teflon_jones
Senior Member
I don't think you can win this WITH a lawyer.
-
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.
Required to Tell?
- Thread starter jamhunt
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Deceived
I don't get it? The dealer that made the trade with me should have ran a check on my trade-in. I didn't realize that I had signed a disclosure statement 3 1/2 years ago when I bought the Toyota. Do not dealerships have protocol that they should follow through with when making a trade so as to prevent this sort of thing from happening? The statue says that if the individual has knowledge of the salvage history. I title is clear. I did not have knowledge of the salvage history. What are the chances of winning this one on my own or with a lawyer? On a scale of 1 - 10 (10 being that I win)
I don't get it? The dealer that made the trade with me should have ran a check on my trade-in. I didn't realize that I had signed a disclosure statement 3 1/2 years ago when I bought the Toyota. Do not dealerships have protocol that they should follow through with when making a trade so as to prevent this sort of thing from happening? The statue says that if the individual has knowledge of the salvage history. I title is clear. I did not have knowledge of the salvage history. What are the chances of winning this one on my own or with a lawyer? On a scale of 1 - 10 (10 being that I win)
I think the word salvage is being thrown around too much here. A car can have damage in NY over 2000.00 and it would be listed on Car fax but is not considered salvage. Minor fender benders do not show up on them. But what happens is some pissed off person will see this after they bought the car and start using the word salvage.jamhunt said:I don't get it? The dealer that made the trade with me should have ran a check on my trade-in. I didn't realize that I had signed a disclosure statement 3 1/2 years ago when I bought the Toyota. Do not dealerships have protocol that they should follow through with when making a trade so as to prevent this sort of thing from happening? The statue says that if the individual has knowledge of the salvage history. I title is clear. I did not have knowledge of the salvage history. What are the chances of winning this one on my own or with a lawyer? On a scale of 1 - 10 (10 being that I win)
Now for the life of me I can not remember NC titles. But it is clearly lists on NY titles SALVAGE and the words never disappear no matter how many new titles are issued to the car. Does NC follow these same guidelines?
What I am wondering is that you signed a statement from the previous dealer stating the car has been damaged and exceeded a certain monetary amount but not salvaged out because your stating your titles does not state that. In NY we have on the back of our titles a damage disclosure statement, simple check the box yes or no if it has been damaged over 75%. During open title sales it is rare that the previous owner ever checks this box, DMV usually hold you up in line and makes you check it yourself because at that point you have been there for 2 hours and do not want to leave without your plates.
I am wondering like an odometer statement, you also signed a damage disclosure statement. A lot of the times a person will buy a new vehicle - wreck it, bring it back to the orginal dealership, trade it in for a new one. Which in turn the dealership will rebuild it and resell it. Because they rebuilt it, they have to issue a damage disclosure statement. But it is very very rare a reputable dealer will rebuild a totaled car. They send them to the zoo(auction). Which again leads me to believe that this car was damaged, not salvaged.
What you need to do is find out how much of a percentage or monetary amount your car was damaged to see if it was actually considered salvage. Go to the dealer you bought the car from. If you have to, track the original owner of the vehicle.
You also need to get a copy of this car fax report. Spend the $20.00 it is worth it. Car Fax does over exaggerate things, this is their business, they want to make sure the consumer is thrilled and will come back to use the service.
Paperwork
I have all the history of the car now in my possession. The car was purchased for $32,000 in January of 2001 and wrecked the following month. The insurance company declared the car a total loss. It was reported to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (NCDMV). But before DMV issued a salvaged title for the car the dealer which I bought it from had purchased it and repaired it for only $2,500 at his cost and sold it to me for $26,000, hardly a salvaged vehicle price. I found out that NCDMV will issue a clear title for total loss car if a salvaged title has not yet been issued and all repairs, costs, and time spent is documented and forwarded to DMV and of course the car must pass an inspection. If all goes as planned, the dealer will now have a car which he purchased for very little and can now declare it as a clear titled vehicle to the unsuspecting buyer (me). The dealer told me the car was a clear title and in fact the title is clear but there is a salvaged history which I did not know about until last week. I actually, signed a paper 3 1/2 years ago at the time I bought the car that said that I acknowledged that the car was salvaged. I honestly do not recall ever signing this paper and did not know that it existed. Well, the paper has been presented to me and I can not recall it at all. At any rate, when I traded my car to the other dealer I truely "to the best of my knowledge" had no knowlegde that the car had been salvaged. The dealer which purchased the car from me should have ran a check so that we would not be in this situation. I have learned a little about how this scam goes and feel that I could present it worthly in court. I am a victim and did not try to deceive the dealer with whom I traded. Who is to blame?
