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.

(NPR)   Almost anything can be purchased online, except a new car from an Internet-only dealership. Turns out sleazeball dickwad car dealership owners are in bed with sleazeball dickwad politicians, thus ensuring you're screwed forever   (npr.org) divider line 324
    More: Obvious, internet, National Automobile Dealers Association, AutoNation, state sales tax  
•       •       •

11608 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2013 at 2:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



324 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-21 09:14:29 AM

Yellow Beard: spickus: spickus: So if I come to your dealership to buy a new car you'll offer it to me for 1% over invoice? The first time, every time.

Yellow Beard: I am no longer a new car dealer but we did that everyday of the week.(except of course Sundays as it is illegal to sell cars in Pa on Sundays)

spickus: Do dealers ask more or less than MSRP when the customer asks "how much"?

Yellow Beard: The msrp is right on the window. All salespeople will read the window sticker to you as a starting point.

But now I'm just being an asshole because I've never been in the business, right?

yes, you are. You asked if dealers quote higher or lower than msrp. I answered your question. If you are silly enough to pay msrp, good on ya. I am sure the salesman and his manager will not only appreciate it, they will high five each other too.


No comment on me pointing out your lie? Yeah, I'm the asshole.
 
2013-02-21 09:37:08 AM

spickus: Yellow Beard: spickus: spickus: So if I come to your dealership to buy a new car you'll offer it to me for 1% over invoice? The first time, every time.

Yellow Beard: I am no longer a new car dealer but we did that everyday of the week.(except of course Sundays as it is illegal to sell cars in Pa on Sundays)

spickus: Do dealers ask more or less than MSRP when the customer asks "how much"?

Yellow Beard: The msrp is right on the window. All salespeople will read the window sticker to you as a starting point.

But now I'm just being an asshole because I've never been in the business, right?

yes, you are. You asked if dealers quote higher or lower than msrp. I answered your question. If you are silly enough to pay msrp, good on ya. I am sure the salesman and his manager will not only appreciate it, they will high five each other too.

No comment on me pointing out your lie? Yeah, I'm the asshole.


ok, I'll bite. What lie?
 
2013-02-21 11:33:47 AM

the ha ha guy: nolanomad: holy shiat, you're a lawyer?


It's called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which has been upheld in court many times.

And since you've admitted that GM instructs you to violate federal law, perhaps now you might start to see why we say the things we do about car dealers.


Well, considering your response, I'm going to assume you're not a lawyer. Well, neither am I, so I sat down and looked over the details of the Act you've mentioned, and while it does say "a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service". However, I dug a little deeper, and I also found that "This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused." Sorry, their bold, not mine. Anyhow, there's a whole lot of legalese about making sure you understand the manufacturer's warranty, so I did some further reading, wandered over to GMC's site to read up on what their warranty covers and doesn't. According to these wonderful peoples, "GMC vehicles are designed and built to resist corrosion. All body and sheet metal components are warranted against rust-through corrosion for 6 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. Application of additional rust-inhibiting materials is not required under the corrosion coverage and none is recommended. See your GMC dealer for terms of this limited warranty." I did add the bold there, and for good reason. None recommended? Not exactly saying void, but wait a second...

Also from GMC: "Installations or alterations to the original equipment vehicle (or chassis) as distributed by General Motors are not covered by the General Motors New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The special body company, assembler, equipment installer, or upfitter is solely responsible for warranties on the body or equipment and any alterations (or any effect of the alterations) to any of the parts, components, systems, or assemblies installed by GM. General Motors is not responsible for the safety or quality of design features, materials, or workmanship of any alterations by such suppliers."

If you take the time to read the ACT you've invoked, you'll find that the manufacturer can in fact spell out their own exceptions and rules.

So, you're not a lawyer, and you're an idiot. Well done.

Next?
 
2013-02-21 11:45:47 AM

nolanomad: If you take the time to read the ACT you've invoked, you'll find that the manufacturer can in fact spell out their own exceptions and rules.



Did you even bother to read what you quoted?

"This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused."

If GM can prove that an addition directly caused a problem, they can deny warranty coverage for that problem, but the remainder of the warranty remains in effect.

