Dealer jerking me around

Did you check TMV vs the MSRP in your area? I just ran the package 6 for 2005 in my zip code.

MSRP is 26,880
Dealer Invoice is 24,306
TMV is 29,067

So in my case, $1K below TMV is still quite about above the 26,880 MSRP.

The link to Edmunds is http://www.edmunds.com if you want to check out options in your area.

 

Prius is currently hottest car on the planet with 9 day supply. Why exactly should they give you another car at lower price than what they can get?

For them, you are an done sale while someone else can walk in and pay MSRP right away.

Unless you are waiting for longer than what they said (and it doesnt seem that way), I dont see them doing anything wrong... You might have liked it better if they did something else but thats completly different.

 

If you want the car earlier than your allocation you have to pay MSRP. If you also stick to the original agreement you get the car when it comes in at the price you agreed to. Is that correct?

 

I don't quite get the concept of "my car"in the circumstances. I do understand "my specifications" on "my order".

But as I inderstand it, no car is "my car" because Toyota does not allocate particular cars to prospective purchasers: they send the dealer an assortment of cars, and the dealer is supposed to offer those persons on the list their choice in order of priority until the shipment is exhausted.

If your agreement cites a specific price for a specific combination of package, color and add-ons, I think you would have to wait for an exact match before the dealer would be forced to agree he must sell to you at the favorablele price he quoted. "My car" then equates to a car exactly matching your specifications at the time you are the first person willing to accept it.

If it's not a perfect match he can logically argue it is not "your car". If he were to allow you to take a different set of options, he surely would be entitled to adjust the price accordingly, but I'm not sure he would be obliged to do so and sell you that car at discount. Look at it the other way around: if you were buying at MSRP, you are entitled to turn down cars until you get an exact match (which you must accept, unless you have different terms than the one I discuss below) or until the contractual obligation period expires.

Part of the problem may be in the wording of the agreement. If it says "X dollars", then what I have suggested may be logical. If it says "X dollars under MSRP" which is what any smart dealer would have written when you placed your order, then I think the dealer would be obliged to sell you any car equal or greater in value to your specifications at the agreed discount.

I should add that in the only (dreadful) deposit agreement I have seen, which clearly meets the legal definition of a contract, I would pay a non-refundable sum ONLY for the right to be placed on a waiting list to purchase a specified vehicle, and will loose my deposit (as liquidated damages ~ because the dealer has lost an opportunity to sell) if I refuse to take a car matching my specifications, or if I cancel my order. THe document states it is not a purchase agreement. I don't like that at all, but perhaps it is Toyota industry standard now? Since I have to sign to these terms, sneaky though they are, I'm trapped. Have others seen a similar clause?

You have entered a contract, not as Jeromap suggests to buy a car, (if your agreement is like the one I am studying), but for the _opportunity_ to buy one should a qualifying Prius become available. My document goes to considerable lengths to avoid beng a sales contract, so the dealer has lmited responsibilities, even thout I pay a penalty if I don't exercise my option to purchase the designated configuation.

I don't think the way your dealer is treating you is fair or right, Radtech; You are clearly eligible for a discount: under what grounds does the dealer say a vehicle is not "your car": is it not a parfect match? If you are next in line and it is a match, then it is surely obligated to become "your car".

Of course we all know that the dealer is trying to cheat you out of a discount he promised: the question is when can you pin him to it?

A minor point: " my particular car was sold to me for less than MSRP." Actually it was not SOLD to you; the dealer contracted to put you on a waiting list to buy a specified package at a certain price, doubtless "if available" and subject to other conditions we are all ignorant of, not having read the agreement.

I'm just suggesting the stuation may be more complicated than it seems on the surface and it comes down to interpretating what the agreement says. Lawyers do that.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just bringing up some points for discussion iin a situation of broard interest full of grey areas. I will be interested to read more.

