"As Is"

[eochoa]

What is the name of your state? Oklahoma.

I recently bought a truck from a car dealership, 02 Chevy Deiseal Duramax. I paid $6,500 cash, and traded in a 85 gmc 3500. It needed an IP pump, I was fixing it, just was waiting on the part to come in.
They let me take the truck without having the 85 in their possession. 8 days later, the 02 Chevy broke down. I had only been driving to and from work. I called them, they told me to come bring it and they would fix it. Depending on the problem, they would pay for it all, or I would pay half and they would pay the other half. I brought the 85 to them before they would fix the new one.
The truck sat in their shop for two weeks, I called four times to get updates. The last update I got the truck would be ready by the 1st of January. I called today, they told me to come it get and they would not fix or help pay for it.
I haven't even received the title to the new truck, now I am out $6,500 and have to fix the new one.
I am just wondering what legal rights I have, simply because they said they would fix it now they won't.

 

[xylene]

Take the '02 and get it fixed elsewhere.

Your 85 + $6500 was the price of the '02 truck.

They offered to fix it as a courtesy and could not.

Their is nothing else to understand. You bough a used vehicle AS-IS (no warranty)

Your rights are your own the truck and are free to get it repaired at shop of your choosing or by your own hand.

 

[Taxing Matters]

You bought the new truck "as is" so initially the dealer had no responsibility to fix the problem. However, the dealer did offer to fix it either for free or splitting the cost with you. It may be that you could rely on that and that the dealer must make good on that promise. You might try getting that problem fixed elsewhere and then suing the dealer in small claims court to recover what you paid (or at least half of it) as one option to resolve this.

I have to say, though, that calling the dealer every single day may be why the dealer finally got fed up and just gave it back to you. That would annoy most people, and my bet it that it finally annoyed the dealer enough that it just wanted to get you off its back. I understand wanting to know when the truck would be ready, and periodic calls to check when it is not ready as promised is certainly warranted. But calling every single day would be a bit much in most circumstances.

 

[eochoa]

Thank you for you advice. I didn't call everyday, I should have worded that differently. I called a total of four times within the two weeks period of it being there.

 

[eochoa]

Take the '02 and get it fixed elsewhere.

Your 85 + $6500 was the price of the '02 truck.

They offered to fix it as a courtesy and could not.

Their is nothing else to understand. You bough a used vehicle AS-IS (no warranty)

Your rights are your own the truck and are free to get it repaired at shop of your choosing or by your own hand.

Yes I understand that, however I haven't even received the title to the truck. I know what as is means, but they stated they would fix it, multiple of times. If they could no fix it, tell me it will be ready on a certain date then go back on their word?

 

[xylene]

Thank you for you advice. I didn't call everyday, I should have worded that differently. I called a total of four times within the two weeks period of it being there.

That's someone running some diarrhea of the mouth baloney that has no legal bearing.

Either they were obligagted to fix it or not... and they were NOT. Thier word? Did you write that down as a binding commitment? No. Very likely the problem is severe and going to be expensive.

If you have not received the title, you need to contact the Oklahoma Used Motor Vehicle & Parts Commission.

They may be able to assist you with other aspects, but don't bet on it.

https://www.ok.gov/triton/contact.php?ac=296&id=272

 

[Taxing Matters]

Either they were obligagted to fix it or not... and they were NOT.

I disagree. We don't have enough information to make that determination. The promise by the business to fix it may indeed either be an enforceable contract or at least something on which the OP was reasonably allowed to rely, and in either of those circumstances the dealer would indeed be obligated to fix it. Exactly what the original contract was and exactly what was said regarding the dealer fixing the car would be important.

I agree that the dealer had no obligation to offer to fix it in the first place on an "as is" sale. But once the dealer makes the offer (even if it didn't have to do so in the first place) it may well have obligated itself to make the repair. This is why businesses need to be careful about what they agree to do in situations like this.

 

[Zigner]

You bought the new truck "as is" so initially the dealer had no responsibility to fix the problem. However, the dealer did offer to fix it either for free or splitting the cost with you. It may be that you could rely on that and that the dealer must make good on that promise.

Relied on it for what? What additional money is the OP out based upon the purported promise from the dealer?

 

[xylene]

I agree that the dealer had no obligation to offer to fix it in the first place on an "as is" sale. But once the dealer makes the offer (even if it didn't have to do so in the first place) it may well have obligated itself to make the repair. This is why businesses need to be careful about what they agree to do in situations like this.

The dealer stated "depending on the repair" - which is basically carte blanche at their discretion to renege on any agreement to make the truck operational.