In other words, if I buy aftermarket wheels for my car, and the dealer can prove that the wheels caused problems with the brakes, they can legally deny warranty coverage for the brakes. If I later bring in my car for a problem with the stereo, the dealer would be violating federal law if they refused to honor the warranty due to the aftermarket wheels.
 
2013-02-21 11:52:42 AM

nolanomad: the ha ha guy: nolanomad: holy shiat, you're a lawyer?


It's called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which has been upheld in court many times.

And since you've admitted that GM instructs you to violate federal law, perhaps now you might start to see why we say the things we do about car dealers.

Well, considering your response, I'm going to assume you're not a lawyer. Well, neither am I, so I sat down and looked over the details of the Act you've mentioned, and while it does say "a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service". However, I dug a little deeper, and I also found that "This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused." Sorry, their bold, not mine. Anyhow, there's a whole lot of legalese about making sure you understand the manufacturer's warranty, so I did some further reading, wandered over to GMC's site to read up on what their warranty covers and doesn't. According to these wonderful peoples, "GMC vehicles are designed and built to resist corrosion. All body and sheet metal components are warranted against rust-through corrosion for 6 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. Application of additional rust-inhibiting materials is not required under the corrosion coverage and none is recommended. See your GMC dealer for terms of this limited warranty." I did add the bold there, and for good reason. None recommended? Not exactly saying void, but wait a second...

Also from GMC: "Installations or alterations to the original equipment vehicle (or chassis) as distributed by General Motors are not covered by the General Motors New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The special body company, assembler, equipment ...


But he isn't an idiot, you completely misread that to reinforce my statement, and then proceeded to call us wrong.    So much fail...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-21 11:54:51 AM

the ha ha guy: nolanomad: If you take the time to read the ACT you've invoked, you'll find that the manufacturer can in fact spell out their own exceptions and rules.


Did you even bother to read what you quoted?

"This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused."

If GM can prove that an addition directly caused a problem, they can deny warranty coverage for that problem, but the remainder of the warranty remains in effect.

In other words, if I buy aftermarket wheels for my car, and the dealer can prove that the wheels caused problems with the brakes, they can legally deny warranty coverage for the brakes. If I later bring in my car for a problem with the stereo, the dealer would be violating federal law if they refused to honor the warranty due to the aftermarket wheels.


Yes, the remainder of the warranty remains in effect. My mistake to imply that the warranty is voided across the board- heck, the word "void" shouldn't be used. What I was trying to point out is that modifying the vehicle can leave you responsible instead of the manufacturer should there be a problem. Call it a "case by case" negation of warranty coverage. Now that's mouthful. And for the record, someone who tries to imply aftermarket wheels is the reason your stereo broke is a moron.
 
2013-02-21 12:05:10 PM

Girion47: But he isn't an idiot, you completely misread that to reinforce my statement, and then proceeded to call us wrong. So much fail...


GMC explicitly states that "installations or alterations to the original equipment... are not covered". Please explain how I'm misreading that.
 
2013-02-21 12:07:14 PM

nolanomad: And for the record, someone who tries to imply aftermarket wheels is the reason your stereo broke is a moron.



I know someone who was denied warranty service on his engine due to his aftermarket running boards. When he removed the running boards and went to another dealer, they told him he was red-flagged in the system, so they couldn't honor the warranty even if they wanted to.

After a few months of back-and-forth between his lawyer and GM corporate, they did finally reinstate the warranty, though as far as I know they never reimbursed the money he had to spend to get the engine fixed while he was in warranty-limbo.
 
2013-02-21 12:22:33 PM

nolanomad: Girion47: But he isn't an idiot, you completely misread that to reinforce my statement, and then proceeded to call us wrong. So much fail...

GMC explicitly states that "installations or alterations to the original equipment... are not covered". Please explain how I'm misreading that.


Your original statement was that the warranty is voided.   Which is an incorrect statement.  The manufacturer can only deny your claim if an aftermarket modification lead to the failure.

GMC can say whatever they want, the Moss-Magnuson act overrides it.
 
2013-02-21 12:30:31 PM
The manufacturer can only deny your claim if an aftermarket modification lead to the failure.
GMC can say whatever they want, the Moss-Magnuson act overrides it.


You do realize these two statements contradict one another, right?
 
