If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AutoBlog)   Got a good deal on a new car? That's a jailin'   (autoblog.com) divider line 32
    More: Asinine, malicious prosecution, Chesapeake, arbitrages, legal burden of proof, sales managers, arrest records, Chevrolet Traverse, false arrest  
•       •       •

11372 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 5:02 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-03 05:17:42 AM  
8 votes:
I'm sure that this dealership, if they had accidentally overcharged a customer (who had freely agreed to the wrong price), they would have happily refunded the difference or turned themselves in to the police. Right?
2012-10-03 05:31:07 AM  
7 votes:
Not to play armchair lawyer, but what is the police doing by getting involved in something like this? The guy had a contract, the keys, and presumably the registration, so why didn't they simply question him, get the facts straight, and let him go? Arresting him gets the PD involved in a civil dispute for no reason at all.
2012-10-03 10:39:35 AM  
2 votes:

MycroftHolmes: The Muthaship: MycroftHolmes: a) please point out the part where it says that he was arrested
b) please provide citation that he had the paperwork with him
c) please provide a citation that indicates he was held for a significant amount of time after the paperwork was provided and vetted

Are you completely stupid, or just trying to get a rise out of liam76?

a) The headline tells you he was arrested. The article says he was held for 4 hours.
b) Even if he didn't have his paperwork on him, he was in a place that had copies as required by law.
c) He was taken into custody, and held for 4 hours for no reason whatsoever. It doesn't really matter if that is significant in your opinion. But, you can bet your ass is was in his.

a) headlines are often incorrect, i was going by the body of the article, which very carefully avoids the word arrest
b) I did not get the impression that he was picked up from the car dealership. Can you provide your source that indicates that he was at the dealership when he was picked up?
c) he was taken into custody to clarify an accusation of a crime. Are you proposing that if someone is accused of a crime by people who indicate clearly that he was the perpetrator, that he should not be detained just because he denies committing the crime?

So, while the detention is not a small thing, I see no indication of wrongdoing on the part of the police.


FTFA "Sawyer was taken into custody by police, but the Commonwealth dropped the charges after finding insufficient evidence to pursue the case"

Taken into custody means arrested, the police have zero power to hold you, much less transport you to the police station, without arresting you. That is basic criminal law knowledge. Furthermore, "Commonwealth dropped the charges" again reiterates the fact that he was farking arrested. Charges would have been brought by the dealership saying the car was stolen, relayed to the police who arrested him and moved his person and then forwarded the arresting charges to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor gets the case after the police have done all their work and send the case to them, the prosecutor doesn't go and build their own case. FYI, in all cities at least, prosecutor offices have a person in the police station processing all arrest and making the necessary files and listing the charges for which they were brought.

Now since you're a fark troll and will say "the article didn't say he was arrested" here's another source and states he was given bond (hint you have to be arrested to get that too): LinkNew article gives so many more details,such as he was a registered nurse and that the mangers again repeatedly told their bosses and others the SUV was stolen and kept to that line until confronted. In fact, according to the new article, the manager KNEW the guy was about to be arrested and kept his rat-face mouth shut.

Do you have any farking idea what kind of mess and trouble he will have keeping his license with a felony arrest ? The charges were 'dropped due to lack of evidence' so he was never cleared and will always have this problem since the arrest will challenge his moral character for the license. He will battle that forever, the 2million he is asking for isn't really that high given the facts.

//linked story has the complaint too, good reading and the dealership is f*cked.
2012-10-03 07:53:39 AM  
2 votes:
FTOriginalA: According to the lawsuits, Sawyer test-drove a blue Chevrolet Traverse on May 7 but ultimately decided to buy a black one. He traded in his 2008 Saturn Vue, signed a promissory note and left in his new SUV.

The next morning, Sawyer returned and asked to exchange the black Traverse for the blue one.

The lawsuit claims Wib Davenport, a sales manager, agreed to the trade without discussing how much more the blue Traverse would cost. Cummings disputed that, saying Davenport told Sawyer it would cost about $5,500 more than the black one and that Sawyer orally agreed to the higher price.

