Dealership Steals Car BACK

[Army]

Obviously, the vehicle he traded in, is NOW worth $11,000 more than what he traded it for....so simple even Bill Heard can make the connection

[jenarelJAM]

wow... People like this make me mad...

[ScatterPlot]

Dude this is like really really close to my house! Weird!

[Steelrat]

As for the police investigation, the DA says this is a civil case, not a criminal case. He says Kieselhorst is free to take the dealer to court -- something he's now seriously considering.

Oh, so its okay if a business commits a felony theft. I didn't realize that.

Another DA who is unwilling to tackle anything but the slam-dunk, sure-fire plea-bargain cases. Surprise, surprise.

[RoadDawg]

He paid cash + trade for the truck. The owner of the truck should sue the dealership for breach of contract.

He gave them a check, doesn't mean the account was valid or had sufficent funds. Now the trade in is a different story and I originally missed that part.

He does have a signature which means the transaction was complete. Sounds like a reverse of the "cooling" off period.

[RapidTransit]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.

[deathstalker]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back.

I disagree. If a store screws up their stock numbers and sells you an item cheaper than it should be, that is their mistake. You are not stealing anything. They also will not call you up and demand you pony up the rest of the value of the item. It's one thing if they catch their mistake at checkout and refuse to sell it to you for $30. It's another case entirely if the transaction is completed.

Also, any half-decent car dealership will have several people look over a contract to verify it. The salesperson, his/her manager, and usually the business/credit manager will all approve it before it is put in the customer's hands to sign. This also includes all verbal negotiations and agreements that should be put into writing as well. If they didn't bother and made a mistake, too bad for them.

[BeaverEater]

You know the customer shouldnt have to be shafted just because the people at this dealership are literally retarded. Its not like a single "rookie" salesman handles the whole deal. Usually the manager and other financial people verify it too. Just because they did screw up doest mean he should have to pay.

[Lohman446]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.

Only if you are expected to know the value. That being said - if a company constantly advertises deals too good to be true - are you expected to? Especially if they are in a position to be considered legal experts at value. This is not a cashier or something, this is a trained salesperson and managerial staff.

[warpspyder]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.

Well I work at a grocery store, and things like this have happened though obviously not to that degree. Typically if something is mislabeled and the management is notified they problem will be corrected promptly, but the sale was made, and was legal. There's no protection in contract law for ignorance. Not knowing the true value of something (which was really not the case here) is no excuse for theft. The sale was legal, and the dealership should be forced, by law, to honor their commitment.

Basically even if they guy did get too good of a deal, it's their problem, and they should have to deal with it.

[Glickman]

F'ing A man.

I bet we can all devise some way to rip them off and see how THEY like it

seriously though, i dont care WHO the hell you are. if you are trying to get into my car after i paid for it, and signed a contract youll be at the end of a shinai

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.

[ahellers]

well i think the dealer did contact him one day after. but i dont think he was paying over time. perhaps the paper work for his trade in didnt go though yet? would some one call this guy and tell him to sign up for AO?
t

[1stdeadeye]

"Unjust Enrichment" is the term.

If you cash your paycheck and the teller gives you back an extra $100, that money is not yours! It belongs to the bank still. You are stealing then!

[Glickman]

"Unjust Enrichment" is the term.

If you cash your paycheck and the teller gives you back an extra $100, that money is not yours! It belongs to the bank still. You are stealing then!

Unjust enrichment

A legal procedure whereby you can seek reimbursement from another who benefitted from your action or property without legal justification. There are said to be three conditions which must be met before you can get a court to force reimbursement based on "unjust enrichment": an actual enrichment or benefit to the defendant, a corresponding deprivation to the plaintiff, and the absence of a legal reason for the defendant's enrichment. For example (and only theoretically as many countries have laws which have modified equity law in some situations), if you found somebody else's cash and spent it, you might be sued for reimbursement under unjust enrichment. The legal theory behind unjust enrichment is the constructive trust, which the court imposes upon the circumstances to hold the person unjustly enriched as the trustee for the person who should properly get the property back, held to be the beneficiary of the constructive trust.

still doesnt seem like the dealership was in the right, least far as i can see from the story.

either way, they need wayne brady to go upside their head

[Lohman446]

"Unjust Enrichment" is the term.

If you cash your paycheck and the teller gives you back an extra $100, that money is not yours! It belongs to the bank still. You are stealing then!

But this was not a counting error. This was a deal done and signed off by multiple people. Also at a bank you have no reason to expect extra money. What about a car dealer that advertises "deals too good to be true" or whatever there advertising schemes are.