Cash4Clunkers main website update

[DianneWhitmire]

I read that and thought of Austin Powers... "Oh DO behave..."

Originally Posted by werewolf34

Thanks Diane! You're a great dealer; I wish more Toyota dealers behaved like you.

[texas112]

Originally Posted by jangell2

... My question is now that we've signed the agreement, is it valid? ...

If it comes to that, ask them if they want to eat the $4500, or eat the $4500 and a $15,000 fine when you report them :-)

[DianneWhitmire]

I don't know if it's that agreement is valid or not.

On that note, as a consumer and as a car person, I have a few thoughts.

If that agreement wasn't going to work for you, you shouldn't have signed it. I hope you understand that thought process in myself, as an adult and a mom who tries to teach the son responsibility and all that.

I don't know if it's enforceable. Might have been the thing to find out before signing it? I mean, if you signed the foim and agreed to the terms, then you agreed that they could enforce it. If you did it to get the car and now, you're backing out on it... it's just another term of their contract.

That's an entirely separate issue from the CARS program in that it's a separate agreement with the dealership. It may be against the CARS credo and agreement, so it may cause them grief with CARS program, but might they still be able to take you to court for $4500? I don't know.

Anyone who bought under this program and signed something that said "hey, if you don't get the dough from the US Government, I will cough it up..." was prepared to cough it up anyway. That's why you signed and took the dealership's car, right?

Should a dealership who handled matters this way be reported? Probably. It's what the CARS website says to do. Apparently, they are wanting to know who's doing this for some reason or another. I think they might be shocked to see MANY MANY dealerships taking this position and getting these documents early on, not knowing what to expect.

Dianne
__________________________________________________ ___

Originally Posted by jangell2

My question is now that we've signed the agreement, is it valid? Can the dealer enforce it? I don't expect any problems, but I would be interested in knowing my rights here. It seems to me the dealer violated the CARS program by requiring me to sign the agreement.

[Jabber]

I agree with Dianne 100%. Our dealership was doing "paper" deliveries for about a week. But that was the week between 8/3 and 8/8. Once the senate approved the extra 2 billion, we started delivering all the "paper" deliveries. A paper delivery is doing everything as far as paperwork goes, money exchanges hands, contracts are signed, etc, but you don't actually take the vehicle home. Exactly what the CARS website says we can't do. We have not had a single person sign anything saying that they would owe the money if CARS didn't pay. What we have customers sign is a form saying they would return the vehicle or pay the difference, their choice. We aren't blowing up any engines until we get the approval from NHTSA. Basically, we can reverse everything, give back keys, and shake hands if it doesn't work out. So far, we haven't done that with any one of the 137 deals pending. And we have only had 3 approvals so far.

Back to the original query. Since the original details were recently changed, I have to wonder if any deals prior are still valid. My guess is they are, kind of like grandfathered in. In reality, if you don't have the money, the dealership will not take you to court. They will probably ask for the vehicle back and keep some of your down payment as payment for the miles and use of the car. Even that would be fairly shady and hard to enforce, but they might try it. Will the dealer get fined? I doubt it. Again, the agreement was in place before the ruling was issued.

URLYADOPTR, there is only one slight problem you have. This is not a mandatory program. If the dealership suddenly says, we are not doing C4C anymore, what would you do? The sales manager is being a little harsh in his words (based on what you are saying). I don't care for the way he is handling your transaction, but it is his car to sell you. You can agree with his terms and take delivery, or choose to go elsewhere. If you have not driven off the lot in your new car, you are not bound to the dealership in anyway. That is the legal side of it in Illinois. Check your local laws (call a different dealer and see what they say) to see if they are the same.

EDIT: Just re-read your original post. You have not taken delivery. You don't even have a valid purchase order if there is no car or VIN on it. You have a piece of paper that will make it easier to start a fire in wintertime. I still don't like the way you are being treated, but it still stays the same. It is their car to choose who to sell it to. Did they take all your paperwork and are trying to get it approved?

[jangell2]

Originally Posted by DianneWhitmire

If that agreement wasn't going to work for you, you shouldn't have signed it. I hope you understand that thought process in myself, as an adult and a mom who tries to teach the son responsibility and all that.

