Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?

To get the word out that people should not believe the dealer's people.

It would be a public service of sorts.

I'm sure some would feel Bob was at fault here, sure. I'm sure plenty would feel
the dealer's people were jerks, too. That's useful information to the public.

It's not a question of fairness. It's a question of legal fraud. One example of
this is "fraud in the inducement." From dictionary.law.com:
_____
fraud in the inducement
n. the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage,
such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property. The heart of this
type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she
will base his/her decision to act. Example: "there will be tax advantages to you
if you let me take title to your property," or "you don't have to read the rest
of the contract-it is just routine legal language" but actually includes a
balloon payment.
_____

On the surface, Bob looks like he has a good case for this. But I, like others
here, am not optimistic.

Still, I'd say it's probably worth consulting an attorney.

I hope Bob is documenting everything.

 

Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing
illegal fraud?

That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming
it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought
I'd point out: it cuts both ways.

Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the
dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions.

I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business
deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the
law will on occasion punish lying in business deals.

 

I'm sorry, but some of the others on this group seem to only be
encouraging this asinine thought process.

Many people in this country are too quick to blame others for their
own carelessness, and help contribute to the general litigious society
that those same people complain about.

Are you saying this sales person *intentionally* sold your wife
insurance knowing she wouldn't be covered? Or that he sold it to your
wife *knowing* that you wouldn't be covered, and hid it from you? If
that were the case, you might have grounds, but that is a conspiracy
theory that I think you'll find is far from the truth.

The truth is, and I think you know this, that the salesperson didn't
know the coverage limitation, was not an insurance salesperson, and
simply wanted to get the closing process finished. He may have been
irresponsible in not knowing more about the product he sold, but
that's where his failure ends. This country operates under caveat
emptor, and you, and you alone, are the one to be blamed here.

Repeat after me:

I ACKNOWLEDGE MY OWN MISTAKE AND WILL NOT BLAME OTHERS FOR MY OWN
CARELESSNESS.

 

Personal responsibility on the dealer's part is bottom line profit period.

 

Amen!

One ultimately has to be responsible for his position in life.

But that is not how people are brought up these days. They are led to
believe that some angel will rescue them out of the most ridiculous self
created situation only to go out and repeat the ill-fated deed again.

<sigh>

 

You wish the law saw things this way.

Bob should also report this situation to any Consumer Protection Division his
state has. It's highly likely there is one. Maybe start with the Better Business
Bureau listing in the phone book. *If* this complaint has arisen before with
another customer of the car dealer's, then this will add weight to Bob's case.

I disdain our litigious society as much as the next person. Politically
speaking, I am unhappy John Edwards is Senator Kerry's VP pick; trial lawyers
will be partying until November.

But there are certainly situations where lying in a business deal should be
punished. This may be one of them.

Or by any chance do you think what Enron executives did is okay?

 

You need to talk to a lawyer, not a Usenet group.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on newsgroups, but I'm thinking you
should have read the contract before you signed it.

 

Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't matter
what you were "told".

actions.

Fraud by inducement only exists when the written contract is vague and
purposely left "open to interpretation". If the terms of the insurance were
clearly defined in the contract (and they probably were), then it doesn't
matter what was "said", only what was written in the legally executed
contract (i.e. signed).

About the only way to (personally) get out of a (properly written and clear)
written contract is to A) prove hardship that exceeds the ability to fulfill
the contract or B) be "legally illiterate" and prove fraud or negligence on
the part of your interpreter.

In the first case, you are still "out" as a default of the contract entitles
the finance company (if bound as part of the overall guarantor of the
property) to repossess to mitigate their damages and in the case of the
second, to sue the interpreter and only then sue the dealership if you can
prove collusion.

 

Yes, I understand your point.

But as a practical matter, we can't always read everything that we are
signing, and if we did, we would not always be able to understand what
is says. Instead we rely on what we are being told.

Example: signing a car rental agreement. Or a flight insurance
document. Have you had your lawyer draw up a will for you? Most of us
will read and then say "what does this mean?", and then sign it on
faith based on what we are told. Same thing with all those docs the
bank makes you sign when you open an account.

