The dealer got in a wreck with my car (Update)

$100, it isn't worth messing about with, pay it and take the car.
How many miles did it have on it and how much were you going to pay for the work they had the car to do?
You are getting a brand new car with no miles?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kermie @ Sep 5 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]507623[/snapback]</div>

I agree, it is petty. On the other hand, I would be pretty pleased to get a brand-new Prius for just $100 (so long as it is EXACTLY what I had before). Even if you had only a couple of hundred miles on your car, you still win on this one.

Sure, you can argue that you've lost time and you have other expenses incurred just because of their actions. Their real liability is to cover your loss. If the car was totalled, the "loss" would not be the total cost of a brand-new Prius -- it would be the fair market value of the car the second before impact.

Unfortunately, I've handled a couple of "lemon law" claims, and I can tell you that there are all sorts of things like this that come up. Just be certain you know exactly what you are going to have to pay. Remember that the new car has to be titled, so check to see what your "out the door" final and total costs will be. If the total amount is $100, you can let them know you think it is petty, but at the same time you may consider thanking them for taking responsibility for their actions and providing you with an exact replacement for your lost car. (Well, actually, a BRAND SPANKING NEW replacement for your SLIGHTLY USED AND VERY LOVED PRIUS!)

 

My opinion, pay it. Consider it rent for driving the old one however many miles. It's petty, you shouldn't have to, but it's a small amount and it saves you the further trouble of hassling about it. Of course, take the new one somewhere else for service.

 

But is he paying the $100, and then has to pay tax on the new car plus the $100, and pay the new registration, etc? Because he shouldn't have to pay any of that. It wasn't his choice to have to get a new car.

 

Pay the $100 and drive away never to return.

 

I would so not pay it! i dont know exact details of your situation but to me its principle. if they wrecked it they bought it IMO.


especially if you have to pay tax, license and all. that is just wrong that the dealer wrecked it. i would throw a fit though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 5 2007, 07:01 PM) [snapback]507700[/snapback]</div>

There are some good points here. If it is $100 only, I'd do it. If you have to pay taxes and licensing, then it depends on the amount.

Remember, you are getting a new car, not a repaired car which would have less value.

 

.

 

If the dealer is forced to pay the market value (before the accident) of the wrecked car, it will be considerably less than the replacement value, due to depreciation.

But the posters above have raised an important point: If you have to pay sales tax on the retail value of the new car, it may be a deal-breaker.

The dealer wrecked the car. The dealer needs to provide a new car and pay all fees. But if he does that, I'd consider the $100 a token, and well worth it to avoid further hassle, and to have a car with zero miles at the beginning of its warranty period. This becomes more significant if you've put many miles on the wrecked car.

Another way to look at this is, what if it was a parking valet who wrecked the car? Would the insurance buy you a new car? Or would they insist on repairing the old one, even though a repaired wreck is never the same? I've been in some accidents that were not my fault. My insurance paid for repairs, with genuine OEM parts, at a body shop of my choosing. But they never would have bought me a new car. -- I think the offer to replace the old car with a new one for $100 is an excellent offer, providing that you do not have to pay any taxes or fees.