I don't know if it's enforceable. Might have been the thing to find out before signing it? I mean, if you signed the foim and agreed to the terms, then you agreed that they could enforce it. If you did it to get the car and now, you're backing out on it... it's just another term of their contract.

I don't want there to be a misunderstanding here. Here's a little bit of my post:

My question is now that we've signed the agreement, is it valid? Can the dealer enforce it? I don't expect any problems, but I would be interested in knowing my rights here. It seems to me the dealer violated the CARS program by requiring me to sign the agreement.

I don't expect any problems. We have the car, we are happy with it, we don't want to give it up. We're not backing out of the deal and I don't think my post implies that. I wanted to know what my rights were.

I think you're taking a position that since I agreed to it, I should stick to it. Maybe so. What about the dealer that is not acting in full candor and is violating the CARS policies to which they've agreed? I've done nothing to violate what I've signed but the dealer has already violated the agreement they signed with CARS.

BTW during the blizzard of papers we were asked to sign, one was a "Waiver of Purchaser's Right to Sue." We were asked to sign this document which states disputes will be handled by the American Arbitration Association. The dealer representative very clearly told us that signing the document did NOT relinquish our rights to take the dispute to a court of law. However the last paragraph of the document, in bold, states

Purchaser acknowledges that by signing this document, Purchaser is relinquishing the right to have dispute over the sale or operation of the vehicle decided by a court of law.

Now if that doesn't relinquish my rights, what does? Either he's lying to me or the document isn't worth the paper it's printed on. This was a one page document with the final paragraph in bold so I caught it and we didn't sign it. I'm not sure if he told us signing was optional before or after I refused.

I'm 63, and I've never sued anyone in my life, so it's not like I'm planning on going to court, but I did resent this. I'm positive we were not told it was optional to sign the document about reimbursing them for the $4500. I just looked through the documents we were given that night, and the repayment agreement is not included. Shouldn't we have a copy of that?

I mention these things because if we want to talk about acting in bad faith, I think that's at least 2 points against the dealer. I'd frankly add in the extended warranty that's been doubled in price for another point.

We wanted to buy a car. I didn't even think about finding a forum to research the Prius (I did do Consumer Reports for reliability) and when I did find this forum it was to read about my new car and see if I could add USB to it and do something to protect the doors. Reading about CARS was unexpected.

[Jabber]

Jangell2,

Regardless of what was said, that paper would have absolutely taken away your rights to sue them. That paper (I have worked for a dealer that used the same type of lingo) would force you to go to arbitration. Good thing you didn't sign it.

As far as your rights now, I touched on it in the previous post. Since you signed the agreement BEFORE the NHTSA updated their rules, my guess is that it would be binding. Will a dealer sue you? Highly doubtful. They would just want their car back.

[jangell2]

Before I come out as totally negative against my dealer, I'll mention some things in their favor.

We went in on the Monday before CARS was extended and the dealer was upfront by saying they were not currently doing CARS until they knew it would be extended. We made it clear we had to have CARS and they still gave us a test ride. We liked the car and I told the salesman to give us a quote.

We wanted a model III, mainly because of bluetooth, but couldn't find one that wasn't loaded with stuff we didn't want. We also wanted blue and failing that red. Boy talking about the wanting the world.

Our salesman found a black III configued the way we wanted, but it was black. We said ok and he started the process to get it delivered (it was out of state). We went in Friday to do the paperwork and noticed a grey Prius on the lot. He printed out the sheet and it was II but $700 bucks cheaper. We thought we can upgrade the sound system and to bluetooth for $700 if we so decide.

The salesman had no problem with our switching, even though he had started the process to get the black car. We were so not expecting to get a car that night, we had not driven the clunker in, I had to go get it.

I don't fault the salesman for not telling us about the grey II since we had been adament about wanting a III.

So complements for being upfront on Monday about CARS and letting us have a test drive anyway and for letting us change our mind.

[DianneWhitmire]

I am still taking the same position. If you signed an agreement and were OK with it, and you have the car, then it shouldn't matter WHAT that dealer's experience with CARS is. That's between them and the US government.

