What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
Would a new car lease be voidable if the trade-in car was accepted by the dealership without a the consent of a co-owner's signature and acknowledgement to sell the trade-in car to the dealership?
Day 1. A situation happened where the buyer of the new car lease contract was made with the acceptance of a trade-in vehicle with a negative equity to be financed into the new car lease contract. The buyer believed they were the owner of the trade-in vehicle and their father was a co-signer for financing and was told by the dealership that the father's consent did not matter with the purchase of the new car lease. The buyer traded-in the previously owned vehicle and signed off on the contract that required the trade-in vehicle as part of the contract.
Day 2, the buyer notifies the dealer that the new car had an alignment error and was put in a temporary car while they fixed the alignment. The buyer returns at the end of the day to pick up the fixed new car.
Day 3, the dealership finance department reaches out to the buyer notifying them that the contract signed the previous night was missing a signature and had to be resigned to complete the lease contract. The buyer cannot come in that day, but enters the dealership on day 3 to complete the paperwork signing. The two copies of the contract seem identical from my reading but with a zip code error and two different finance manager's names printed on the contract. The first contract signed had listed the sales manager of the dealership as the finance manager and the second contract signed the listed the actual finance manager of the dealership's name on the contract. The Buyer drives off in what is believed a new car with a financed lease through the dealership manufacturer's lease financing branch (LTD).
Day 9, the dealership finance department reaches out to the buyer and leaves a voicemail requesting that they need only the Driver's License of the buyer's father sent via email to help process the trade-in vehicle for the new car lease financing. The dealership did not mention the importance and detail as to why the father's Driver's License was necessary. Buyer then asks father to provide dealership with Driver's License and the father sends the dealership only the Driver's License.
Day 15, the dealership sales department (not finance this time) calls the buyer requesting they need only the Driver's License of the buyer's father sent via email a second time, but to be sent to the sales employee's email this time and not to the previously requested email. The buyer forwards the email the father sent on Day 9 to the sale's employee only with text stating "License for buyer's father co-sign". Later in the day, the sales employee of the dealership leaves a voicemail on the buyer's phone stating that they now needed a signature from the buyer's father to help process the trade-in vehicle's title transfer. The buyer provides the employee with the father's phone number and the sales employee reaches out to the father. The sales employee then request the father come up to the dealership to sign paperwork, but the father was not comfortable or able to drive to the dealership to sign documents they have not been informed or involved in outside of 1 email of their Driver's License. The sale's employee then tells the father they will send paperwork instead to his place of residence.
Day 16, the buyer finds the trade-in vehicle contract and is informed that the father is not a co-signer of the trade-in vehicle, but is the primary owner of the trade-in vehicle while the buyer was actually a co-buyer. The Buyer informs the father and the father then decides not to sign the trade-in vehicle over to the dealership and requests the buyer to return the new leased car back to the dealership to void the lease and get the trade-in vehicle back. The buyer calls the dealership sales employee notifying them that the father would not sign over the trade-in vehicle being the primary owner. The buyer is then told he would be called back as this situation has not been dealt with before and had to talk to the sales manager. The buyer does not hear anything directly from the sales manager and then drives to the dealership to return the new car lease vehicle and request the trade-in vehicle be returned to the buyer's possession as requested by the buyer's father. The sales manager meets the buyer at the front desk after noticing the buyer requesting to talk to the financial department. The sales manager then asks to speak private and the buyer then informs the sales manager of the mutual mistake of facts when the contracts were originally conceived 16 days, and then ask to proceed with the the father's request. The sales manager asks why and notifies the buyer that the father is not actually the owner and that there was no such thing as a primary owner. He began stating that the buyer was the owner and that the father is not truly the owner of the trade-in vehicle. The buyer only asks for what was requested by the father, so the sales manager states he will meet with the general manager of the dealership and ask if this will be accepted. The sales manager then returns later with news that they will not accept these terms verbally and will not be returning the trade-in vehicle to the buyer's possession. The buyer asks why if they cannot legally sell the car and the sales manager explains that the they have already sent the car to auction have paid all the fees for the trade-in vehicle's transport and simply cannot get the vehicle back. The buyer informs the sales manager again that the father is the owner of the trade-in vehicle and the sales manager ends the conversation stating that this was the dealerships decision and that corporate will handle the issue. The buyer leaves and notifies the father. The father calls the sales manager to request back his vehicle but is met with the same excuse and then put on hold until the line disconnects. The father calls back to be met with voicemail and demands the vehicle to be returned the next day and to call his number.