It would be great if others could post examples of "Vehicle Deposit Agreements" for comparison and study

C

 

These paragraphs are an interesting perspective on contract law. The purpose of a dealership is to sell and service vehicles. Their sub-purpose should be to satisfy the needs of customers inside the parameters of production established by Toyota (or whatever manufacturer). Not to enter into contracts for the possibility of acquiring a vehicle, by chance (allocation process) that should, but may not meet the specifications of a buyer, and assuming those buyer specifications are based upon actual offered and shipping vehicles as delineated by Toyota's product documentation and actual manufacturing production. With the end result being revenue just for trying to acquire a vehicle, not for actually procuring the vehicle and delivering it for sale.

Most states support the concept that a deposit is only to be relinquished to the seller as revenue once delivery of the item is completed at time of sale. Some states go further to specify that a deposit must be applied to the purchase price at completion of the sale. In other words, it is generally accepted that a deposit for the acquisition of a product is fully refundable should the sale not complete in a timely manner or for any other reason because it is contingent upon the delivery of the item the deposit is meant to assist in acquiring. Another way to look at it, the holding of a deposit for failure of delivering and completing the sale on a vehicle would be unjust enrichment to the dealer. Especially considering that the dealer's job is to sell cars. Also, considering that the quantity of work necessary to acquire a vehicle for a buyer consists of taking down their name and then sitting on your hands while you wait for the car carrier to arrive, there is not much support for compensating for the effort of acquiring a vehicle for sale. One of the dealers I had talked to before making a purchase actually justified the prospect of a non-refundable deposit by talking about the work they put in to find a car and I just about laughed myself out of the dealership, especially when I pressed him regarding the "ordering" process and found out there was no actual order or lot search or allocation search, etc; just them taking down my name and color/package preference and letting me know when it came in.

And then there is the concept of legal contract. For a contract to be enforceable and legal it must reside inside the laws of the locality and State and Fed. Contracts cannot make up law, create new law or subvert existing law. That makes them unenforceable and illegal. As such, a dealership might have a deposit contract with a lot of language on it regarding non-refund ability, however if the state you are in has laws about it, or legal precedent, the contract isn't even worth the paper it is on and the dealer doesn't have a foot to stand on.

 

An interesting comment, Jeromep.

Funny, I though the purpose of a business is to make money for it's owners, and satisfying (or fleecing) customers is only a means to that end. It does look a bit like some dealers may regard withheld deposits as a revenue stream, though I have no evidence of that. Dealers typically say that they never actualy withold deposits even when the buyer defaults. I don't know how true that is.

I suspect the contract I was referring to would be thrown out in court. Unfortunately I don't know New Mexico Law well enough to be sure, and I don't want to go to the expense to find out, or to go to court to compel refund if necessary. That is the non-legal foot the dealer has to stand on. So I'll take my business elsewhere.

(This "contract" actually has the gall to include a paragraph in which the Customer acknowledges that the Dealership would suffer a loss and that therefore forfeit of the deposit is fair and reasonable! I wish I had a digitized versio to post.)

This dealership sells all the cars it can get, so feels under no compulsion to revise the terms of the contract. Ironically, other dealerships also sell all the Prius they can get, so see no need for a non-refundable deposit.

Nevertheless, each dealership I have explored over the phone, has demonstrated that I need to get in writing exactly what I am ordering, under what terms, and under what conditions they will return the deposit, before I gve money to them. Doing this enabled me to discover one dealership was representing factory or dealership add-ons as an integral part of Toyota's package, and I had quite an argument before they admitted they could order a vehicle without these extras. (Of course they are not BOUND to order me one without the extras, and may not consider it worth the trouble. They may think that when push comes to the shove, I will take the extras because I have waited so long, and they have matched my other requirements).

So my general advice is not just "get it in writing", but be sure you know exactly WHAT you should get in writing before puting money down! This can protect you from a major catastrophe, but it probably isn't ecnnomical to go to court over minor extras installed on the vehicle you are offered. From the dealer's point of view, you don't HAVE to buy it and he knows you are under pressure as the tax credit allocation cut off approaches (particularly if you don't know how the credit cut off works - another thread) .

Sorry, I wrote enough for a lawyer, but I'm not one!

C