Related to a Sad Sad Story

oh my. i saw that coming when you said you had a tacoma with frame damage. as terrible as it is, current/former techs know what to look for in the frame to know what will make them the big bucks. in fact, we know people who actively seek out older tacomas. we haven't gotten into it ourselves, though it could pay for DH's college. we are also on a very limited budget.

i could see this from a stranger or someone off the street, but people you trust and know? those are definitely not friends. unfortunately i don't know if you have much recourse since you legally sold the vehicle and signed over the title. maybe because of their community status some public relations nightmare such as this would prompt them to clear things up. maybe your local news would be interested on a story of how these supposed community leaders took advantage of you?

i'm sorry for your recent troubles, and i hope that this turns around into something better for you.

 

This was on the news before the recall letters went out. The purchasers heard about it and, apparently, you didn't. You sold them the truck. Did they do anything illegal? No. Did they do anything immoral? Maybe.

The truck was worth no more than $4000 to you. You got what it was worth to you. The fact that it was actually worth more to others is not the point. Consider a man who goes to a garage sale and spots a valuable painting on sale for $5. He knows he can make a ton of money by making a $5 purchase. Is he under any obligation to tell the seller of the actual value? No.

You keep coming back to the fact that you're in unfortunate personal circumstances. That may be. But unless you can show actual fraud, you probably don't have a case. Getting the bad end of a business deal does not equal "scamming a grieving pensioner."

 

You have no recourse.

Take the $7500. It's more than generous as they really don't have to give you anything.

And yes, he had advance notice and you got taken. Nothing you can do about it. It's legal.

After you get your $7500, drop these people. They are not your friends. Don't hesitate to share your experience with mutual acquaintances and every strangers.

 

mj,

You should have accepted the $7500 offer from the buyer. IMHO, you got greedy and paid the price!

 

John (and other dear PC friends):

This does not sound like a "life lesson" situation (sorry Doc!). This also is unlike buying fountain pens from an antique dealer (sorry Tony!).

Yes, the deal was done, the title signed over and the money exchanged. What is different, though, is that you, John, are not in the business of buying and selling automobiles. If you were, then you would have been in the same position as the buyer. When Tony buys pens from dealers, the dealers have no position from which to complain, because they hold themselves out at the experts. Tony is just the retail purchaser.

If John's buyer were a dealership, then this would have been a clear-cut case of fraud. Instead, John was dealing with someone who has special knowledge and yet has decided not to share it with John. In other words, he was intentionally taking advantage of his position of superior knowledge to take something of value in exchange for something of much less value.

Yes, you were willing to take $4,000 for the truck, but only because that was what you felt was the fair street price. Had you known about the recall and the option for significantly more money from the manufacturer, you easily could have taken that route. If you had sold this to someone down the block who only later found out about the buy-back option, then you really would have been out of luck. Instead, you've been taken by someone who intended to benefit regardless of the cost to you.

I am not a Canadian lawyer, notary or other legal specialist in the Great White North, but I do know how I would approach this for a client in the U.S. Most of our States have Attorneys General who are supposed to be protecting the interests of their public. If there is an equivalent in your Province, please go that route. Also, get a recommendation for a lawyer from your local bar association.

Please keep us informed!

 

The following are YOUR words, not mine.....

"A couple of days went by & Jeff called me to tell me that Toyota had offered him $15000. for the truck & that he would split it with me offering me $7500. I thanked him & resigned myself that it was better than nothing. The next day I called a Toyota dealer in Lindsay Ontario, to see if I had any legal recourse, explaining that only 1 week had passed between the "deal" & the recall letter. I mentioned the $7500. offer & Brian (sales manager) said that once the papers were signed & moneys accepted, it was a done deal. He also said that if he had offered $7500. I should "accept it & shake his hand as a true friend". I can remember thinking the statement was a little odd."

Sorry, but you brought a third party (OPP officer) in trying to negotiate a better deal for yourself and ended up making the buyer mad. Like I said, you got greedy and paid the price. The one thing I find really odd is that you posted your Tundra situation on a Prius forum.

P.S. - Thanks for your kind words regarding our lack of morality/conscience.....

 

Turnbowm -

I'm a bit confused by your reaction to John's story. Are you involved in this some way? Are you a dealer or Toyota employee who is offended by the story?

I would agree that a 50/50 split is a nice way to resolve this for John, but only because he wouldn't incur the costs of hiring a lawyer and wouldn't be risking more money going after someone who appears to have snookered him. If the new buyer didn't know all of this was coming down, then it is a windfall to him that he should be grateful to share. If he did know it and was employed by a dealership who had advanced knowledge and a better position, then he deserves all of the denigrating statements -- and more.

If John cast dispersions on the whole lot of Toyota dealers and employees (and I didn't think that was the case), then he should apologize. I'm certain, though, that you could understand his response.

Certainly, I could be missing something here, and that is why I don't understand your posts. I'm sorry if that is the case, but please fill me in.

 

Turnbowm, there's no need to attack the OP just because you feel you were included in his generalization about morals. He was making an observation about differences in generations, and whether it applies to you is really up to you. You could say all the same things to him without being spiteful.

