Was I an ass??

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by Macroni

How was this a deal if nothing was signed or no deposits changed hands?

Why do we pretend that a handshake is meaningful? It isn't. It is a moment of understanding between parties that is not legally binding.

If the roles were reversed and the dealer went back on their 'deal', EVERYONE here would talk about what unethical scum they were
..... but when it's "the little guy" versus "big scum dealers" then it's fair game?

Hand shake deal = ethical dillema
Contract deal = legal dillema

Either way, meaningful

[Nathans_Dad]

Hey, I get it. My mistake was placing my hand in the dealers hand. If I walk out with the same deal and say "Look at what cars are out there to order and let me know", then no issue. Next time I will do it differently.

I think some people (or actually just one person) is jumping WAY off the deep end on this one, but that's his call. He has to live with his own actions and words. Personally I try to live by the saying about not picking out specks in other people's eyes...but that's just me.

Who knows, maybe they'll be another "Was I an ass?" thread soon!

[Baz]

Originally Posted by kaisen

If the roles were reversed and the dealer went back on their 'deal', EVERYONE here would talk about what unethical scum they were
..... but when it's "the little guy" versus "big scum dealers" then it's fair game?

Hand shake deal = ethical dillema
Contract deal = legal dillema

Either way, meaningful

Not true - "big scum dealer" LIED to "the little guy" to get him into their dealership.

They LIED!

At that point - they have ZERO credibility!

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by Baz

Not true - "big scum dealer" LIED to "the little guy" to get him into their dealership.

They LIED!

At that point - they have ZERO credibility!

Agreed. And if ND walked away at that point, and then posted the story here we could all revel in how dealers are scum and they didn't live up to their 'deal'.

Instead, he asked about HIS role in what happened next, and suddenly it's blasphemy to say he acted like an ass (his query) by not living up to his 'deal'.

It works both ways

[RWebb]

it wasn't the handshake per se -- it was giving your word (even w/o saying those exact words)

I realize that it is rare these days that someone's word is their bond, and that the car dealer had dirty hands.

again, feel free next time to say, "I think we may have a deal!" and then shake hands goodbye - different story

[Macroni]

Originally Posted by kaisen

If the roles were reversed and the dealer went back on their 'deal', EVERYONE here would talk about what unethical scum they were
..... but when it's "the little guy" versus "big scum dealers" then it's fair game?

Hand shake deal = ethical dillema
Contract deal = legal dillema

Either way, meaningful

Good conversation to help pass the afternoon .........

The reality in my world is much more structured even when you are doing business with well established professional partners.... sometimes contractual deals present ethical dillemas.

[nostatic]

I have bought things that I soon found for less money. I didn't take the first one back.

This reminds me of some related behavior in the music biz. I know guys that will go to a local brick and mortar music store and play a bunch of gear to try it out. Then march back home and order it online to save a few bucks. I think that is BS. But it is "within the rules" so ok with them. I also know guys who will buy stuff at Guitar Center with no intention of keeping it. They have a generous 30 day return policy so they essentially "borrow" instruments from the store. I think that is BS as well. The counter argument is that they made the policy. But that doesn't mean I have to take advantage of it because in my mind that is being a douche.

Everyone draws their own lines in the sand. Personally I like to think that I hold myself to a higher standard. Eye for an eye just makes two people blind.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by kaisen

Agreed. And if ND walked away at that point, and then posted the story here we could all revel in how dealers are scum and they didn't live up to their 'deal'.

Instead, he asked about HIS role in what happened next, and suddenly it's blasphemy to say he acted like an ass (his query) by not living up to his 'deal'.

It works both ways

It's not blasphemy. I asked the question, I am open to opinions. As many have said, obviously I was at least a little conflicted about it because I thought to even post the thread. I will say that every person I have talked to about it personally (and these are people who I respect and think have pretty high moral and ethical standards) has said they don't think there is an issue since there was no signed contract, no money had changed hands and the dealership had not taken the effort to order the car.

As I said above, I think Seahawk has taken this over the top but that's his issue, not mine.