Regardless, the final contract Sawyer signed did not reflect the higher price, which Cummings said should have been in the area of $39,000. He blamed a clerical error.

"We definitely made a mistake there. There is no doubt about it," said Ellmer.

After signing the contract - which listed a sale price of about $34,000 - Sawyer immediately left the dealership and returned with a cashier's check covering what he owed after dealer incentives and his trade-in.

A week later, Sawyer came back from a vacation to find numerous voicemails and a letter from the dealership, the suit said. In a phone conversation, Davenport explained they had made a mistake on the contract and sold the car for too little. He asked Sawyer to return to the dealership and sign a new contract.

The lawsuit claims Sawyer refused. Cummings said Sawyer initially agreed but never followed through.

When Sawyer did not return to the dealership, Priority staff continued their attempts to contact him via phone, text message and hand-delivered letters. They eventually contacted police.


And this is why you always read the contract carefully before you sign. An oral contract may be binding some of the time, but if you have a written one, also, that's the binding document. The final contract stated 34k, the final sale price is 34k, unless you can convince the buyer to sign a new contract. Using legal methods, this time they could not. 

And, regarding the "Cummings said Sawyer initially agreed but never followed through" part, that probably went:

Cummings: We need you to come back in and sign a new contract for $5,000 more than the previous legally binding document.
Sawyer: Yeah, I'll get right on that. *hangs up*
2012-10-03 07:19:54 AM  
2 votes:

Maneck: Animatronik:
Well if he swapped colors and they gave him one with fewer features, thetd probably admit the mistake. In any case he could sue.

It looks like the sales manager gave this guy the wrong car when he switched colors. This guy knew what happened but refused to switch. Dealer could have sued but it was their mistake, not a crime. Jerks all around perhaps.

Get out of here with that rational thinking.

The got guy the right price on the car he bought. He decided to change the color (you can do that?), the dealership tried to help. They initially gave him a model with too many features. They realized their error, but the guy decided to got the "bank error in MY favor? All mine!" route.

Which led to a civil dispute as to ownership and possession of the vehicle. The cops obviously didn't get the facts perfectly straight before arresting him, and that's unfortunate. But I wouldn't blame the dealership for calling the cops. What the buy did was in the neighborhood of theft, although not likely theft itself. Most people aren't going to make that distinction properly.

If this guy wins the lawsuit, it would be a travesty. He acted like a dick and took advantage of someone who made an honest error while trying to help him.


It seems that there wasn't even any real dispute, just the dealer wanted to change the terms of the transaction after the fact and the customer was not interested in doing so.

The dealer had no interest in the vehicle, legal or otherwise. I guess I could call the police and tell them my neighbor's car is actually mine and that they had stolen it from me, but I would certainly expect some consequences as a result of it.
2012-10-03 07:13:27 AM  
2 votes:

bmihura: Bhruic: Loaded Six String: 2.2 million dollars in damages? Come the fark on. 4 hours in jail doesn't justify that kind of punitive damages unless he was grossly mistreated, in which case it would be primarily directed at the police anyways. This kind of litigious action just seems like an unethical money grab to me. There should be caps for this sort of thing, instead of aiming for the moon and working down $1,000 at a time from there.

I was thinking the same thing at first, but I came to the conclusion that the $2.2 million is most likely just a first offer. They don't expect to get it, but by starting off high, they probably think they can settle at a fairly high amount. And there's little doubt that this'll be settled, no way the company will let it hit trial.

Hah! I can just imagine a car dealership in a trial. And a Chevy dealership at that. They probably have the world's most stupid clientele, unless there are still Yugo cars being made somewhere.


Actually I don't see any problem with asking for a few million as that's a punitive amount. Punitive and compensation damages are separate and here the dealership needs to have a punitive amount slapped against them to let them know and others that you can't simply call the police and report a false crime simply because you voluntarily negotiated a raw deal. That's what punitive damages are there.

