• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

To I AM ALWAYS LIABLE!

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

D

dzwei

Guest
Hello again-
Thanks for your reply to my question about my purchasing a new car and six weeks after the deal (in Pennsylvania) the dealership calls to say they made a mistake in the paperwork....and we owe an additional $1000!!!! I know that you told me to tell them "to blow it out their ear" - but they are threatening to bring me to court!
I spoke to a local magistrate (as you know, Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth - and these types of matter will be heard by a local magistrate who has jurisdiction in the particular county/township where the suit is filed)....this particular magistrate that I spoke to would not be hearing the case - it is not in his jurisdiction - but he said that if the dealership can show that I was "unjustly enriched" by the error in the computation in the contract - we would be liable to pay the $1000.00. What is your feeling on this?
Thank you again for your response!
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
dzwei said:
Hello again-
Thanks for your reply to my question about my purchasing a new car and six weeks after the deal (in Pennsylvania) the dealership calls to say they made a mistake in the paperwork....and we owe an additional $1000!!!! I know that you told me to tell them "to blow it out their ear" - but they are threatening to bring me to court!
I spoke to a local magistrate (as you know, Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth - and these types of matter will be heard by a local magistrate who has jurisdiction in the particular county/township where the suit is filed)....this particular magistrate that I spoke to would not be hearing the case - it is not in his jurisdiction - but he said that if the dealership can show that I was "unjustly enriched" by the error in the computation in the contract - we would be liable to pay the $1000.00. What is your feeling on this?
Thank you again for your response!
My response:

Thanks for asking for me, specifically.

If you've followed my "career" (as it were) on these Boards, for over a year now, you'd know that I, as an attorney, have a great respect for judges and magistrates. Since "unjust enrichment is an "equitable" principle in the law, you would not be entitled to a jury, and the matter would be heard only by a judge.

In my opinion, the judge is a little "off base" in his thoughts. You see, in order to prove and win "unjust enrichment", not only would the dealership have to prove that on some theory they are entitled to another $1,000.00, but that you KNEW at the time of signing the contract, that you were gaining a $1,000.00 "advantage". While the first part might be fairly easy to prove, the second part (your knowledge) would be nearly impossible to prove. All you knew was the price on the paperwork, and you agreed to it by signing. The dealership had the "higher" or superior knowledge of the price of the car, and in their preparation of the contract. As far as you were concerned, the contract was correct, and you accepted the terms and conditions "as they were written". They did the same thing by having the Sales Manager sign the documents.

Additionally, and in your favor, in terms of their superior knowledge and bargaining power, is the fact that more than one person went "over the numbers" with you - - the salesperson, and then the Sales Manager.

Bottom line, they had the better knowledge, and it was their responsibility (before the fact) to have known the price and it's correctness; that, had that information been known to you prior to signing, you would never have accepted the contract - - that it was the current contract terms and price that caused you to sign in the first place.

I rather doubt the dealership would win. Also, it will cost them at least the $1,000.00 to bring this matter to court in the first place, and the most they could win would be the return of their car - - which is now used - - and has been "devalued" by the fact that the car has been registered and used.

They can't get any damages from you, or force you to re-sign a new contract because any mistake is theirs. Therefore, what does the dealership hope to win ?

The "Net" result, overall, between their time to bring it to court, and the devaluation of the car as of today, will wind up "costing" them money.

The dealership is blowing smoke at you. Let them sue (but I doubt they really will). Not only will it be an uphill battle for them in terms of proving your knowledge or "intent" at the time of signing the contract, but it will be just as, or more, costly for them to get their $1,000.00. The overall will be a loss to them because they won't get damages from you when it was their "mistake" in the first place.

Good luck to you.