Day 16, the buyer's father has not been contacted. This leads to a property demand letter to be composed by the buyer's father to formally write the dealership they are in possession of his vehicle and stating they have repeatedly ignored his requests for the return of his property. The letter contains contact information with a demand of the vehicle return in no longer than 3 days. The property demand letter also states that the underlying lease contract is voidable based on the mutual mistake of fact and requests the leased new vehicle be returned by the buyer contemporaneously with the return of the trade-in vehicle.
Day 19, no contact from dealership. The buyer's father sends emails to the dealership general manager, sales manager, finance manager and sales employee involved in the transaction with the buyer with personal email and an email to the general manager with all previously stated cc'd. The buyer's father also sent priority mail of the property demand letters with a request of signature when delivered.
Day 20, no contact from dealership. The buyer's father is notified that the demand letters sent via federal express have been signed for. Buyer's father reaches out the the bank that owns the title of the trade-in car to ensure there have not been inquiries about a title transfer. The bank notifies the father that there have not been any contact and that they still possess the title. The father then informs the bank of the problem and has the account noted and logged by the bank.
Day 28, no contact from dealership. What is the next course of action for the buyer and buyer's father? Can the buyer and the buyer's father return the dealership in person requesting the trade-in vehicle back? Can the new car be returned to the dealership to break the lease of the buyer? If the buyer's father is informed they don't have his vehicle, what is the next course of action (call authorities, report to better business bureau, etc)? This ultimately puts the buyer in a bind to keep up with 2 leases while the dealership waits and refuses to respond.
Thanks
Would a new car lease be voidable if the trade-in car was accepted by the dealership without a the consent of a co-owner's signature and acknowledgement to sell the trade-in car to the dealership?
Day 1. A situation happened where the buyer of the new car lease contract was made with the acceptance of a trade-in vehicle with a negative equity to be financed into the new car lease contract. The buyer believed they were the owner of the trade-in vehicle and their father was a co-signer for financing and was told by the dealership that the father's consent did not matter with the purchase of the new car lease. The buyer traded-in the previously owned vehicle and signed off on the contract that required the trade-in vehicle as part of the contract.
Day 2, the buyer notifies the dealer that the new car had an alignment error and was put in a temporary car while they fixed the alignment. The buyer returns at the end of the day to pick up the fixed new car.
Day 3, the dealership finance department reaches out to the buyer notifying them that the contract signed the previous night was missing a signature and had to be resigned to complete the lease contract. The buyer cannot come in that day, but enters the dealership on day 3 to complete the paperwork signing. The two copies of the contract seem identical from my reading but with a zip code error and two different finance manager's names printed on the contract. The first contract signed had listed the sales manager of the dealership as the finance manager and the second contract signed the listed the actual finance manager of the dealership's name on the contract. The Buyer drives off in what is believed a new car with a financed lease through the dealership manufacturer's lease financing branch (LTD).
Day 9, the dealership finance department reaches out to the buyer and leaves a voicemail requesting that they need only the Driver's License of the buyer's father sent via email to help process the trade-in vehicle for the new car lease financing. The dealership did not mention the importance and detail as to why the father's Driver's License was necessary. Buyer then asks father to provide dealership with Driver's License and the father sends the dealership only the Driver's License.