If the dealer had agreed to make the vehicle operational, nothing about daily calls to check on the status of the vehicle would have changed that obligation.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Relied on it for what? What additional money is the OP out based upon the purported promise from the dealer?

Again, we don't have all the facts. But consider that without that promise the OP would have gone to someone else to get it fixed. Now the OP is out at least the time the vehicle sat with the dealer and still has to find someone else to fix it. The OP may have incurred expenses to get around while the dealer was supposedly working on the OP's truck. I'm not saying for sure the OP does have a good enforceable agreement or promise here. But it is certainly possible. The details, like much else in the law, matter. Things are rarely as black and white as nonlawyers tend to think they are, and this area is one of those that is not so cut and dry.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The dealer stated "depending on the repair"...

Ah, but that is not what the OP said. What the OP said was:

Depending on the problem, they would pay for it all, or I would pay half and they would pay the other half.

As you can see, if that is accurate, the dealer was NOT saying, as you infer, that whether the dealer would do the repair depends on what is involved. Rather, the dealer was saying that what the dealer would charge the OP depends on what is involved in the repair. This has the earmarks of a contract, but I'd want to know the exact conversation to make that call. Even if it was not a contract, it might still be enforceable on a theory of justifiable reliance. Again, details would be important for that.

 

[Zigner]

Again, we don't have all the facts. But consider that without that promise the OP would have gone to someone else to get it fixed. Now the OP is out at least the time the vehicle sat with the dealer and still has to find someone else to fix it. The OP may have incurred expenses to get around while the dealer was supposedly working on the OP's truck. I'm not saying for sure the OP does have a good enforceable agreement or promise here. But it is certainly possible. The details, like much else in the law, matter. Things are rarely as black and white as nonlawyers tend to think they are, and this area is one of those that is not so cut and dry.

That is fair enough. As you have said in the past, details matter, and we truly don't have them all. Having said that, my gut tells me that our OP isn't out anything based on the promise from the dealer.

 

[xylene]

As stated, the open ended nature of the dealer's offer to repair the repair the vehicle or split repair costs was dependent on the vehicle's problem with latitude to decide resting in the hands of the dealer.

Had the dealer stated. "We'll get your car running" or "We'll fix the solenoid and any other repairs over 500 bucks we'll split with you." would be far different.

The ability to decide the covered repairs and the threshold for splitting is plainly at the whim of the of the dealer. As stated. Of course other info could change that, but anything else is pure imagination, as is the notion that daily calls would have changed any responsibility to the op.

The fault in the car at this point remains unknown. It is possible the dealer did substantial diagnostic work and could not find the fault....

 

[Taxing Matters]

The ability to decide the covered repairs and the threshold for splitting is plainly at the whim of the of the dealer. As stated. Of course other info could change that, ....

Exactly. We don't have all the facts. We don't know exactly what was said. As a result, I disagree with your conclusion already that the dealer had no obligation to the OP to do the repair. You might turn to be right when all the facts are known. But you might not be.

...but anything else is pure imagination, as is the notion that daily calls would have changed any responsibility to the op.

I never said that daily calls would have changed any responsibility to the OP. Please read things carefully. What I said was this:

I have to say, though, that calling the dealer every single day may be why the dealer finally got fed up and just gave it back to you. That would annoy most people, and my bet it that it finally annoyed the dealer enough that it just wanted to get you off its back. I understand wanting to know when the truck would be ready, and periodic calls to check when it is not ready as promised is certainly warranted. But calling every single day would be a bit much in most circumstances.

Now, tell me, where in there did I say anything even remotely suggesting that the daily calls affected the legal obligation of the shop? I think it is pretty clear from what I wrote that I was addressing a practical issue, not a legal one: if you want people to do something for you, it's best not to annoy them. If you annoy them, they are likely to say "screw this" and not do it. Whether the dealer violated an obligation to the OP by doing that is another matter. Do you not agree that daily calls (had that actually been the case) might well have annoyed the dealer and might have prompted the dealer to just give up on fixing the truck? I know I'd have been annoyed. How about you?

 

[xylene]

. Do you not agree that daily calls (had that actually been the case) might well have annoyed the dealer and might have prompted the dealer to just give up on fixing the truck? I know I'd have been annoyed. How about you?

Bluntly, in all honesy, If were licensed motor vehicle dealer and/or motor vehicle repair shop and was unable to promptly diagnose a motor vehicle repair issue or otherwise offer a firm date when such a diagnosis could be expected to be available I would consider myself a pathetic wretch and unworthy of such professional license(s). Any annoyance I might bear from customer inquires ? That would be trival to the shame I would carry for being unworthy of my licensed trade.