If someone takes a car off my lot and signs an agreement for it, they need to adhere to it. Once it's out of my driveway and into yours, you are in possession of a vehicle I would have sold anyway. And, w/o the CARS program ... with less hassle at the same pricing. Meaning, you are eliminating my right as a dealership to sell what started off as MY vehicle to someone else NOT usiong CARS - possibly with a GOOD trade-in that we can re-sell ... and not have a hunk of iron in the back lot taking up space and with a supposed value of $4500 that we'll get EVENTUALLY...

As a side note: you know, we as a dealership have to pay these new Toyota cars off once they are sold. CARS money or not, we have to post fees and pay off trades - business as usual. Meaning, that $4500 comes right off our cash flow. How long do you think we as stores can manage before we can't catch up? No one's had that sort of cash flow in dealerships for a year or more- and some never.

You do 165 C4C deals at an average of $4000 a car (some 4500, some 3500) and suddenly, you're OUT $660K that you're supposed to get from the US Treasury. I must pay off your car with Toyota to obtain title to send to bank, credit union, or YOU. We have to bridge the gap between the $ you pay, the tax and title, and the CARS $.

What's the unearned interest on that while we wait? Or, what interest are we paying to borrow that $ while waiting for the US Treasury to fund it?

The $4500 is a small drop in a proverbial bucket individually but it sure makes sense why dealers are doing it. Is it right? No. Not with the rules in the CARS program, but long after this program's over, the dealership's got to be left standing solvent. I see many stores going into trouble trying to dig themselves out of this delayed CARS $ hole eventually, and especially smaller ones.

Di

Originally Posted by jangell2

I think you're taking a position that since I agreed to it, I should stick to it. Maybe so. What about the dealer that is not acting in full candor and is violating the CARS policies to which they've agreed? I've done nothing to violate what I've signed but the dealer has already violated the agreement they signed with CARS.

[jangell2]

How long does it typically take for the dealer to find out that the clunker has been accepted or rejected. Is there a potential for the dealer to actually junk my jeep and than find it's been rejected?

[urlyadoptr]

Originally Posted by Jabber

EDIT: Just re-read your original post. You have not taken delivery. You don't even have a valid purchase order if there is no car or VIN on it. You have a piece of paper that will make it easier to start a fire in wintertime. I still don't like the way you are being treated, but it still stays the same. It is their car to choose who to sell it to. Did they take all your paperwork and are trying to get it approved?

The dealer took copies of my paperwork to submit for reimbursement, and gave the originals back to me, and I drove home in my clunker (which they were required to take possession of before submitting for reimbursement). Did they disclose to me when we signed the worthless purchase agreement that they fully intended to violate the provisions of the program? Absoloutely not. If they had, of course, I would have walked away. Was it my responsibility to know all the dealer requirements when I signed the worthless contract? I don't believe so. Does this constitute fraud? I don't know, that would be up to a court to determine.

Isn't the dealer required to provide the VIN for the new vehicle in the reimbursement submittal package? I wonder what VIN they used for my transaction (if it's required). Sounds to me like civil litigators are going to have a field day with this when the dust settles.

I appreciate the contributions from the dealers on priuschat; but I think it's important for everyone to remember that this program is pumping BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars into the new vehicle market, and not a single dealer was required to participate in the program. Nobody has the right to "bend" Federal statutes; not me, not dealerships. If there was so much concern that they wouldn't get reimbursed in a timely manner, they should have hung a big sign out front reading "Sorry - No Cash for Clunkers." But that would have left lots of money on the table. If you're gonna play, play by the rules. Analyze the potential risks and rewards, and make a determination based on that. You can't just focus on lots of dollar signs and shift the risk to the consumer.

At least I only paid a $1000 deposit (on a credit card, which I can always dispute later if I need to). I feel bad for the folks who paid the full purchase price and are getting this treatment.

Speaking of the CARS.gov hotline, good luck getting through to anyone on it. I tried this morning at 8 AM; on hold for an hour before I had to go do something. Tried again this afternoon driving home; got an answering service who had no clue what was going on. I told them I'd call back.