Obviously some other people have higher standards. That's cool, I know my ethical standards are high and my actions are guided by those standards. Personally I don't think this situation was wrong. That's my opinion. I find it amazing that Nostatic has an issue with people going to Guitar Center to try out guitars. To me that's what places like Guitar Center are there for. If they didn't want you to play the guitars they wouldn't put them on the wall with picks lying next to them and amps plugged in with cords waiting to be plugged in.

Obviously there are gradations to ethical issues. Take sports for instance. I think most people would agree that it is ok to not point out that you were actually out on a play if the ump misses the call. Happens all the time. In fact, it is national news if someone were to actually go to an umpire and say "Actually sir, he did tag me there. I should be out." So, it's ok to not act ethically during a sporting event. On the other hand, almost everyone would agree that taking money out of the offering plate at church is pretty high up on the bad ethics scale. Maybe just a step below stealing social security money from your blind grandmother. I guess the litmus test is what you personally think is ok and then what society would think is ok. Yes I could have handled this situation differently, mainly by not letting myself get pressured into agreeing to a deal I was not really ready to agree to. I will handle it differently in the future. Everyone has to account for their own actions, whether in a car dealership or on an internet forum.

[Apollo]

I'm sorry but your not learning from this experience. As stated, we have all at one time or another been on the horns of this dilemma. A little voice arises inside that says even though its 'legal' we have this grinding voice that never goes away that it was wrong. The problem here is is that you know that,but you try to ignore this voice by saying things like "others have higher ethical standards" etc etc. You can be as technical or legal as much as you like-your conscience is telling you-listen to it. I think you posted thinking you would garner support for your position.... this place is your conscience.

[Baz]

I'm impressed you gave the dealership an opportunity to match the lower price.

They had the opportunity and obviously didn't want the deal.

Most people wouldn't have gone the extra mile.

I'm proud of you Rick....good job!

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Personally I don't think this situation was wrong. That's my opinion. I find it amazing that Nostatic has an issue with people going to Guitar Center to try out guitars. To me that's what places like Guitar Center are there for. If they didn't want you to play the guitars they wouldn't put them on the wall with picks lying next to them and amps plugged in with cords waiting to be plugged in.

That's not what I said. What I'm referring to is someone going to a local guitar store, playing a bunch of instruments, often wasting the time of the salesperson, then going home and ordering the exact same instrument from an online vendor because it is $50 cheaper. I find that slimy. People who understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Similarly, I find people who treat GC and other stores with ilberal return policies as a "lending library" for musical instruments equally slimy.

[peppy]

You should never have given them a chance once they low balled you to get you in the door.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Macroni

You refusing to lower yourself to that level does not change the facts of the matter. I appreciate you saying "I refuse to do business" because of the way "they do business" but to think your individual values or ethics will change the few bad apples, while noble, I think it is overreaching in expectation.

If enough people walk out they'll stop doing it. When Nathan stuck around, he reinforced in their mind that it works. Many years ago I worked for a dealership at tried that crap. The owner was convinced that it would increase sales. The salemen made sure he knew every time a local customer walked out because the were bait and switched. In 6 months he dumped the system.

[Nathans_Dad]

You should never have given them a chance once they low balled you to get you in the door.

Agreed

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by kaisen

There isn't a yes or no. Best deal? What the heck does that mean?
I've lost $2500 selling a new car before, is that the best deal? Or is losing $200 okay? Or $200 profit on a fast-selling hard-to-get-model? Or??? There is no 'best'.
Let's put it this way: the BEST price you'll get from ME is my FIRST price. It's your decision whether to take my deal or go shopping. I won't feel bad if you buy from someone else. Most won't. That's good enough for me. I won't match someone else's price either. Let them determine their own price structure. The market will determine whether they've calculated their value-add correctly.
By sticking to my guns on price, people know there's no funny business. Ever. They can make good decisons without second-guessing whether a better deal (from me) could be had.
Someone will always sell something for less. Always.
See OP's dealer #2.... all they had to do was undercut the other dealer. I once worked for an ultra-competitive high-volume Nissan dealer. We were either #1 or #2 in the region every month. I could quote a new Nissan at a $200 net profit and the other dealer (let's call them #2) would take our price and quote a $100 net loss.... ONLY if the customer's zipcode was near us. They would bite their nose to spite their face, figuring they'd 'pay' to steal a customer, or force us to lose money on a deal where the customer was likely going to buy from us anyway. As the General Sales Manager, I stopped the practice of matching price and guess what..... we were still #1 as many months out of the year, but we were more profitable so we could offer better services to retain customers.
Don't like my business model? Like McLovin said, it's a free country. Just don't b!tch when things go sideways.