You take your car in to your dealer for repairs and demand an
estimate. After having a look at the vehicle, the service dept. calls
you in. They have drawn up a document outlining what they are going to
fix and for how much. After looking it over as best you can, you sign.
But then they keep all the copies. And they can write anything else in
later if they feel like it.

The point is, agreements work mostly on trust.

 

If I didn't understand, I wouldn't sign until it was explained to me by
someone "on my side". In the case of the lawyer drawing up a will on your
behalf, he/she is YOUR agent, and therefore must act in YOUR best interest
or be guilty of malpractice.

And I do take a copy of what I signed in it's current form. That's also
your receipt that you turned your car over to them. I also don't give
clothes to my dry cleaner without a receipt proving that they have them.

Until you get screwed, and then as a result of not looking out for your own
best interests, you have little recourse.

 

Hi,
The problem is the guy's verbal statement. If it were in black and
white, no problemo. Even if he initialed the contract to that effect.
When something is said, you can't prove it(one mouth against another)
unless there is witness or it's been duly recorded. We're living in a
world, they cut your nose off with your eyes open. It used to be when
you closed your eyes, LOL.
Tony

 

If you sign something without reading it, no matter what the
circumstance, you are a fool and will eventually be burned badly.
When it happens, do not blame anyone but yourself.

Never rent a car or buy flight insurance unless you are either (a) willing
to read and accept the contract, or (b) skip reading the contract and
take all liability on yourself personally by not blaming others if the
contract doesn't meet your expectations.

That is patently false, at least in the United States, where presumably
the author's original exchange took place.

 

You're wrong.

No, this is not FbI.

FbI is a very broad category, incidentally.

 

It's patently true.

How could anyone think agreements rely enormously on trust as well as the
written or spoken word?

 

I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he said/he said
situation.

For example, suppose this or something like this was reported to the state's
Consumer Protection Office before. Same dealer, different customer. That's a
pattern that would help Bob's case.

There may have been a witness, for all we know.

Plus, as Bob wrote, it doesn't make sense to have disability insurance on his
wife when she's already disabled.

 

Post-o.

That should read:

"How could anyone think agreements DO NOT rely enormously on trust as well as
the written or spoken word?"

 

In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over
written.

 

What he/she said has nothing to do with this. As a matter of contract
law, the contract rules supreme. The contract most likely also states
that any prior verbal agreements are void.

Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action)
that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the
intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that
is a whole different matter entirely, and fraud would require
intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the
poster's description admittedly did not occur, since the customer
was not coerced into signing.

 

Hi,
One reason I hate buying cars.
Tony

 

(Note: "Oral contract" is the preferred phrase for a contract achieved by
speaking.)

From dictionary.law.com:

oral contract
_____
n. an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially
written. An oral contract is just as valid as a written agreement. ...
_____

You can google and also find other supporting statements like:

1.
"As a general statement of law... oral agreements can modify written documents."
[This site goes on to discuss the possibilities for a specific, real situation.]
http://www.rha-ps.com/q_and_a/oral_agreements_legally_binding.aspx

2.
"Proof of an oral agreement that modifies a written contract should be by clear
and convincing evidence. Lambe-Young, Inc. v. Cook... "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=appeals2004/&invol
=030231-1

3.
"See Stoddard & Son v. Vill. of N. Troy, 102 Vt. 462, 468 (1930) (oral agreement
may modify written contract not under seal or required by statute of fraud)."
http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/unpubeo/jul03/eo02375.htm

I suspect in NY that only certain types of contracts must be in writing to be
valid and trump an oral agreement. If you feel otherwise, provide a citation
that says oral contracts may not amend written contracts.

Despite this, let me say again that I am not optimistic for Bob. As we all seem
to agree, written contracts are preferred, if only because they better document
the terms of an agreement.

People should avoid relying on oral agreements. The turmoil Bob is facing
explains why.

Still, I am not utterly without hope that Bob might have a case. It will depend
on the rest of the facts of the matter.