Also this guy has an arrest record for auto theft on his permanent sheet. Any and all future background checks, even certain credit agency reports (not the consumer version you see, the business version they see) will list the arrest forever. How many jobs will now refuse to hire the guy simply because of the arrest, even if he explains the situation how many jobs will simply say "isn't wroth the risk since its on there"? You don't get to intentionally fark someone's life over and expect to get away with it as a business.
2012-10-03 05:39:32 AM  
2 votes:

loveblondieo: I hope he wins every single cent.

And where was the common sense on the part of the arresting officers? This was clearly not a reason to haul someone off to jail for.


A local business called them.
2012-10-03 05:38:37 AM  
2 votes:

loveblondieo: I hope he wins every single cent.

And where was the common sense on the part of the arresting officers? This was clearly not a reason to haul someone off to jail for.



FTFA: the dealership called the local police alleging the buyer had stolen the vehicle
The dealership manager should be arrested for filing a false report.
2012-10-03 05:25:29 AM  
2 votes:
I hope he wins every single cent.

And where was the common sense on the part of the arresting officers? This was clearly not a reason to haul someone off to jail for.
2012-10-03 03:04:35 PM  
1 votes:

HoratioGates: There should be some criminal charges against the car salesman, but for civil damages, 4 hours doesn't equal 2 million. They should just give him the car for free. There are times when punitive damages might well be appropriate for punishment but still be inappropriate windfalls for plaintiffs. Excessive punitive damages should be put into a general victims compensation fund to help people who get screwed by people without fat wallets.


Just a quick FYI for all of the people downplaying the whole 4 hours thing: That arrest is on his record.....forever.

If there ever was a time for excessive punitive damages, maliciously filing a false report is it.
2012-10-03 11:30:57 AM  
1 votes:
I find it hard to fault the police in this case - while I agree that they likely could have done more investigation prior to an arrest, the bottom like comes from the article that Tomley linked - the dealership never transferred the legal title of the vehicle to the customer. If the dealer presented the legal title to the vehicle to the police and said, "That guy stole it!", and the guy has the vehicle and can't show legal title, unless the customer could show the signed paperwork I can understand why the police might arrest him. There's not enough information in any of the articles that I've seen to indicate the police acted wrongly here.

The dealer, on the other hand, needs to be held both criminally and civilly accountable for this. There was certainly no theft in this case, they were well aware of it (as evidence: they not only signed the contract that they wrote, but they also accepted payment in accordance with it). Whomever made the report of theft needs to face charges for the false statement. From a civil perspective, by failing to transfer the legal title to the vehicle after the contract was fulfilled the dealer was certainly in breach of contract. They need to be held liable for that breach, plus the difficulties caused by the false report, plus additional costs incurred by the customer (alternate vehicle, legal fees, defamation). This is a big deal - if the dealer was convinced that the contract should be nullified, there are appropriate legal steps they can take (filing a civil suit would have been a good start). The dealer's actual conduct was completely unreasonable.

That said, the customer has lost a lot of sympathy (maybe even credibility) by filing suit for millions of dollars. There is no way that the dealer's actions caused damages on that level, nor do the statutes for punitive damages allow for amounts of that magnitude.

/This legal opinion brought to you by a graduate of the Judge Judy school of contract law
//Not valid legal opinion in actual courts of law
2012-10-03 10:37:19 AM  
1 votes:

The Muthaship: MycroftHolmes: So, you are saying that if call the police and tell them I saw a guy driving away from my house with my stuff, before they go detain him to sort things out, they should ask me to provide documentation that the things are really mine?

Not at all like what happened here, but don't let that stop you.

MycroftHolmes: And you are really saying 'Let's go down to the station until we can get this all sorted out' is wholly inappropiate?

The information we have is that he was arrested and detained. If you want to go off that script, you'll be the one that has to provide the citation.


To your first point, the standard you established was

"Cop to dealer: Let me see any documentation you have on this vehicle before I go and deprive a citizen of his freedom."

