I think I bought a new car, maybe not

[jyl]

As I read this thread, you signed a purchase contract for car A but took home car B.

So you are in possession of a car you did not legally purchase, the dealer has the right to have you return car B to them. The car you did purchase is sitting on a dealer's lot, you have the right to take possession of car A and bring it home.

This was not your "fault", but however it happened, that is the situation. Since it is not the situation either party intended - you intended to purchase and take home car B, the dealer intended to sell and hand over car A - the remedy is for the transaction to be cancelled. Legally this would be called recession due to mutual mistake.

If the you want to accomodate (accept car A instead of car B) or the dealer wants to accomodate (sell car B for car A's price) or you two want to meet in the middle, then you can make a deal. No-one has to make a deal. It is not about integrity or living up to a deal - you probably don't want to get all draconian about "enforcing the deal" unless you actually want car A. It is just about how accomodating does who want to be?

You should consider my earlier question, about what insurance is this car under? In your shoes, I would not drive this car, I would leave it in the garage, and I might even have the dealer send someone over to drive it back. Since you have not purchased the car, it may not be covered under the collision or comprehensive parts of your policy. Would be kind of messy to total it at the first stoplight.

Some advice - get this resolved quickly, and when the dealer says they want the car back, cooperate fully. The mistake doesn't reflect well on the dealer. You don't want the situation to progress to where it doesn't reflect well on you.

[dmcummins]

Originally Posted by jyl

As I read this thread, you signed a purchase contract for car A but took home car B.

So you are in possession of a car you did not legally purchase, the dealer has the right to have you return car B to them. The car you did purchase is sitting on a dealer's lot, you have the right to take possession of car A and bring it home.

This was not your "fault", but however it happened, that is the situation. Since it is not the situation either party intended - you intended to purchase and take home car B, the dealer intended to sell and hand over car A - the remedy is for the transaction to be cancelled. Legally this would be called recession due to mutual mistake.

If the you want to accomodate (accept car A instead of car B) or the dealer wants to accomodate (sell car B for car A's price) or you two want to meet in the middle, then you can make a deal. No-one has to make a deal. It is not about integrity or living up to a deal - you probably don't want to get all draconian about "enforcing the deal" unless you actually want car A. It is just about how accomodating does who want to be?

You should consider my earlier question, about what insurance is this car under? In your shoes, I would not drive this car, I would leave it in the garage, and I might even have the dealer send someone over to drive it back. Since you have not purchased the car, it may not be covered under the collision or comprehensive parts of your policy. Would be kind of messy to total it at the first stoplight.

Some advice - get this resolved quickly, and when the dealer says they want the car back, cooperate fully. The mistake doesn't reflect well on the dealer. You don't want the situation to progress to where it doesn't reflect well on you.

I called my insurance agent and told him what is going on. I gave him both vin numbers.

And I am trying to get this resolved as quickly as possible. I brought it to their attention Monday at 9:00. I have been the one that has been making the phone calls.

[biosurfer1]

Originally Posted by jyl

As I read this thread, you signed a purchase contract for car A but took home car B.

You forgot to add that the DEALERSHIP presented Car A to be Car B, the new owner simply took home the car the dealership told him he bought.

I'm still not sure how this is the OP's fault in anyway or how this is not bait and switch. He test drove a car, said he wanted to buy it and signed for it. He then went out and the dealership presented the car and said "here is your car". He drove it for a few days and figured out, on his own, it was the wrong car and let the dealership know, where they then say pay us more money for that car.

If it wasn't for the OP, he might have simply gone on for years to come driving the car. Who knows what would have happened when/if the dealership found out.

[jyl]

It's not his "fault". It also does not appear to be a deliberate bait/switch by the dealer. It is simply a misunderstanding which needs to be corrected.

[dmcummins]

I just got off the phone with the owner. Still no resolution. He want's to think about it for another day. But my feeling is I'll be taking the car back.

[rick-l]

This isn't Paul Scerewme is it?

[speeder]

Originally Posted by jyl

It's not his "fault". It also does not appear to be a deliberate bait/switch by the dealer. It is simply a misunderstanding which needs to be corrected.

