all states accept a verbal contract for large ticket items like a car.

Yea that's why I said the statute of frauds might be an issue. I think the cutoff is 5k but I can't remember.

[Kilhart]

Well, even if the dealer won't write a statement declaring the car is unsafe based on the tires alone, isn't the car technically unsafe with a faulty transmission? I mean, yes, it is covered under warranty so it's not something the dealer has to fix, but the owner simply asked for a statement saying the car was unsafe - not necessarily because of the tires.

Like I said, the car is fine in my opinion. I have no problem paying for four new tires and an EVAP pump. I just want to see if I can at least get him to concede something for giving me a car with shitty tires.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Well, even if the dealer won't write a statement declaring the car is unsafe based on the tires alone, isn't the car technically unsafe with a faulty transmission? I mean, yes, it is covered under warranty so it's not something the dealer has to fix, but the owner simply asked for a statement saying the car was unsafe - not necessarily because of the tires.

Like I said, the car is fine in my opinion. I have no problem paying for four new tires and an EVAP pump. I just want to see if I can at least get him to concede something for giving me a car with shitty tires.

If you can't get the dealer to do that, or the guys offer isn't enforceable, instead of going the unsafe route, I think you'd rather go the breach of an implied warranty of merchantability route. That's something you'd have to talk to an attorney though.

[Kilhart]

The manager at the Mazda dealer said they didn't really want to put the effort into possibly arguing against some random used car dealer. They said that the car shouldn't have passed inspection, but that it's an issue for the police. They redirected me to a state police barracks, which just gave me a number to call a specific trooper during specific hours just to leave a message.

This is definitely not worth the effort. <_<

[jmc]

The manager at the Mazda dealer said they didn't really want to put the effort into possibly arguing against some random used car dealer. They said that the car shouldn't have passed inspection, but that it's an issue for the police. They redirected me to a state police barracks, which just gave me a number to call a specific trooper during specific hours just to leave a message.

This is definitely not worth the effort. <_<

Auto-investigator


Calling him is 9/10 times not gonna help you one bit, its more so to get the dealer investigated for possible fraud when it comes to inspecting cars.