So, you are in fact saying that the standard should be that property ownership must clearly be established before the police should act. Which is the same standard I used in my example to point out how ridiculous this is. You do get that application of law should be consistent and standardized, right, not just on the whim of whoever.

to the second point, i will concede that he was arrested. In light of the facts that the police knew at the time, I don't think this was unreasonable.
2012-10-03 10:33:50 AM  
1 votes:

imtheonlylp: ...but I also hope karma steps in on behalf of the customer and deals him a little dishonesty later in life as well.


Because signing a contract someone else wrote for a product they provided and priced is so incredibly dishonest, right?

I wouldn't buy a car from you. You sound like a cheat.
2012-10-03 10:27:36 AM  
1 votes:
Better story, with more details. He was arrested and had to post bond.

Link
2012-10-03 10:24:32 AM  
1 votes:

The Muthaship: Cop to dealer: Let me see any documentation you have on this vehicle before I go and deprive a citizen of his freedom.

End of story.

Almost as good, the cop could have asked the guy he was arresting if he had paid for the car and asked for documentation from him before deciding to cuff and stuff him. Most cops are dying for a chance to say "It's a civil matter." and get back to doing nothing. This one should have on this occasion.

/I thought the guy wasn't 'right here' at the time?



So, you are saying that if call the police and tell them I saw a guy driving away from my house with my stuff, before they go detain him to sort things out, they should ask me to provide documentation that the things are really mine?

And you are really saying 'Let's go down to the station until we can get this all sorted out' is wholly inappropiate? Once they realized it was a civil matter, they punted (being released in four hours is pretty fast for any bureaucracy). I still am not sure how people are trying to put this on the cops. A vehicle was reported stolen, the cops detained the person who was reported as the thief, then released as soon as it was determined to be a civil matter, with no charges filed. You really think it is reasonable to not detain someone accused of grand theft until the facts get sorted out?
2012-10-03 10:14:39 AM  
1 votes:

The Muthaship: Remember, there was no crime. I'm proposing that the police need probable cause to arrest someone. They did not have it here. He was not detained. He was removed from his residence (or wherever) by the cops, and held for 4 hours, based on a lie that the cops did not even bother to try to verify.


YOu are honestly telling me that someone saying 'This guy, this guy right here, drove off of with our car and didn't pay for it. He stole our car. This is his name and address. he stole our car. this is a stolen car' is not probably cause to pick someone up and detain them until the situation is sorted out.

And I am not sure, but i seem to recall that headlines can be frequently written by editors, not always the author.
2012-10-03 10:04:10 AM  
1 votes:

The Muthaship: MycroftHolmes: a) please point out the part where it says that he was arrested
b) please provide citation that he had the paperwork with him
c) please provide a citation that indicates he was held for a significant amount of time after the paperwork was provided and vetted

Are you completely stupid, or just trying to get a rise out of liam76?

a) The headline tells you he was arrested. The article says he was held for 4 hours.
b) Even if he didn't have his paperwork on him, he was in a place that had copies as required by law.
c) He was taken into custody, and held for 4 hours for no reason whatsoever. It doesn't really matter if that is significant in your opinion. But, you can bet your ass is was in his.


a) headlines are often incorrect, i was going by the body of the article, which very carefully avoids the word arrest
b) I did not get the impression that he was picked up from the car dealership. Can you provide your source that indicates that he was at the dealership when he was picked up?
c) he was taken into custody to clarify an accusation of a crime. Are you proposing that if someone is accused of a crime by people who indicate clearly that he was the perpetrator, that he should not be detained just because he denies committing the crime?

So, while the detention is not a small thing, I see no indication of wrongdoing on the part of the police.
2012-10-03 09:58:44 AM  
1 votes:

StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?

Ahh, so property theft should not be considered a crime any more, but only a civil issue? or do you hold the police responsible for not knowing at once what we know after the fact?

What theft?


The theft that was reported by the car dealership. Did you actually read the article? or do you expect police to magically know when someone falsely reports a crime?
2012-10-03 09:57:37 AM  
1 votes:

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: In my Monday morning quarterback opinion, here is how this should have played out....."This vehicle is reported stolen." "Nope, here's my paperwork." "Hmmm. You're paperwork contradicts their paperwork. Here's what we're going to do....the car will be temporarily held while we sort this out, and you don't leave town."

