bought a car, took it home, but now unable to verify income

^^ The buyer is not leaving whole; after all, he does not have a car now (one scenario.)
The reason (in my mind, anyway) that the dealership loses more is that the dealership fouled up the pre-qual.

And even that argument is perhaps not the key one, but rather that monies spent by the dealership to conclude the contract are not the buyer's problem. The buyer does not have to pay lost profit or interest, either.

 

Has Fabrice Tourre' joined the forum?

 

Under typical state consumer protection laws, the seller cannot add on a post-deal price increase. If the deal cannot be consummated, then it must be fully unwound. But lacking the sales contract and more California-specific detail, we don't know the full story here.

Absent this deal, the buyer was going to be car-less within a few weeks anyway, and was in a position of needing to acquire another. Unwinding of this deal would leave him with the remaining old lease obligations satisfied (presuming it is not still on the seller's lot and returnable to the buyer), plus the same resources available for acquiring a new car that he would have had absent this new purchase attempt. That effectively makes him whole.

The inconvenience of not having a car doesn't really count when the money to acquire another is back in his pocket.

 

Convenience is nice and all, but I never did get why you can drive off with a car as "yours" before financing is worked out/ok'd with all parties.
I'd hate to find out that I'd need to start over after all the hassle of working out terms and taking it home, thinking that's done and over with.
Then again, banking/credit in general seems a bit messed up =/

 

It's generally to the dealer's advantage. Once the hook has been set, the purchaser will do almost anything to avoid returning the car.

 

Well, if you want to go there, it seems to me that the car is not "yours" after financing is set up; it belongs to the lender. If the lender refuses the deal, the car is returned to it's owner: the dealership.

Once again I'll say I am definitely not a lawyer, so take with a grain of salt my opinion that financing a purchase strikes me as a form of 'rent to own in a legal sense,' albeit usually with better terms.

 

Like I said before, there if more to this story than we know. I'm wondering why the OP felt the need to 'trade in' the leased vehicle so closed to the end of the lease? Was the OP over the mileage limit and looking for a way out? Did it need new tires, etc...? If the car was sent back to the lease company from the dealer it was traded to, the OP is still liable for excess mileage, damages, and tires if needed. But it's speculation on what ultimately occurred.

On the surface it appears neither the dealer nor the OP will be made entirely whole if this deal doesn't work out. If the deal can be saved, it wont be because of a post deal price increase. There are no guarantees in any auto sales contract that if financing can't be found at or below a certain rate, the sale is null and void. Financing can likely be had for the OP with a larger down payment and/or much higher interest rate. If the trade-in is no longer available and the deal is unwound, the $1000 the OP put down will be used toward compensating the dealer - hopefully it's enough, and the dealer will take back the car with more mileage on it. And it's not like the OP was left with nothing as they did have use of the car the entire time.

 

I had to google to find out the reference you were inferring. In hindsight, he was a scumbag, but during the time period in question where he purported on what he was doing, no one thought much of it. Not sure I see the connection here.

 

The Fabulous Fab was the seller/dealer. The buyers got haircuts. In the end, Fab got his, too.

 

I'm sure the contract has verbiage staying that the dealer will arrange financing with between $x down and $y down, with rates between xx% and yy%, etc....

That's how it is in Utah, so if the loan they thought they could get you doesn't work out you're still required to accept other terms even if they are less favorable.

Also in Utah, they can charge you per mile, which is usually 20 cents per.

No clue how it works in CA.

DROID RAZR HD ? 2

 

I'm sure the car dealership would never lie.

Hint: Your credit report is affected by a lot more than credit cards and bank loans; and if it happens that your car dealer does not report unpaid debt, their collection agency sure will.

Google is your friend

 

Great to hear they're working things out for you. Actually 13% is not that bad. A friend of mine a couple years ago was sort of in the same boat. Not only did he need to reduce the monthly outlay, but also find a car with higher mpg's. The dealer was able to secure financing at 19%! Good luck to you and welcome to the Prius world!

 

At more than 1200 basis points over federal funds rate and 1000 basis points over prime? That dealer and its financial network are real peaches.

 

If you would like to offer OP a better rate, I'm sure he would like to hear from you.

 

If you can't prove income then to me and banks, you don't have a steady job. If you can't cough up a pay stub then you can just forget financing.

 

Good credit is your best friend.

The scary part is the OP is already calculating what if scenarios if he defaults.

This is my suggestion get your financial life in order. Get a job, use public transportation, pay all your bills on time, and the banks will lend money to a responsible adult. You can't scam the system.

In house credit is for the dead beats. If you default on them the collector comes a knocking and it ain't pretty. 13% interest is highway robbery. Walk away.

Rebuild your credit. Good credit is your best friend.

 

In Illinois a dealer can charge up to 30% intreist on a car loan with really bad credit, sounds to me like robbery even at 13% I would get my money back and find a new dealership..................

 

Montel Williams offers better rates!