I have all the history of the car now in my possession. The car was purchased for $32,000 in January of 2001 and wrecked the following month. The insurance company declared the car a total loss. It was reported to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (NCDMV). But before DMV issued a salvaged title for the car the dealer which I bought it from had purchased it and repaired it for only $2,500 at his cost and sold it to me for $26,000, hardly a salvaged vehicle price. I found out that NCDMV will issue a clear title for total loss car if a salvaged title has not yet been issued and all repairs, costs, and time spent is documented and forwarded to DMV and of course the car must pass an inspection. If all goes as planned, the dealer will now have a car which he purchased for very little and can now declare it as a clear titled vehicle to the unsuspecting buyer (me). The dealer told me the car was a clear title and in fact the title is clear but there is a salvaged history which I did not know about until last week. I actually, signed a paper 3 1/2 years ago at the time I bought the car that said that I acknowledged that the car was salvaged. I honestly do not recall ever signing this paper and did not know that it existed. Well, the paper has been presented to me and I can not recall it at all. At any rate, when I traded my car to the other dealer I truely "to the best of my knowledge" had no knowlegde that the car had been salvaged. The dealer which purchased the car from me should have ran a check so that we would not be in this situation. I have learned a little about how this scam goes and feel that I could present it worthly in court. I am a victim and did not try to deceive the dealer with whom I traded. Who is to blame?
Yes I agree with this but most do not do this. With the understanding of dealers, most buy and sell their cars at the auction. With five lanes of cars running you have about 40 seconds to inspect a car before you purchase it. That is unless you are a smart dealer and run around the auction lot for three hours inspecting and taking numbers before they run. If a car like this should run and be bought and a dealer finds this out within a limited time they can in fact arbitrate the vehicle and get their money back.jamhunt said:. The dealer which purchased the car from me should have ran a check so that we would not be in this situation.
Now with the full story, I am starting to think no your not a victim. When signing contracts it is your responsibility to read all the fine print. Yes I know it kinda hard when you have some pushy salesman trying to hurry your deal and with dealer paperwork there is many forms to complete. BUT you must read it all, because of sh@t like this.jamhunt said:I have learned a little about how this scam goes and feel that I could present it worthly in court. I am a victim and did not try to deceive the dealer with whom I traded. Who is to blame?
The best you can do is explain your case to the judge if it should be brought to court. What has the dealer done with the person who bought this vehicle?
Buy Back
The dealer sold the car to another dealer. That dealer ran a car fax soon thereafter and the salvaged history reported. Thus, the dealer which sold the car had to buy the car back. This was about a month and a half after we made the trade. The dealer called me and told me about the history and I was surprised. I told them each time that I did not know and there was no disclosure statement signed by me because I did not sign one, I thought. After all, I paid $26,000 for this car. That's a great deal for a salvaged vehicle. The dealer said that it was a clear title and in fact it was. I did not know that they had gotten a new title that was not branded from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles. I still say that to the best of my knowledge at the time of the trade that I had no knowledge of the salvaged history of the vehicle. It's not like I went in and intentionally told a lie just to make a trade for a Jeep. I honestly had no knowledge: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning.
The dealer sold the car to another dealer. That dealer ran a car fax soon thereafter and the salvaged history reported. Thus, the dealer which sold the car had to buy the car back. This was about a month and a half after we made the trade. The dealer called me and told me about the history and I was surprised. I told them each time that I did not know and there was no disclosure statement signed by me because I did not sign one, I thought. After all, I paid $26,000 for this car. That's a great deal for a salvaged vehicle. The dealer said that it was a clear title and in fact it was. I did not know that they had gotten a new title that was not branded from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles. I still say that to the best of my knowledge at the time of the trade that I had no knowledge of the salvaged history of the vehicle. It's not like I went in and intentionally told a lie just to make a trade for a Jeep. I honestly had no knowledge: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning.
This is wonderful and all, but you did sign the salvage disclosure statement. Its your John Han**** on there. You must read all the fine print before you signjamhunt said:knowledge: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning.
Just for giggles, what year, make, model, milege is this vehicle? How much of a trade in did you get and on what? What was the price of the new vehicle you bought? I wanna know what kinda deal you got**************...
The Deal
I traded my Toyota in on a Jeep. The Toyota was in mint condition and I never had any problems with it. The Toyota had 62K miles on it. The dealer allowed me $12,000 for the Toyota. I only had $6,300 left to pay on it at the time of the trade. The dealer paid the Toyota out and applied the rest toward the Jeep. After 1 1/2 months the dealer called me and told me the problem. By this time I was not satisfied with the Jeep because I had brought it in several times for repair and it was a 4*4 gas hog. Also this was during the time when gas was over $3 a gallon and I was only getting 14-17mpg. I needed the Jeep because we were starting to build our house and I needed something that I could use to pull trailers and haul materials. I told the dealer that I was not satisfied with the Jeep which I had gotten from him and would be willing to give it back and he could give me back my Toyota that he was unsatisfied with. He said that I would have to give him $11,300 for the Toyota to make the deal right. I told him no way and he could keep the Toyota.
I traded my Toyota in on a Jeep. The Toyota was in mint condition and I never had any problems with it. The Toyota had 62K miles on it. The dealer allowed me $12,000 for the Toyota. I only had $6,300 left to pay on it at the time of the trade. The dealer paid the Toyota out and applied the rest toward the Jeep. After 1 1/2 months the dealer called me and told me the problem. By this time I was not satisfied with the Jeep because I had brought it in several times for repair and it was a 4*4 gas hog. Also this was during the time when gas was over $3 a gallon and I was only getting 14-17mpg. I needed the Jeep because we were starting to build our house and I needed something that I could use to pull trailers and haul materials. I told the dealer that I was not satisfied with the Jeep which I had gotten from him and would be willing to give it back and he could give me back my Toyota that he was unsatisfied with. He said that I would have to give him $11,300 for the Toyota to make the deal right. I told him no way and he could keep the Toyota.
