Honda Car Forum

"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote
> Caroline wrote:
> [snip]
> > 2.
> > Yes, the dealer's people lied to you. Yes, your outrage is at least somewhat
> > justified. But like the others said, I doubt you have legal recourse. What
you
> > can do is tell your story all over town. This may humiliate (somewhat) the
> > dealer and teach others to read the contract before signing. If one cannot
> > understand a contract, yup, get a lawyer or seek some other, independent
> > resource to translate the contract for you.
> >
>
> Why should he tell everyone his story?

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

It would be a public service of sorts.

> The dealer would not be
> humiliated, Bob would.

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.

> In his rush to get home, he did not read the
> contract, which had to mention who was the insurance beneficiary and all
> the circumstances that would allow claims against said insurance. The
> burden never falls on the seller to ensure the buyer receives a fair
> deal.

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.

"Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> > How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a
> > whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort
> > of deception.
>
>
>
> Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
> entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
> someone else.
>
> Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...

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.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:42:57 GMT, Bob Travis <e_quip@hotmail.com> sayeth:
>My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002.
>The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if
>either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments
>until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie
>so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would
>have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered.

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.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

Caroline wrote:
>
> "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> > > How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a
> > > whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort
> > > of deception.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
> > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
> > someone else.
> >
> > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...
>
> 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.


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


--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

Chris Bradley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:42:57 GMT, Bob Travis <e_quip@hotmail.com> sayeth:
> >My wife and I feel like Honda screwed us when we bought a used CRV in 2002.
> >The finance manager said that if we bought the insurance he recommended if
> >either one of us became disabled the insurance would cover the payments
> >until we could get back to work. We figured the Honda employee wouldn't lie
> >so we signed the contract without reading it. If we had read it we would
> >have noted that only the primary debtor (my wife) was covered.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Chris B.
> furrier@iglou.com



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>



--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

"Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
> Caroline wrote:
> >
> > "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
> > > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> > > > How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a
> > > > whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort
> > > > of deception.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
> > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
> > > someone else.
> > >
> > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Personal responsibility on the dealer's part is bottom line profit period.

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?

In article <RPkGc.13614$JR4.1365@attbi_s54>, "Bob Travis"
<e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote:

>so we signed the contract without reading
> it.

> We are considering many courses of action but we would like a second
> or thiird opinion before we decide what to do.

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.
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> An update on 7/4/04.

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:egzGc.9880$yy1.7942@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> >
> >
> > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
> > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
> > someone else.
> >
> > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...
>
> 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.

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

> 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.

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.

> 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.
>
>

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 07:47:01 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <CvqGc.30041$a24.8812@attbi_s03>,
> "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to believe we
>> were both covered by the contract.
>
>You weren't "led" to believe anything.
>
>Stop trying to make this an explicit act of someone else.
>
>You LED YOURSELF into believing something, because you EXPLICITLY FAILED
>to read the written contract that was right in front of your face. You
>signed it without reading it. By your own admission, you signed it
>without reading it.

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.

"Harry Cox" <Cox@SomeDomain.com> wrote in message
news:c4dme05qhn50337ohgf5mivl3o6ngnik7b@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 07:47:01 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <CvqGc.30041$a24.8812@attbi_s03>,
> > "Bob Travis" <e_quip@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> We can make the payments. We are just peeved that we were led to
believe we
> >> were both covered by the contract.
> >
> >You weren't "led" to believe anything.
> >
> >Stop trying to make this an explicit act of someone else.
> >
> >You LED YOURSELF into believing something, because you EXPLICITLY FAILED
> >to read the written contract that was right in front of your face. You
> >signed it without reading it. By your own admission, you signed it
> >without reading it.
>
> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> The point is, agreements work mostly on trust.

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