IAAL

[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 01-29-2001 at 01:04 PM]
 
D

dzwei

Guest
To I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Thanks again for addressing my problem! I appreciate the elaboration on just what "unjustly enriched" means and what it would take to prove it. I am afraid that the dealership is definitely going to pursue this since it is an amount that they can go through small claims court. We received the first step in the mail today - a certified letter! I feel it might be helpful to tell you just a bit about the background on this......we had a buyer for what would have been our "trade in" and the dealership offered to do a "courtesy trade" which would save us some money on the state taxes paid on the new vehicle. The problem started when the "trading in" of the old vehicle was not going to coincide with the delivery of the new vehicle. In November we brought our buyer to the dealership and the buyer paid the dealership $16,500 for our trade in - I was very concerned that because our new car wasn't ready and might not be ready for another 4-5 weeks that the dealership was going to have use of our $16,500!
But - the dealership then gave me a check for $15,500 stating that they just needed $1000.00 deposit on the new vehicle...this made me happy and probably was done because the dealership didn't want me calling everyday asking where the new car was!
When the new vehicle came in 6 weeks later - we went to pick up our new vehicle and the paperwork put in front of us looked right to me (This would be the third vehicle we bought at this dealership and it is the same salesman as well - therefore, I tended to trust them - that their figures were accurate!) We even purchased an extended warranty and the Finance Manager was going over figures with me as well as the salesman.
When the salesman called 6 weeks later after we drove the new car out of the dealership - he said you owe another $1000.00 and that it took the sales manager 10 times to explain why to the salesman! Evidently - and I NOW can see it - they gave us benefit of the $16500 trade in AND the $1000.deposit! My husband and I DID NOT see this on the day that we picked up our new vehicle! So even though it IS due the dealership - it just is really hard to swallow being told this 6 weeks after the fact! I am afraid that the magistrate is going to say: "Do you owe the money?" to which the answer would be YES...and the magistrate will say - "Well, you must pay it!"and then we will have gone through all this for naught! ( and be stuck for the $100. or so additionally in court costs!!) Am I right as to my guess how this court scenario will be played out? What would you do? What would anyone due in this instance?
Thanks again for your time and good advice!
If we decide to pay this before they even file a small claims suit - can I pay them incrementally - like $50.00 a month until it is paid? Can they do anything about that- i.e the slowness in which this $1000.00 is paid?


 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My response:

Let them sue. Let them fight for it. Don't just roll over. Fight back ! !

Look, it's their contract, they wrote it. That means it's their responsibility for it's "correctness" - - not yours.

Since it was their mistake, they can't get costs from you, and remember, it's going to cost them a bunch of money to go after their "alleged" $1,000.00. Remember, between sending someone to court, and obtaining a judgment, and then trying to collect on that judgment, plus the costs, etc., it's going to be a little like spending dollars to get pennies.

Their letter to you may, or may not be, a bluff. Since it was their mistake :

1. There's a good chance you'll win !

2. Their "Net" win, if they should win, is going to cost them anyway.

I really feel that they are sending you the letter in the hope that you'll "roll over" because they know that their overall expenses will be at or near the amount they are seeking. So, they are hoping that they can get their money without having to spend money.

Make them spend the money. Make them prove their case. Make them explain to a judge, since it's their contract, and since they had multiple people review the contract, why they should prevail when they are the ones with the superior knowledge and bargaining power.

I sincerely feel that you'll win. Use your power, and make them use their power against themselves. You can do this !

Don't roll over. And, besides, Small Claims court isn't the U.S. Supreme Court, you know. It's a good learning experience and it's fun. Make them work for their money.

Good luck to you.

IAAL

[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 01-30-2001 at 07:44 PM]
 
D

dzwei

Guest
To I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Thanks for the "pep" talk!! I do appreciate it! However, isn't it true that when the judge says to me - Do you owe this money and I would have to answer "yes"......he will definitely find in the dealership's favor! Even though I did not know of this mistake at the time the contract was signed - when it was finally explained to me 6 weeks later - I can see that the dealership is right ...and that I DO owe the additional $1000.00. I know that you are speaking from the vantage point that you are an attorney - and attorneys like a good fight! I actually like a good fight too - but the answer to THAT question that the judge will ask me - I am afraid, will lose me the case right then and there! Sorry to keep beating this horse to death...I know nothing is a sure thing - but when I answer YES, the magistrate will throw the book at me....(at least, that is how it is on Judge Joe Brown and the other court TV programs!!@#@!@#@!!!!!!)Thanks again for anything further on this subject that you have to say!
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
Re: To I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