Paperwork is legit? "Sorry for the inconvenience, here's your car back."

Paperwork isn't legit? "Hey, dealership, come get your car. And you, sir, are under arrest. oops, you ran? Oh well, here's a nice piece of paper with your name on it, don't come back to Virginia."

Hell, I'm not even sure impounding the vehicle temporarily would have been warranted, but would have been better than being arrested, booked, and held.



Detaining a person for four hours is entirely consistent with the amount of time it would take to obtain the paperwork (most people are not in the habit of keeping ownership papers in the car with them...kind of defeats the purpose if the car gets stolen).

You can make up any story you want, but being detained four hours while getting stories straightened out is not even close to unreasonable. Please note, the detainee does not seem to indicate (through his words or lawsuits) that he holds the police responsible. So, it seems as if the person who has the most facts in thiscase disagrees with assessment that the police detained him incorrectly (based on what they knew of the situation).
2012-10-03 09:47:24 AM  
1 votes:

liam76: MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

I would be fine if they detained him long enough to look at his paperwork and call the dealer. They didn't. The arrested him.

Did you miss the difference or are you being dishonest about what happened.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

I am intrigued by the morons who think legal documents signed by the owner and dealer is the same as 'nuh-uh, this is mine'


a) please point out the part where it says that he was arrested
b) please provide citation that he had the paperwork with him
c) please provide a citation that indicates he was held for a significant amount of time after the paperwork was provided and vetted

Sorry, bub, cops acted completely reasonably here, even the detained person is not holding them responsible. So, unbunch your panties and let go of the cop hate.
2012-10-03 09:36:51 AM  
1 votes:

StoPPeRmobile: Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?


The dealership didn't treat this as a contract dispute, they reported it as an actual crime, which wasn't pursued once the police were satisfied that there was no crime, and this is a contract dispute.

Which is exactlywhy the dealership is about to get owned by this guy for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
2012-10-03 09:26:32 AM  
1 votes:

liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.


Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.
2012-10-03 09:07:14 AM  
1 votes:

Loaded Six String: 2.2 million dollars in damages? Come the fark on. 4 hours in jail doesn't justify that kind of punitive damages unless he was grossly mistreated, in which case it would be primarily directed at the police anyways. This kind of litigious action just seems like an unethical money grab to me. There should be caps for this sort of thing, instead of aiming for the moon and working down $1,000 at a time from there.

Like that story a while back about the woman (in NYC I believe) who filed suit against the city for damages somewhere in the trillion dollar area. Bob Barker should have been summoned to waterboard her on the Price is Right wheel for being so outrageously greedy and/or stupid.

/Why yes, this sort of thing does bug me.
//Remember to spay or neuter your pets.


Plenty of jobs will pass you over with any type of criminal record.

$2.2 million isn't enough, perhaps.
2012-10-03 07:40:24 AM  
1 votes:
If he had over paid they would have called him up and rushed the refund to him right?
2012-10-03 07:40:02 AM  
1 votes:

Maneck: Animatronik:
Well if he swapped colors and they gave him one with fewer features, thetd probably admit the mistake. In any case he could sue.

It looks like the sales manager gave this guy the wrong car when he switched colors. This guy knew what happened but refused to switch. Dealer could have sued but it was their mistake, not a crime. Jerks all around perhaps.

Get out of here with that rational thinking.

The got guy the right price on the car he bought. He decided to change the color (you can do that?), the dealership tried to help. They initially gave him a model with too many features. They realized their error, but the guy decided to got the "bank error in MY favor? All mine!" route.

Which led to a civil dispute as to ownership and possession of the vehicle. The cops obviously didn't get the facts perfectly straight before arresting him, and that's unfortunate. But I wouldn't blame the dealership for calling the cops. What the buy did was in the neighborhood of theft, although not likely theft itself. Most people aren't going to make that distinction properly.