It's not a bait/switch, for chrissakes. They sent him home in a car that he did not buy, has no legal obligation to keep and in fact does not legally own. If he legally owned it at this point, the thread would have a different title. Something like, "I fked a car dealer today!!"

This would be the first recorded case of a customer doing the switch on the dealer.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by jyl

As I read this thread, you signed a purchase contract for car A but took home car B.

So you are in possession of a car you did not legally purchase, the dealer has the right to have you return car B to them. The car you did purchase is sitting on a dealer's lot, you have the right to take possession of car A and bring it home.

This was not your "fault", but however it happened, that is the situation. Since it is not the situation either party intended - you intended to purchase and take home car B, the dealer intended to sell and hand over car A - the remedy is for the transaction to be cancelled. Legally this would be called recession due to mutual mistake.

If the you want to accomodate (accept car A instead of car B) or the dealer wants to accomodate (sell car B for car A's price) or you two want to meet in the middle, then you can make a deal. No-one has to make a deal. It is not about integrity or living up to a deal - you probably don't want to get all draconian about "enforcing the deal" unless you actually want car A. It is just about how accomodating does who want to be?

You should consider my earlier question, about what insurance is this car under? In your shoes, I would not drive this car, I would leave it in the garage, and I might even have the dealer send someone over to drive it back. Since you have not purchased the car, it may not be covered under the collision or comprehensive parts of your policy. Would be kind of messy to total it at the first stoplight.

Some advice - get this resolved quickly, and when the dealer says they want the car back, cooperate fully. The mistake doesn't reflect well on the dealer. You don't want the situation to progress to where it doesn't reflect well on you.

Probably the smartest and best informed post here.

I say the dealer should switch cars and leave the purchase price as it is. The should be able to assimilate loss of a couple grand. If they can't they are on thin ice financially. In addition, they may have some kind of errors and omissions insurance policy.

I'm sure the state dept of vehicles will be interested.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by milt

I say the dealer should switch cars and leave the purchase price as it is. The should be able to assimilate loss of a couple grand. If they can't they are on thin ice financially. In addition, they may have some kind of errors and omissions insurance policy.

I'm sure the state dept of vehicles will be interested.

Could they lose a couple grand? Or SHOULD they lose a couple grand?
The sense of entitlement here is amazing

The law is very clear here. All the dealership needs to do is allow Mr. Cummins out of his contract, as it was a mistake. The governing agencies won't be interested beyond that. Period.

Mr. Cummins, my advice (if it wasn't clear):
Take their offer, swallow your pride (as the dealership is too), and enjoy the great deal on your new car

[Dueller]

Rose the Second of Aberlone was a cow.
She belonged to Hiram Walker, the founder of what is now known as the Canadian Club Distillery in Walkerville, Ontario. Believing Rose to be infertile, Mr. Walker agreed to sell her to a banker named T. C. Sherwood. Since a barren cow is worth considerably less than one capable of breeding, and is useful mainly for meat, Rose's price was set at a mere 5.5¢ per pound live weight (minus 50 pounds shrinkage), and she was taken to be weighed by a man named George Graham. Mr. Graham, however, discovered that Rose was pregnant. Upon learning this, Mr. Walker reneged on the sale, whereupon Mr. Sherwood took him to court. Mr. Sherwood won the case, and won again when Mr. Walker appealed the matter to circuit court. Mr. Walker then took the case to the Supreme Court of Michigan (both he and Mr. Sherwood lived in Detroit, and Mr. Walker's farm was in Greenfield, Michigan). The opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice Morse, who wrote (in part) as follows:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is a difference or misapprehension as to the substance of the thing bargained for; if the thing actually delivered or received is different in substance from the thing bargained for, and intended to be sold,—then there is no contract; but if it be only a difference in some quality or accident, even though the mistake may have been the actuating motive to the purchaser or seller, or both of them, yet the contract remains binding.

[...]