2013-02-21 12:40:20 PM

nolanomad: The manufacturer can only deny your claim if an aftermarket modification lead to the failure.
GMC can say whatever they want, the Moss-Magnuson act overrides it.

You do realize these two statements contradict one another, right?



How is it a contradiction? A company can say anything they want, but the law usually takes precedence over any illegal claims.

Or are you trying to imply that a car manufacturer is incapable of making illegal claims?
 
2013-02-21 12:56:49 PM

the ha ha guy: nolanomad: The manufacturer can only deny your claim if an aftermarket modification lead to the failure.
GMC can say whatever they want, the Moss-Magnuson act overrides it.

You do realize these two statements contradict one another, right?


How is it a contradiction? A company can say anything they want, but the law usually takes precedence over any illegal claims.

Or are you trying to imply that a car manufacturer is incapable of making illegal claims?


No, I'm saying that if a dealer can prove an aftermarket caused a problem, they can turn down a warranty claim. GMC states it in their policy, and the act you refer to says that a warranty must declare their terms and conditions, which has been done. So, in the case of say, the underside of your truck corroding or rusting, and your local dealer can show that it's because of a poor quality aftermarket under body spray job, it's not their problem anymore. Your truck had a 6 year, 100k non-corrosion guarantee, and you went and messed with it. Take your problem to the guy that sold you the spray job, it's their problem. Here: http://www.gmc.com/owners/warranty.html I mean, I guess GM could be posting a warranty that flies in the face of federal law, but I sort of doubt it. after all, http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-fed e ral-warranty-law#stating  read #1 under "basic information required for all warranties" and you'll see if your written warranty should state specifically what it does and does not cover. Not saying you couldn't go ahead and sue someone anyhow ('tis the american way these days) just saying I doubt you'd get very far.
 
2013-02-21 01:02:07 PM

nolanomad: the ha ha guy: nolanomad: The manufacturer can only deny your claim if an aftermarket modification lead to the failure.
GMC can say whatever they want, the Moss-Magnuson act overrides it.

You do realize these two statements contradict one another, right?


How is it a contradiction? A company can say anything they want, but the law usually takes precedence over any illegal claims.

Or are you trying to imply that a car manufacturer is incapable of making illegal claims?

No, I'm saying that if a dealer can prove an aftermarket caused a problem, they can turn down a warranty claim. GMC states it in their policy, and the act you refer to says that a warranty must declare their terms and conditions, which has been done. So, in the case of say, the underside of your truck corroding or rusting, and your local dealer can show that it's because of a poor quality aftermarket under body spray job, it's not their problem anymore. Your truck had a 6 year, 100k non-corrosion guarantee, and you went and messed with it. Take your problem to the guy that sold you the spray job, it's their problem. Here: http://www.gmc.com/owners/warranty.html I mean, I guess GM could be posting a warranty that flies in the face of federal law, but I sort of doubt it. after all, http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-fed e ral-warranty-law#stating  read #1 under "basic information required for all warranties" and you'll see if your written warranty should state specifically what it does and does not cover. Not saying you couldn't go ahead and sue someone anyhow ('tis the american way these days) just saying I doubt you'd get very far.


You're still agreeing with us and telling us we're wrong.
 
2013-02-21 01:04:55 PM

Girion47: nolanomad: the ha ha guy: nolanomad: The manufacturer can only deny your claim if an aftermarket modification lead to the failure.
GMC can say whatever they want, the Moss-Magnuson act overrides it.

You do realize these two statements contradict one another, right?


How is it a contradiction? A company can say anything they want, but the law usually takes precedence over any illegal claims.

Or are you trying to imply that a car manufacturer is incapable of making illegal claims?

No, I'm saying that if a dealer can prove an aftermarket caused a problem, they can turn down a warranty claim. GMC states it in their policy, and the act you refer to says that a warranty must declare their terms and conditions, which has been done. So, in the case of say, the underside of your truck corroding or rusting, and your local dealer can show that it's because of a poor quality aftermarket under body spray job, it's not their problem anymore. Your truck had a 6 year, 100k non-corrosion guarantee, and you went and messed with it. Take your problem to the guy that sold you the spray job, it's their problem. Here: http://www.gmc.com/owners/warranty.html I mean, I guess GM could be posting a warranty that flies in the face of federal law, but I sort of doubt it. after all, http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-fed e ral-warranty-law#stating  read #1 under "basic information required for all warranties" and you'll see if your written warranty should state specifically what it does and does not cover. Not saying you couldn't go ahead and sue someone anyhow ('tis the american way these days) just saying I doubt you'd get very far.