dzwei said:
Thanks for the "pep" talk!! I do appreciate it! However, isn't it true that when the judge says to me - Do you owe this money and I would have to answer "yes"......he will definitely find in the dealership's favor! Even though I did not know of this mistake at the time the contract was signed - when it was finally explained to me 6 weeks later - I can see that the dealership is right ...and that I DO owe the additional $1000.00. I know that you are speaking from the vantage point that you are an attorney - and attorneys like a good fight! I actually like a good fight too - but the answer to THAT question that the judge will ask me - I am afraid, will lose me the case right then and there! Sorry to keep beating this horse to death...I know nothing is a sure thing - but when I answer YES, the magistrate will throw the book at me....(at least, that is how it is on Judge Joe Brown and the other court TV programs!!@#@!@#@!!!!!!)Thanks again for anything further on this subject that you have to say!
My response:

The answer to that question is "No, I don't owe the money, your honor".

This is why I kept hammering away at their "superior" knowledge, their "bargaining power", that it is "their contract" (they wrote it), and that they had "two different people review the contract before signing". Then everyone signed when they were happy with the terms and conditions.

You're also getting into an area called the "parole evidence rule". Parole evidence is that "outside evidence" used to explain something within the four corners of a written contract.

Courts abhore using outside sources to explain matters within a written contract. Basically, you must insist that the judge ONLY look within the four corners of that written contract and not at something from the outside. The fact remains that they had all the information they wanted to use when "they" wrote that contract.

The "parol evidence rule" bars extrinsic evidence (oral or written) of prior or contemporaneous agreements to add to or modify the terms of an unambiguous "integrated" written instrument. [Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal.2d 222, 225, 65 Cal.Rptr. 545, 547; Bionghi v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Calif. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1364, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 388, 392]

"Terms set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement." [Ca Civ Pro § 1856(a) (emphasis added); see also Ca Coml § 2202, applicable to commercial transactions; and Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell Western E & P, Inc. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 229, 237]

Parties to a transaction should be able to clearly express their intent regarding the nature and scope of their legal relationship and be able to rely on the legal certainty of that expression. [Banco Do Brasil, S.A. v. Latian, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 973, 1011, 285 Cal.Rptr. 870, 893]

"The law presumes a written contract supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements . . . and where the writing is integrated, the presumption cannot be overcome." [Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Med. Center (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1379, 1385, 265 Cal.Rptr. 412, 416 (emphasis added)]

The "parol evidence rule" is not a rule of evidence but, rather, a rule of substantive law. [Tahoe Nat'l Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 22-23, 92 Cal.Rptr. 704, 713-714; BMW of No. America, Inc. v. New Motor Veh. Bd. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 980, 990, 209 Cal.Rptr. 50, 56]



THIS PART IS VERY IMPORTANT :

"It is not a question of credibility or reliability. The rule makes the integrated written agreement binding "no matter how persuasive the evidence of additional oral or written understandings." [Marani v. Jackson (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 695, 701, 228 Cal.Rptr. 518, 521 (emphasis in original)]"


In your written contract, if you look closely, there is a phrase that says something like, "Oral promises or agreements shall have no effect on this written agreement and this contract cannot be changed except in writing and with the consent of all parties." THAT'S THE "INTEGRATION" CLAUSE OF THE WRITTEN CONTRACT. THEY CANNOT SHOW "PAROLE EVIDENCE" IF THERE IS AN "INTEGRATION CLAUSE" IN THE CONTRACT and their signature on the contract demonstrates that the terms and conditions are the "embodiment" of all previous discussions concerning the sale and financing of the car.

Because parol evidence cannot alter or vary the terms of an integrated writing, evidence of prior or collateral oral agreements is legally irrelevant. [Tahoe Nat'l Bank v. Phillips, supra, 4 Cal.3d at 23, 92 Cal.Rptr. at 714; BMW of No. America v. New Motor Veh. Bd., supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at 990, 209 Cal.Rptr. at 57]

Your story could very well be that the written contract is the embodiment of a previous oral agreement that you are to receive credit for that $1,000.00, and that the dealership wrote the contract based upon that oral agreement. If the judge is going to listen to "their" parole evidence, then he should listen to this, your parole evidence. This could very well "tip the scales" back in your favor.

Fight the fight. Make the dealership WORK for the money if they want to spend the money to get the money.

Good luck to you.

IAAL
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top