If this guy wins the lawsuit, it would be a travesty. He acted like a dick and took advantage of someone who made an honest error while trying to help him.


I would find this claim of mutual asshattery likely except for one thing: the article specifically mentions that the dealership was trying to get him to sign a contract for a higher amount, NOT trying to replace the vehicle with one that had an appropriate amount of features.

It's one thing if the guy was, as you say, demanding he be able to keep the car and saying "screw you" to the dealership. It's another thing when there is a mistake made by the dealership and the dealership's offered solution is for you to pay more money for a car you already bought.
2012-10-03 07:29:38 AM  
1 votes:

Maneck: Get out of here with that rational thinking.

The got guy the right price on the car he bought. He decided to change the color (you can do that?), the dealership tried to help. They initially gave him a model with too many features. They realized their error, but the guy decided to got the "bank error in MY favor? All mine!" route.

Which led to a civil dispute as to ownership and possession of the vehicle. The cops obviously didn't get the facts perfectly straight before arresting him, and that's unfortunate. But I wouldn't blame the dealership for calling the cops. What the buy did was in the neighborhood of theft, although not likely theft itself. Most people aren't going to make that distinction properly.

If this guy wins the lawsuit, it would be a travesty. He acted like a dick and took advantage of someone who made an honest error while trying to help him


As determined by who? If the dealer got him to pay 7k more then later on the buyer realized he could have gotten the car for 7k less do you htink the dealer would have said, sure here is 7k? Do you think if the buyer called the police and said the dealer "stole" 7k from him he wouldn't be in jail for making false claims?
2012-10-03 06:48:29 AM  
1 votes:

abhorrent1: FTFA: the dealership called the local police alleging the buyer had stolen the vehicle
The dealership manager should be arrested for filing a false report


yep.

I got no problem if he ends up owning the dealership agfter this.
2012-10-03 06:46:02 AM  
1 votes:

Hilary T. N. Seuss: I'm sure that this dealership, if they had accidentally overcharged a customer (who had freely agreed to the wrong price), they would have happily refunded the difference or turned themselves in to the police. Right?


Well if he swapped colors and they gave him one with fewer features, thetd probably admit the mistake. In any case he could sue.

It looks like the sales manager gave this guy the wrong car when he switched colors. This guy knew what happened but refused to switch. Dealer could have sued but it was their mistake, not a crime. Jerks all around perhaps.
2012-10-03 05:37:44 AM  
1 votes:

Loaded Six String: 2.2 million dollars in damages? Come the fark on. 4 hours in jail doesn't justify that kind of punitive damages unless he was grossly mistreated, in which case it would be primarily directed at the police anyways. This kind of litigious action just seems like an unethical money grab to me. There should be caps for this sort of thing, instead of aiming for the moon and working down $1,000 at a time from there.

Like that story a while back about the woman (in NYC I believe) who filed suit against the city for damages somewhere in the trillion dollar area. Bob Barker should have been summoned to waterboard her on the Price is Right wheel for being so outrageously greedy and/or stupid.

/Why yes, this sort of thing does bug me.
//Remember to spay or neuter your pets.


What I think about when I see the 2.2 mil is that the next guy might not get treated that way when business makes a 'mistake' not in their favor. We have no process to police ethics now except for large punitive damages.
2012-10-03 05:24:58 AM  
1 votes:
Well, as mentioned in the comments on the site, the poor bastard has an arrest record for buying a car. That shiat don't wash off. Nonetheless, in a perfect world anyone who buys a Chev would be put in jail anyway.
2012-10-03 05:19:40 AM  
1 votes:
>car dealership makes a dick move
>"we'll let him keep the car and say we're sorry"

Hahahahaahha, no, not good enough. $2million of not good enough? Well, I don't know. They should feel pain, though. Much pain.
2012-10-03 05:17:52 AM  
1 votes:
The buyer should be jailed for his taste in cars. The Traverse has the worst cockpit I've ever seen in a recent model year vehicle.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report