+1
Why do people think that because a salesman wants to negotiate the price that it makes him a crook? Being an honest car salesman is not defined as giving the car away at no profit. As stated above, a hot selling model or few cars on the lot command higher profit.

As far as holdback is concerned, what a JOKE. Back in the 80's, the dealer rarely saw any of the holdback. All the brochures, promotional signs in the showroom, TV ads... are paid for from the holdback. Many times the dealership was required to buy all kinds of things they didn't need or want. We were forced to "purchase" things like thousands of brochures on a certain model car that we only got an allotment of 1 or 2 a year. We were always throwing out stuff at the end of the year. The manufacturer always figured out a way that the dealer lost almost all the holdback.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by nostatic

.

Everyone draws their own lines in the sand. Personally I like to think that I hold myself to a higher standard. Eye for an eye just makes two people blind.

If a one-eyed man gets drunk, does he see double?

[Nathans_Dad]

To Por_sha,

I don't think a car salesman is a crook because he is trying to sell the car at the highest price. That's his job. It is the job of the buyer to buy the car at the lowest price. That's what sets up the entire adversarial interaction in the first place. That's fine, if car dealers want to work that way more power to them. I'm sure there are some people who walk in the door and pay sticker price. Is it ethical of the car salesman to sell them the car at that price even though they may be paying thousands of dollars more than they should? I would say that it's ok, it's not the salesman's job to tell them how to spend their money.

I have issues with the practices of car dealerships. They advertise prices on cars and then you find out that model is "sold". Bait and switch tactics are common. They try to wear down the buyer with the whole "let me go present this deal to my manager" schtick. That's not honest. The salesman will tell you with a straight face that he doesn't know the bottom line on the car or what the incentives are. That's not honest. He will tell you your trade isn't worth as much for reason X or Y knowing that your trade is well worth more. That's not honest.

Then to top it all off you get shuffled off to the "finance manager" who is basically just there to try and get you to buy all sorts of overpriced crap that you don't need so the dealership makes more profit there.

Those are just some of the issues with car dealerships.

[Macroni]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

If enough people walk out they'll stop doing it.

Exactly vote w/ your feet!

[nostatic]

Not all dealers are the same. If you got the bait and switch you should have walked right then and there. I've had that happen to me in the past. I went no further with discussions. At that point I cannot trust them to do anything right and I don't play games.

The last few cars I bought I mostly negotiated via email. The last one was negotiated in person and I did my research, offered them what I thought was a fair price (that gave them some amount of profit) and the deal was done. No drama. imho most of the problems come when both sides view "the game" as an adversarial relationship. It doesn't have to be that way, and not all dealerships are crooks. You can pretty quickly find out which are and which aren't. imho the major mistake was moving forward once you found out the way they play the game. Any question beyond that is rationalizing your own decisions.

I routinely tell my son, "they all do it" or "the other guy did it first" is not an excuse for his behavior.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

He will tell you your trade isn't worth as much for reason X or Y knowing that your trade is well worth more. That's not honest.

All a dealer will pay you for your trade-in is wholesale bluebook. But you won't be told that. You'll be misled to believe you're being paid much more. If you want to know how it works, read my post #44.

Regarding the profit that the dealer makes on a car, it's the same no matter how much the buyer pays to buy it. The salesman absolutely knows the lowest price that the dealership will accept and the salesman has to sell the car for a higher price than that - because that is the salesman's 'take'.

So, when you're bargaining with the salesman, you're not bargaining with the dealership, you're bargaining over what the salesman is willing to 'take'. The dealership will always get theirs and theirs is always more than what they paid the car manufacturer for the car, which is their profit.

Considering that, if I owned a dealership, had 10 salesmen and 9 of them sold my cars at a high price and the 10th salesman sold my cars for very little more than the lowest price he was allowed to, and that salesman sold more cars per month than the other 9 salesmen combined, he would be my best salesman by far, because I make the same amount of money on every car sold.