You're still agreeing with us and telling us we're wrong.


If you are referring to the void thing, scroll up a ways and note that I stepped away from that word- it's the one that gets tossed around by the guys in service and I guess "warranty negation" is too many syllables for them. I've heard it used so many times, I used it without thinking about the broader application. What I'm trying to drive home here is that if you modify a vehicle and it causes problems, whining to manufacturer guarantees nothing.
 
2013-02-21 01:09:27 PM

nolanomad: No, I'm saying that if a dealer can prove an aftermarket caused a problem, they can turn down a warranty claim.



You're missing the point.

If GM says that undercoating will void warranty service in case of rust, that's completely legal and acceptable, I don't think any reasonable person has an issue with that.

But if GM says that running boards will void warranty service on the engine, and continue insisting that for months, that's not legal.

Thus, GM can SAY anything they want about their warranty service, but the law takes precedence over any illegal claims.
 
2013-02-21 01:12:55 PM

the ha ha guy: nolanomad: No, I'm saying that if a dealer can prove an aftermarket caused a problem, they can turn down a warranty claim.


You're missing the point.

If GM says that undercoating will void warranty service in case of rust, that's completely legal and acceptable, I don't think any reasonable person has an issue with that.

But if GM says that running boards will void warranty service on the engine, and continue insisting that for months, that's not legal.

Thus, GM can SAY anything they want about their warranty service, but the law takes precedence over any illegal claims.


I think that comes under "well duh", but yeah, sometimes people do stupid things. Sounds like we're coming at this from different directions and agree at least on this part of the argument.
 
2013-02-21 01:26:00 PM

nolanomad: I think that comes under "well duh", but yeah, sometimes people do stupid things. Sounds like we're coming at this from different directions and agree at least on this part of the argument.



Right, so we agree that warranty service can be denied on parts that are broken specifically due to third-party modifications.

However, my point is that many dealers, and even the corporate office itself, will often insist that any modification will void the entire warranty, despite the federal law that says otherwise. And since all it takes is one dealer to illegally red-flag that warranty, it's neither easy nor cheap to fight the corporate office to get the warranty restored.
 
2013-02-21 01:34:33 PM
Big Bill Hell's dealership in Baltimore would like a word with you
 
2013-02-21 02:36:25 PM

the ha ha guy: nolanomad: I think that comes under "well duh", but yeah, sometimes people do stupid things. Sounds like we're coming at this from different directions and agree at least on this part of the argument.


Right, so we agree that warranty service can be denied on parts that are broken specifically due to third-party modifications.

However, my point is that many dealers, and even the corporate office itself, will often insist that any modification will void the entire warranty, despite the federal law that says otherwise. And since all it takes is one dealer to illegally red-flag that warranty, it's neither easy nor cheap to fight the corporate office to get the warranty restored.


Not to dodge what you're saying (because if that's happened/happening, it's seriously messed up), but I would offer up that car manufacturers aren't the only companies who occasionally screw the customer in different ways. Not saying it's right by any means, but having a searing pile of rage for just one category seems a tad off. Just saying.

natas6.0: Big Bill Hell's dealership in Baltimore would like a word with you


Oh?
 
2013-02-21 06:17:36 PM

nolanomad: Not to dodge what you're saying (because if that's happened/happening, it's seriously messed up), but I would offer up that car manufacturers aren't the only companies who occasionally screw the customer in different ways. Not saying it's right by any means, but having a searing pile of rage for just one category seems a tad off. Just saying.


Yes, you are dodging and attempting to shame the victim. "B" also being an asshole has no effect and does not absolve "A" from being an asshole.

Consider this. A vehicle is most people's second most expensive and difficult to replace possession, after a home. That is IF someone can afford a home. You wouldn't want to be farked out of your home because of the builder playing illegal games. The same goes for your vehicle.