[T]he mistake was not of the mere quality of the animal, but went to the very nature of the thing. A barren cow is substantially a different creature than a breeding one. There is as much difference between them for all purposes of use as there is between an ox and a cow that is capable of breeding and giving milk.

[...]

She [Rose] was not in fact the animal, or the kind of animal, the defendants intended to sell or the plaintiff to buy. She was not a barren cow, and, if this fact had been known, there would have been no contract. The mistake affected the substance of the whole consideration, and it must be considered that there was no contract to sell or sale of the cow as she actually was. The thing sold and bought had in fact no existence.[emphasis added] She was sold as a beef creature would be sold; she is in fact a breeding cow, and a valuable one.

[...]

The judgment of the court below must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs of this court to defendants.

Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919, 11 Am. St. Rep. 531 (1887)

[rick-l]

How would that case have read if the sale had been finalized (cow delivered) and later plopped out a calf?

[vash]

ohh...pay up the extra $$, which is a compromise...and name the car "Rose".

[jyl]

Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919, 11 Am. St. Rep. 531 (1887)

I love those old cases, where state supreme courts ruled on things like a cow named Rose. Ah it was a simpler time. Although, Hiram Walker and T.C. Sherwood were probably pretty steamed up about it. In the 1880s, $80 was a year's wages. (5.5c x 1500lb).

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by dmcummins

I just got off the phone with the owner. Still no resolution. He want's to think about it for another day. But my feeling is I'll be taking the car back.

As you should. There is no real or perceived moral high ground to be had by making this deal bad for EITHER party, if indeed it was an honest mistake.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by Gogar

As you should. There is no real or perceived moral high ground to be had by making this deal bad for EITHER party, if indeed it was an honest mistake.

I agree.

[MJHanna]

Just remember that the invoice for the car is NOT the real cost of the car.
The dealers "true cost" is lower than the invoice he will show a customer.

[rick-l]

Originally Posted by dmcummins

I just got off the phone with the owner. Still no resolution. He want's to think about it for another day. But my feeling is I'll be taking the car back.

I'm betting he couldn't get a hold of his legal counsel on short notice.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by rick-l

I'm betting he couldn't get a hold of his legal counsel on short notice.

That would surely be a losing bet.

[biosurfer1]

Originally Posted by MJHanna

Just remember that the invoice for the car is NOT the real cost of the car.
The dealers "true cost" is lower than the invoice he will show a customer.

That is one thing I was amazed to find out when I worked at a dealership many years ago. They honestly have no idea how much profit they will make on any certain car. Sure they know what it cost them up front and how much they sold it for, but there things like quota bonuses, manufacturer bonuses and rebates, etc that factor in.

Those things are known to the owner but since his guys have been taken care of, he's not telling, plus he has no way of knowing how many cars he will be selling this coming year.

I was a detailer so I didn't have to put up with the sales side of the biz, and it sure was a fascinating business to learn.

[kaisen]

I have to snicker when someone read Consumer Reports, or who washed cars at a dealership, so they claim to know the secrets ways dealers screw the public. No specific offense to MJHanna or biosurfer1, just examples.

The invoice price is just that. The price the dealer paid to buy the car from the manufacturer. That amount is due when the vehicle ships from the factory. There is a certain amount held back for the factory to use, that's 'hold back'. Dealers get their hold back, er, back when they sell the car. Not right away, some pay monthly, or quarterly, every mfr is different.

Play whatever games you want when buying a car, but understand that 'cost' isn't just the car, but the entire cost of the product the dealership is offering. For example, that $29K (invoice) car we're talking about costs the dealer every day it sits there. But they have to have product for you to look at, learn about, test drive, and consider buying. The average new-car dealership has $2 million in new-car inventory. Do the math. So when you figure the dealer 'made' $1000 on the car you buy, he likely also spent $200 in interest having it there, $250 paid to the salesperson, $250 paid to his managers, and the remaining $300 doesn't even come close to paying for the building, latte machine, lot lights, taxes, porters, car wash, and hundreds of other expenses that make up the entire product. Do dealers 'make' money when they sell a car for $1000 gross profit? Not likely.