Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. They. Dont. They owe what the car is worth. End of story.
Bingo...and the matter was resolved in the way that the dealer had originally offered, giving them a deal on a NEW 2013. Of course, the Hoopers would be responsible for the difference in the value of the two cars. Notice how he basically said that "GM and the dealer in Michigan found a 2013 ZL1 that worked and are shipping it to First State so that WE CAN BUY IT". He then goes on to point out that there is only a difference of around $5k-$6k on the price of a good 2012 and a new 2013.
I am willing to bet that do to the traction of the story, GM stepped in, sourced a car for the guy and are getting it to him at a discount. He is still paying (based on what was said) the difference between the value of his used car and this new car. Remember, this is one of the options that the DEALER offered initially, which the Hoopers refused because the 2012 was more limited, yadda, yadda, yadda. Now that they have their moment in the spotlight and have scored some free swag (how collectible is it if he is putting on aftermarket sway bars, LED's and a CAI) their outrage over not getting a 2012 is somehow salved and they are willing to pony up for a 2013.
No. They. Dont. They owe what the car is worth. End of story.
Yes. They. Do. (Notice how amazingly cool it looks, and emphasis added, when I use periods excessively?)
It would be different if a tree fell on the car while it was in their lot. But that didn't happen. One of their employees took the car out for a joy ride and wrecked it. And the car he wrecked wasn't a run-of-the-mill Chevy Cruze. If the owner demands that the car be replaced with an identical car, the dealer is obligated to do that. If the car can't be replaced with its twin, they danged well better do whatever they can to keep their arses out of court.
In addition, under the circumstances, trying to hard-ball the owner of the car is purely moronic. As a result of doing that, they have taken - and will take - far more of a financial hit then if they had bent over backwards and just GIVEN him a new car. You can call it vigilante justice (which is silly) or punitive damages (which is more accurate). Even so, the dealer compounded stupidity with more stupidity.
Yes. They. Do. (Notice how amazingly cool it looks, and emphasis added, when I use periods excessively?)
It would be different if a tree fell on the car while it was in their lot. But that didn't happen. One of their employees took the car out for a joy ride and wrecked it. And the car he wrecked wasn't a run-of-the-mill Chevy Cruze. If the owner demands that the car be replaced with an identical car, the dealer is obligated to do that. If the car can't be replaced with its twin, they danged well better do whatever they can to keep their arses out of court.
No they arnt. The dealership has insurance, the insurance says the vehicle is worth X amount. Thats what they are going to pay. If you cant replace the property for X amount, that is not the dealerships problem. That is how insurance works. They do not owe for replacement. They only owe what it is worth at that moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C
I presume he can still sue the dealership over the difference of what he owed on the note and how much his insurance paid him for the vehicle.
NB: Well, he is not going to sue I take it based how this situation is shaping up.
I would be willing to bet they cant. When they take the pay out from the insurance company, they are signing away all future right to litigation
No they arnt. The dealership has insurance, the insurance says the vehicle is worth X amount. Thats what they are going to pay. If you cant replace the property for X amount, that is not the dealerships problem. That is how insurance works. They do not owe for replacement. They only owe what it is worth at that moment.
You can claim that, and in theory it is supposedly correct, but the reality of it is VERY different. Were that the case, this whole saga would have ended months ago.
You can claim that, and in theory it is supposedly correct, but the reality of it is VERY different. Were that the case, this whole saga would have ended months ago.
I can claim that, because it is correct, and it IS the way this is being handled. The owners of the Camaro are NOT getting a used car like they wanted. They are BUYING a new one, and are PAYING difference for a new car and what they were given for the old car.
The dealership has obtained a RED 2013 CamaroZL1 which the owner will get for the same mothly payment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.