The vehicle may actually be more important than the home. It's how most people are able to arrive at, and therefore hold, a job and thus the basis of their livelihood.

So, it's either the second or first most expensive possession for most people's lives and that which allows for them to function in modern society.

So, yeah. Getting farked out of your vehicle because the manufacturer is an asshole is kind of a big farking deal.

You're lack of empathy and inability to see outside yourself does nothing but reinforce the stereotypes that you claim aren't valid.
 
2013-02-21 07:59:08 PM

CtrlAltDestroy: nolanomad: Not to dodge what you're saying (because if that's happened/happening, it's seriously messed up), but I would offer up that car manufacturers aren't the only companies who occasionally screw the customer in different ways. Not saying it's right by any means, but having a searing pile of rage for just one category seems a tad off. Just saying.

Yes, you are dodging and attempting to shame the victim. "B" also being an asshole has no effect and does not absolve "A" from being an asshole.

Consider this. A vehicle is most people's second most expensive and difficult to replace possession, after a home. That is IF someone can afford a home. You wouldn't want to be farked out of your home because of the builder playing illegal games. The same goes for your vehicle.

The vehicle may actually be more important than the home. It's how most people are able to arrive at, and therefore hold, a job and thus the basis of their livelihood.

So, it's either the second or first most expensive possession for most people's lives and that which allows for them to function in modern society.

So, yeah. Getting farked out of your vehicle because the manufacturer is an asshole is kind of a big farking deal.

You're lack of empathy and inability to see outside yourself does nothing but reinforce the stereotypes that you claim aren't valid.


yes, you're right, I should be sobbing right now about someone I don't know, in a situation I have no knowledge of, and a problem I can't solve. Let's see: agreed it was wrong/messed up, and yes, agree that things like that should not happen and can really mess with a person and their lives. But you know, after a nice long thread of personal attacks directed at me, I'm going to be uncaring. Hope things work out for said person, sucks he got screwed, should really look into a lawyer, etc. just not the weepy sort I guess.
 
2013-02-21 08:08:42 PM

nolanomad: yes, you're right, I should be sobbing right now about someone I don't know, in a situation I have no knowledge of, and a problem I can't solve. Let's see: agreed it was wrong/messed up, and yes, agree that things like that should not happen and can really mess with a person and their lives. But you know, after a nice long thread of personal attacks directed at me, I'm going to be uncaring. Hope things work out for said person, sucks he got screwed, should really look into a lawyer, etc. just not the weepy sort I guess.


Unable to understand why people might be particularly upset at losing their vehicle -> Get told why people would feel that way -> Claim knowledge of that all along while not refuting inability to understand -> Respond with lack luster sarcasm and an additional dose of "deal with it".

Nifty.

/And you wonder why people have a problem with your views
 
2013-02-21 09:02:04 PM

the ha ha guy: nolanomad: I think that comes under "well duh", but yeah, sometimes people do stupid things. Sounds like we're coming at this from different directions and agree at least on this part of the argument.


Right, so we agree that warranty service can be denied on parts that are broken specifically due to third-party modifications.

However, my point is that many dealers, and even the corporate office itself, will often insist that any modification will void the entire warranty, despite the federal law that says otherwise. And since all it takes is one dealer to illegally red-flag that warranty, it's neither easy nor cheap to fight the corporate office to get the warranty restored.


No law can stop anyone from farking with you. Sorry, that's just the way life is. Sometimes you can call the cops in and get the farking with minimized, sometimes you're up shiat creek and have to decide whether to retain a lawyer, spend months or years and extra money and days off work on a battle that you might not even win, all over a few hundred or thousand dollars - and none of that time, stress, or hassle will be reimbursed even if you do win, even the lawyer fees will probably only be partially reimbursed. Ultimately, not many people will take the fight, depending on how much that money means to them, and even a class-action suit might be a net gain in the end.

It sucks, but that's life. The greediest get away with a lot more than the best people, and it will always be that way.
 
2013-02-21 09:08:27 PM

nolanomad: The manufacturer can only deny your claim if an aftermarket modification lead to the failure.
GMC can say whatever they want, the Moss-Magnuson act overrides it.

You do realize these two statements contradict one another, right?


Dude, you are a freaking moron.
 
Displayed 24 of 324 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report