Dealer FRAUD

[citationvwings]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?CA

Dealer provided inaccurate carfax and cpo report stating vehicle was never involved in any type of collision. This was found to be false by another dealer of same manufacturer and written on a workorder.

My concern in the process of hiring an attorney has been if im asking the right questions or getting the wrong people. it seems like every attorney ive spoken to and reviewed my paperwork has agreed to take on a case they havent really fully assessed . I say that because they havent even seen the car, they havent spoken to even an auto body expert to see what condition the car really is in. All theyve done is verify if indeed the dealer promised a vehicle that was never in an accident and have taken my word for it.to me this draws concern to signing a retention contract. am i asking the wrong questions?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

That is because you are paying by the hour.

 

[swalsh411]

How do you intend to prove the dealership knew the vehicle was involved in an accident and lied about it? Carfax reports are never guaranteed to 100% accurate.

If you had gotten an independent mechanic to inspect the car prior to purchase they would have discovered the accident. This is what you should always do when buying a used car.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?CA

Dealer provided inaccurate carfax and cpo report stating vehicle was never involved in any type of collision. This was found to be false by another dealer of same manufacturer and written on a workorder.

My concern in the process of hiring an attorney has been if im asking the right questions or getting the wrong people. it seems like every attorney ive spoken to and reviewed my paperwork has agreed to take on a case they havent really fully assessed . I say that because they havent even seen the car, they havent spoken to even an auto body expert to see what condition the car really is in. All theyve done is verify if indeed the dealer promised a vehicle that was never in an accident and have taken my word for it.to me this draws concern to signing a retention contract. am i asking the wrong questions?

How, when, and under what circumstances did YOU discover that the vehicle had allegedly been in a collision?

Was this a USED vehicle (i.e., CPO, as in Certified Pre-Owned)?

If used, was it sold "AS-IS", or did it come with a specific WRITTEN warranty or guarantee of fitness? And, of course, you had the vehicle fully inspected by your own private mechanic prior to purchasing, right? What did your mechanic say about the vehicle before you signed the sale contract?

Understand that having a "Certified Pre-Owned Vehicle" isn't always a guarantee of quality. There are very specific requirements under which such a vehicle must be offered with that branding. Read more here about it:

http://www.autofraudlegalcenter.com/buying-certified-used-car

(Information offered as a reference, and NOT offered to promote the legal firm that created the page.)

 

[Mass_Shyster]

That is because you are paying by the hour.

This is the correct answer.

The attorney has told you that, based on your claims, you appear to have a valid case. The burning question is "What are your damages?". The lawyer, during a free consultation, is not going to examine your car or start calling around to gather facts. Time spent investigating is billable time.

You can probably determine the amount of your damages without paying an attorney to do it for you. Go get your car appraised, and ask the appraiser what the value of the car would be if it was never involved in an accident. The difference is your damages.

Your damages are actually the difference in value between your car and an accident free car at the time of purchase. If that wasn't too long ago, then the difference now is probably close enough.

 

[swalsh411]

The difference is your damages.

Even if the car was involved in an accident that was not disclosed by the dealer and the car is worse less than an accident-free car, that doesn't neccessarily mean she has any chance of a successfull lawsuit.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Even if the car was involved in an accident that was not disclosed by the dealer and the car is worse less than an accident-free car, that doesn't neccessarily mean she has any chance of a successfull lawsuit.

OP wrote that the dealer provided a fraudulent carfax. My answer was based on the facts given.

 

[CSO286]

OP wrote that the dealer provided a fraudulent carfax. My answer was based on the facts given.

There is a difference between an INACCURATE (what OP stated) carfax, and a fraudulent carfax.

Not every accident is reported to carfax.

Perhaps the dealer pulled and passed the carfax report along in good faith, believing it to be accurate.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Perhaps the dealer pulled and passed the carfax report along in good faith, believing it to be accurate.

Or perhaps, as the OP wrote "This was found to be false".

 

[swalsh411]

OP needs to clarify whether the carfax was modified by the dealer to remove the accident or just wrong.

edit: AND, if she believes it was modified, how she intends to prove that. (She would need to show a correct current cafax showing the accident and that she was provided with a modified one. A smart dealer working this scam wouldn't let her keep a copy)

 

[justalayman]

Op claimed the Carfax was false. Op must prove Carfax was false AND dealer was aware it was false or had reason to believe it may not be accurate or relied on an source that they had no legal obligation from. That last one means: if a stranger gives me intel and I rely on it, I have no defense arguing "but that guy told me..."


Then op has to prove their own obligation to due diligence would not have discovered the damage. While that will often not provide a complete defense to the seller, depending on the facts, it could diminish the op's claim although in some situations it could defeat the op's claim entirely. You don't get to look at a crumpled up car and have the seller go "nope, never been in an accident" and then turn around and sue because it really was.