As for the OP's predicament, I'm not sure there's a lot to be done about it. I'm no legal expert, but unless the buyer had privileged information from Toyota that you couldn't reasonably be expected to find out for yourself, then you may not have much legal wiggle-room. Whether the information was privileged or not, if the guy knew that he stood to gain so much before making the deal, then he's a sleaze for taking advantage of your ignorance. Laws are usually written to protect people, but some people can easily hide behind them.

As I said before, I'm not a legal expert (or anything like one), but one legal angle that occurred to me is this: Ida works at a community care facility. It's a business and/or it's government sponsored, I'm assuming? So she used her position there (a position that seems to entail personal access to people in vulnerable positions) to gain access to someone who she and her husband could rope into a business deal, and whom they could take advantage of. Even a hint of something like that could freak out her employer a la Galaxee's suggestion, and might illicit a more immediate response from the couple, but it might be a realistic legal argument too??

In terms of moving on if you find that you have no recourse, at least you got cash for what you thought was a junked truck. You weren't expecting more from it at the time you sold it, and you can remind yourself that you unloaded an old piece of garbage, no matter what it becomes or whom it benefits in its next life.

 

This just gets to be more and more interesting the more attention I give to the whole saga.

I really missed two important things. The first is that the buyer is the husband of the state/provincial employee. If the employee was assisting you and had knowledge of your financial position, it is quite possible she had an elevated duty of responsibility to you. Perhaps not the level of fiduciary duty, but, even so, a high enough obligation to advise you of what her husband might do to make more money than you could have using the same truck.

The second is that the buyer is a former employee of a Toyota dealership. If he had been a current employee, I think your chances of recovery against him would be considerably higher. Still, if he had access to "inside information" and used it to his advantage, you may still have a claim. Certainly, the Toyota folks would be interested to find out what was going on. I don't think I would be calling back to that dealership for more info.

 

If Canadian law is anything like U.S. law then you will have to prove intent to defraud. Not to sound disrespectful, but all the evidence you listed previously would be considered hearsay by a judge. At this point it is he-said-she-said.

The buyers don't seem to be acting in good faith, but you probably won't be able to prove a criminal act. I would write the two individuals off and stay away from a legal battle that will leave you bitter and angry whether you win or lose.

Good luck, whatever you choose to do.

 

I know this is not a legal forum, but I do want to make certain some statements don't leave the OP and other readers either confused or, possibly, misled. (My apologies to Jack, in advance, for using his recent posting as the basis for this post.)

Assuming we are not dealing with issues of consumer fraud, this is most likely the case. Still, circumstances can be shown as evidence of intent, and the circumstances here are not pretty for the buyer. Remember, this is not a case of proof beyond the shadow of (or reasonable) doubt. The claim would be civil in nature, so the trier of fact (either judge or jury, depending on the parties' choices) only has to find out which side's evidence outweighs the other side's.

This one always is confusing. If the witness (the OP) were to say on the stand "He told me it was a worthless bucket of bolts but that he would help me by taking it off my hands for a generous $4,000," and the OP was intending to prove that is just what the buyer said and by that act intended to defraud the OP, then it could qualify as hearsay. BUT, in most jurisdictions there is a clear exemption when the accused party is the one named by the witness. Because the buyer would be a party to the case and available at trial, the buyer would have the opportunity to take the stand and deny he ever made the statement (or parts of it). Yes, the buyer could exert his "Fifth Amendment Right" not to incriminate himself, but if he did the judge would be able to take that into consideration (this is not a criminal trial). Such a statement could make the OP's testimony very believable.

Remember, the OP doesn't have to conduct a criminal trial. If the provincial government interceded, then it would be a different story. Here the OP would be seeking a civil judgment, so the burden of proof is much lower.

Very true words and sage advice, but I wouldn't follow them until consulting with a local lawyer experienced in this field. After the consultation, then go to a close friend and ask the very questions suggested above: "Am I better off staying away from a legal battle? Could this exercise just leave me bitter and angry (and financially poorer)? A true friend will answer you directly.

 

This whole thing just smells. We can argue all we want about how people profit from having more knowledge that someone else, and that's just the way it is. But the fact is that a person working in a service agency took an elderly person's private knowledge and used it for her personal gain. Then he made some inquiries about his rights, unknowingly passing the information into her husband's circle of friends, and they retaliated. It seems like the deck was stacked against this guy - all because Ida used a client's personal information for her personal gain.

I don't know if Ida is an employee or an unpaid volunteer. But if she is the former, than John has some real leverage against her. He should go "up the line" to Ida's superiors and explain how she misused his trust. That would put some heat on her to make him whole. Which is more important to her - her job, or a quick profit at a client's expense?

 

I am NOT a dealer or a Toyota employee, nor have I ever been.

I also agree that a 50/50 split, as originally offered by the buyer, was a very fair settlement. Unfortunately, John subsequently got a third party (OPP officer) involved in order to negotiate an even better deal for himself and made the buyer mad. The fact that John got the police involved in a criminal investigation certainly didn't help matters.

 

So you have no qualms about unethical business dealings?

It's a real shame so many are willing to admit that with such pride.

 

Those actions are indeed unethical, and as a doctor I would have hoped you would know something about ethics. Perhaps not.

:biggrin1: