Deceptive trade practice at Honda dealership?

A contract may be oral or written.

If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.

void.

When we know this is true, then I'll be happy to discuss this point.

No it's not.

He admits nothing of the sort.

Bob claims he was misled into signing. The law does not at all necessarily
accept contracts signed by using deception.

 

You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.

Even if it didnt say it, the writeen contract always trumps any verbal
agreement unless there is ambiguity in the contract.

Yes it is.

Yes he does. He admits signing the contract on his own accord, and
admits that he signed it because he wanted to get the deal over with,
not because it was a required part of the purchase of the car.

He was not coerced into signing, and the poster admits this.

Stop posting this uneducated drivel, and go get an education.

 

Fraud in the inducement.

 

There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
into signing the contract. The details of the agreement were available
to the original poster at all times, and the poster admitted that
he willingly chose not to read the contract, and then signed his
acceptance of the WRITTEN contract as a willing participant.

There was no inducement.

 

We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement.

 

We disagree because you are wrong. Some basic knowledge of business
and contract law would make this point evident to you.

I can't say for sure whether or not there was fraud involved, but
what is NOT disputed is the fact that the original poster willingly
signed the contract. He admits this fact outright.

 

And I'm not disbuting that an oral contract is just as valid as a written
one, EXCEPT when a written one exists. An oral contract can come down to a
case of he said/she said. A written one is in black and white.
_____

Can is the key word. Hardly ever does is reality.

And the convincing evidence is? Especially in this case that started the
whole thread?

And I never said his contract must be in writing. But in Bob's case, he has
"hearsay" vs. a written contract. Written wins.

 

I've been listening to the to and fro of this argument and don't
really know who is right, but one thing is clear, you are not a
sincere debater. Your opinions are very black and white. You resort to
personal attack. You shout "you are wrong" without developing a clear
case to convince anyone that this is so.

Caroline on the other hand has kept a cool head and advanced balanced
and (IMHO) informed points of view. Thank you, Caroline.

H.

 

I disagree you have a handle on business and contract law, basic or otherwise.
<shrug>

You're talking like fraud in the inducement does not even exist.

People willingly sign papers said to be contracts and that are subsequently
invalidated (on one grounds or another) all the time.

Willingness to put one's signature to paper hardly fulfills all the requirements
of a legal contract.

 

Not so.

As I've repeatedly said, a written contract is preferable for many reasons, but
it does not necessarily trump an oral contract.
_____

Whatever that means.

Sounds like you're conceding the point, anyway.

You're not reading me carefully.

I have repeatedly said that Bob's chances of winning a claim here are slim.

However, I would not say he has no chance of winning a claim here.

We do not have all the facts.

BTW, you're using the word "hearsay" incorrectly.

 

Likewise, Harry, your post shone above others as being rational and carefully
considered, with an excellent point.

It is strange to me that so many people think the law is hesitant to punish
lying when harm from the lying is shone. As you noted, every agreement relies on
a certain amount of tacit trust, and the courts do in general recognize this.
People have to be smart, to be sure, but when a Person says X is in a contract,
sign here, and X is not in the contract, then something's wrong.

Again, I'm not hopeful for Bob, but I wouldn't say without knowing a lot more
that he has no chance of recovery at all.

The internet is a great resource for getting a good start on questions like
this. I hope Bob has now asked at some of the legal newsgroups, taking what is
said with the appropriate grain of salt and recognizing that paid advice is more
valuable than the doggerel he might be getting here.

 

Keep telling yourself that and it may one day become true.

"Can" (as in "oral agreements can modify") is the key to that sentence.
"Can" doesn't mean it does, and in most cases it doesn't. In NY, it "hardly
ever does", and I suspect in most jurisdications it is the same.

Not likely.

Every word.

slim.

And that is no longer the entire basis of the ongoing thread.

Would you bet on it? Better odds can be had at O.T.B.

No, but the discussion has morphed into a discussion of oral vs. written
contract law.

How so? "But Judge, he told me...". That is hearsay. Hearsay doesn't
always have to be in the 3rd party. When you are testifying to what someone
else said, it is hearsay. The (sticky) way around it in a case such as this
is "Based on what I was told, I understood it as", but unfortunately that is
a half-admission on the part of the person testifying that they might not
have understood what was actually told to them. Which might work in a civil
case, until the WRITTEN contract that was signed and agreed upon AFTER the
oral statements comes into evidence.

Let's just say I have a little experience in this area, at least in NY
state.

 

You don't get to change the basis of a discussion between you and me without my
agreeing.

Or you can, and I'll just ignore you.

Unfortunately, I googled a few minutes ago, and right now I am concerned Mr.
Travis posted a fiction. He can just post back here and explain further, if he
wishes.

He knows about misc.legal , from previous posts a year old there, some involving
insurance.

No, it is not. Look it up.

Bob says the guy told him such-and-such. That's allowable testimony (for one),
violating no hearsay rule.

I'm not going to instruct you on the basics of law here. Believe whatever you
want.

 

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

absolutely, because in both cases it involves words--which is where the
term "verbal" comes from. EVERY contract is "verbal".

 

is this a case where the dealer may win the battle, (the contract is valid),
but lose the war, (poor customer relations and a lack of business that more
than offsets the monetary benefit of the contract)?

Hugh Graham

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlin

k.net> wrote in message

 

I'm irritated because Caroline is posting misinformation that could
lead the original poster (and others) to believe that the power
of a written contract is anything less than absolute unless there
are mitigating significant circumstances. That is just not true.

From past observations, she is a poster who will always try and
"have the last word", and it just bothers me to see someone who
posts something as fact, when in reality, they do not have a strong
grasp of the topic about which they are debating.

My last word on the subject is advice to the original poster. Call
an attorney, explain the situation in detail, and be prepared to pay
the lawyer their hourly fee for their services.

I'll shut up now.

 

I have repeatedly said as much.

If you think fraud by inducement has never occurred, oh well. For the umpteenth
time, though, I am not optimistic Bob has such a case.

And again, I'm pretty sure "Bob Travis" posted a fiction here at his Usenet
playground.

 

Where did you get your law degree? K-Mart??

Once the ink is dry, it's a done deal...

 

You hafta prove it and that ain't easy and most times not practical

 

I agree.