Day 15, the dealership sales department (not finance this time) calls the buyer requesting they need only the Driver's License of the buyer's father sent via email a second time, but to be sent to the sales employee's email this time and not to the previously requested email. The buyer forwards the email the father sent on Day 9 to the sale's employee only with text stating "License for buyer's father co-sign". Later in the day, the sales employee of the dealership leaves a voicemail on the buyer's phone stating that they now needed a signature from the buyer's father to help process the trade-in vehicle's title transfer. The buyer provides the employee with the father's phone number and the sales employee reaches out to the father. The sales employee then request the father come up to the dealership to sign paperwork, but the father was not comfortable or able to drive to the dealership to sign documents they have not been informed or involved in outside of 1 email of their Driver's License. The sale's employee then tells the father they will send paperwork instead to his place of residence.
Day 16, the buyer finds the trade-in vehicle contract and is informed that the father is not a co-signer of the trade-in vehicle, but is the primary owner of the trade-in vehicle while the buyer was actually a co-buyer. The Buyer informs the father and the father then decides not to sign the trade-in vehicle over to the dealership and requests the buyer to return the new leased car back to the dealership to void the lease and get the trade-in vehicle back. The buyer calls the dealership sales employee notifying them that the father would not sign over the trade-in vehicle being the primary owner. The buyer is then told he would be called back as this situation has not been dealt with before and had to talk to the sales manager. The buyer does not hear anything directly from the sales manager and then drives to the dealership to return the new car lease vehicle and request the trade-in vehicle be returned to the buyer's possession as requested by the buyer's father. The sales manager meets the buyer at the front desk after noticing the buyer requesting to talk to the financial department. The sales manager then asks to speak private and the buyer then informs the sales manager of the mutual mistake of facts when the contracts were originally conceived 16 days, and then ask to proceed with the the father's request. The sales manager asks why and notifies the buyer that the father is not actually the owner and that there was no such thing as a primary owner. He began stating that the buyer was the owner and that the father is not truly the owner of the trade-in vehicle. The buyer only asks for what was requested by the father, so the sales manager states he will meet with the general manager of the dealership and ask if this will be accepted. The sales manager then returns later with news that they will not accept these terms verbally and will not be returning the trade-in vehicle to the buyer's possession. The buyer asks why if they cannot legally sell the car and the sales manager explains that the they have already sent the car to auction have paid all the fees for the trade-in vehicle's transport and simply cannot get the vehicle back. The buyer informs the sales manager again that the father is the owner of the trade-in vehicle and the sales manager ends the conversation stating that this was the dealerships decision and that corporate will handle the issue. The buyer leaves and notifies the father. The father calls the sales manager to request back his vehicle but is met with the same excuse and then put on hold until the line disconnects. The father calls back to be met with voicemail and demands the vehicle to be returned the next day and to call his number.
Day 16, the buyer's father has not been contacted. This leads to a property demand letter to be composed by the buyer's father to formally write the dealership they are in possession of his vehicle and stating they have repeatedly ignored his requests for the return of his property. The letter contains contact information with a demand of the vehicle return in no longer than 3 days. The property demand letter also states that the underlying lease contract is voidable based on the mutual mistake of fact and requests the leased new vehicle be returned by the buyer contemporaneously with the return of the trade-in vehicle.
Day 19, no contact from dealership. The buyer's father sends emails to the dealership general manager, sales manager, finance manager and sales employee involved in the transaction with the buyer with personal email and an email to the general manager with all previously stated cc'd. The buyer's father also sent priority mail of the property demand letters with a request of signature when delivered.
Day 20, no contact from dealership. The buyer's father is notified that the demand letters sent via federal express have been signed for. Buyer's father reaches out the the bank that owns the title of the trade-in car to ensure there have not been inquiries about a title transfer. The bank notifies the father that there have not been any contact and that they still possess the title. The father then informs the bank of the problem and has the account noted and logged by the bank.
Day 28, no contact from dealership. What is the next course of action for the buyer and buyer's father? Can the buyer and the buyer's father return the dealership in person requesting the trade-in vehicle back? Can the new car be returned to the dealership to break the lease of the buyer? If the buyer's father is informed they don't have his vehicle, what is the next course of action (call authorities, report to better business bureau, etc)? This ultimately puts the buyer in a bind to keep up with 2 leases while the dealership waits and refuses to respond.
Thanks