Just for giggles, what year, make, model, milege is this vehicle? How much of a trade in did you get and on what? What was the price of the new vehicle you bought? I wanna know what kinda deal you got....
I ask this because I wanted to see how badly you were screwed**************.... But your last post did not give the info.
I ask this because I wanted to see how badly you were screwed**************.... But your last post did not give the info.
Summons
A Deputy served a summons today for the case. At the time of the trade, I 100% was not aware of a salvaged history. Recall, the title is a clear title. I later found out that I had signed a disclosure from the used dealer that I bought the car from but I was not aware of. I am really mad at the dealer with which I traded. He had an obligation (I think) to take due care or due diligence to make sure that my car was acceptable by his dealership. He inspected the car and was pleased. However, he never ran a vin check. He sold the car and the other party ran the vin and made the dealer buy it back. I tried to trade back and give $2,000.00 more than what I had owed at the time of trade. The dealer refused. I later made a final offer of $3,000.00 more than what was owed. The dealer told me "Why should I be out money in this deal." I wonder what money he is talking about. I believe the dealer with which I traded is at fault in the trade as well because he did not take care and led me to believe that the car was fine for 1 1/2 month until he tried to sell it to someone else. I have several questions about court and related items:
1. Will I need an attorney?
2. Is it likely that the judge will decided against the plaintiff for not taking standard precautions when dealing with trade-ins and make them keep the car. After all, this is a big dealership and has been around a long time. They had all resources to verify and terminate the trade. They had my car at least twice and one of those times was overnight.
3. Is it more likely that the judge will decide that it was partially the fault of both parties and determine a fair judgement.
Thanks
A Deputy served a summons today for the case. At the time of the trade, I 100% was not aware of a salvaged history. Recall, the title is a clear title. I later found out that I had signed a disclosure from the used dealer that I bought the car from but I was not aware of. I am really mad at the dealer with which I traded. He had an obligation (I think) to take due care or due diligence to make sure that my car was acceptable by his dealership. He inspected the car and was pleased. However, he never ran a vin check. He sold the car and the other party ran the vin and made the dealer buy it back. I tried to trade back and give $2,000.00 more than what I had owed at the time of trade. The dealer refused. I later made a final offer of $3,000.00 more than what was owed. The dealer told me "Why should I be out money in this deal." I wonder what money he is talking about. I believe the dealer with which I traded is at fault in the trade as well because he did not take care and led me to believe that the car was fine for 1 1/2 month until he tried to sell it to someone else. I have several questions about court and related items:
1. Will I need an attorney?
2. Is it likely that the judge will decided against the plaintiff for not taking standard precautions when dealing with trade-ins and make them keep the car. After all, this is a big dealership and has been around a long time. They had all resources to verify and terminate the trade. They had my car at least twice and one of those times was overnight.
3. Is it more likely that the judge will decide that it was partially the fault of both parties and determine a fair judgement.
Thanks
Please Respond
The plaintiff did get a lawyer to draw up a complaint. I decided to settle with the plaintiff out of court. I gave the lawyer a money order for the decided amount and he gave me a release letter. However, when I filed my response to the claim with the clerk of court the plaintiff did not like what I filed. I denied all the claims the plaintiff made point by point and indicated the the plaintiff did not take due care in making the trade. The plaintiff's lawyer called me and said that the plaintiff did not like my response and wants me to revise it or he may consider going ahead with the case. The plaintiff says that my response makes him appear to be partially at fault for the matter. By the way, in my meeting with the plaintiff he told me that he never checks VIN numbers when making trades on his lot. He says that all burden lies with the car holder. Anyway, I told the plaintiff's lawyer that he said some disaggreable things about me in his claim. If he could remove those items then I would consider revising my response. I'm not sure what I should do at this point. Please respond to the previous post and please give any comments concerning this post. Thanks
The plaintiff did get a lawyer to draw up a complaint. I decided to settle with the plaintiff out of court. I gave the lawyer a money order for the decided amount and he gave me a release letter. However, when I filed my response to the claim with the clerk of court the plaintiff did not like what I filed. I denied all the claims the plaintiff made point by point and indicated the the plaintiff did not take due care in making the trade. The plaintiff's lawyer called me and said that the plaintiff did not like my response and wants me to revise it or he may consider going ahead with the case. The plaintiff says that my response makes him appear to be partially at fault for the matter. By the way, in my meeting with the plaintiff he told me that he never checks VIN numbers when making trades on his lot. He says that all burden lies with the car holder. Anyway, I told the plaintiff's lawyer that he said some disaggreable things about me in his claim. If he could remove those items then I would consider revising my response. I'm not sure what I should do at this point. Please respond to the previous post and please give any comments concerning this post. Thanks
Last edited:
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">