"Remember when you had to wait months to get a Prius?"

The reason dealers ask for driver's licenses before allowing you to take test drives is two-fold. First, (at the dealerships I worked at) they did not allow a customer to take the car without having a salesperson present in the car for the test drive. Being a female salesperson, I know that I wanted the dealership to know who I got into the car with in case something happened to me. This is a *safety* issue, and has nothing to do with your credit.

Second, if the dealership allows you to test drive the vehicle without a salesperson present, they need to know who you are and where to find you should you not return with the car.

Case in point, my sister bought a used 2007 Toyota Sienna last year with only 426 miles on it. The original purchaser bought it new from a dealer in Show Low AZ. They kept it for a few weeks, enough to run one tank of gas through it and then traded it back in to the dealership. Why? It would not fit in their garage! They were forced to buy a smaller vehicle because they didn't even measure it. OOPS comes in all shapes and sizes.

Well, they ate the depreciation on it as soon as it left the dealer's lot and my sister bought it used from the dealer $3000 cheaper than a "new" one. For all intents and purposes, it's new but technically and legally, it's used.

As a rule of thumb, once a car leaves the dealer's lot and a transfer of title is recorded with the DMV, it's considered used and it depreciates, there is a definite loss in value.

Even if the dealer takes the car back with only a few miles on it, the odds are that he'll want to re-coup that depreciation from the Girouard's if the title transfer was recorded.

Even if the contract is dissolved, they'll probably still owe a few thousand.

The part where they had never signed a contract to purchase something before and had also yet to give the dealer any money.

that is what you get for purchasing a prius.

burn!

In the slot labeled #2, smart-ass [blogue.canoe-inc.com]

Um, where do you put the key in here: [www.hybridexperience.ca]

That is a truly brilliant plan of action, since if it went to court, it would require you to commit perjury by lying under oath that you were indeed drunk and drugged at the time you signed the contract. Add to that that the dealership can surely provide a couple of witnesses testifying that you were coherent and signed of your own volition, and sure, that's exactly the course of action to take.
After all, why pay for your actions with cash, when you can pay for them with cash and jail time?

Hhhm. Did Bill Clinton get any jail time for HIS perjury???

We went to one, did all the paperwork for the special order, gave them the deposit check, then the salesman launches into how he thought we shouldn't list as many options on the 'unwanted' side of the preference sheet, since it would take much longer and it was unlikely that Toyota would be sending any with the options we wanted. (We were going pretty bare bones, since we really wanted the car, but it was at the high end of what we could afford, and the jerk kept crossing stuff off the sheet that we signed before the check was written, then scribbling it back in)

We said we'd take our chances, and left, with a gut feeling that in a couple months, we'd get a call that 'our' FJ was in, but had a couple thou of extra options. On a whim, my wife called another dealer, whose sales manager confirmed our suspicions that Toyota was building them to exact preferences, so we called the first place back, got our deposit back, and ordered one from the second place since they were more honest to us. (And in the end, the best dealer I've ever dealt with, Avondale Toyota by the way).

Four months later, not a week after driving home our FJ from Avondale, I come home to a message on the machine from the first place, letting us know that our FJ was in. Apparently the salesman or sales manager had left the order in the system, hoping it'd beat another dealer's if we tried what we did.

it kills me that the only reason they probably didn't want the first one they bought because they found one cheaper. someone needs to tell them to shop around before you sign, instead of the other way around. that's why things like this happen. they brought it on themselves and are not claiming stupidity as their excuse for not holding upto their obligation. i see no other reason to buy the same car they already bought unless they found on cheaper. and for that matter it was probably the second dealership that told them there was a three day law (purposely lying) in order to get a sale. are you asking me to believe they never told the second dealership they just bought one exactly like this just moments ago? the second dealer is just as much of scum.

btw, i bet they pulled their credit. most new car dealers have crappy finance companies they know they can finance you through, and in all the paper work they signed i bet they signed one giving permission for them to pull their credit.

Maybe they could just appeal to John Stockton? (Come on, people, how many comments and I'm the first to make this crack?)

@Mr_D:

"From the article, it's hard to tell. Let's not be too hasty in damning either party." Probably the best thing posted so far, and should be posted in nearly every story on this site.

As to your question: If the contract was misrepresented, they may have a case to back out of it, but I still think that if you are going to sign something, read it and make sure you understand what it is.

(not aimed at Mr_D:)

I'm not saying the dealership is definitely right and they are wrong, but I think it's ridiculous to automatically say, just because this couple was the consumer and this site is the consumerist, that they are right and the dealership is evil, deceitful, satan incarnate, or any of the other things posted in this thread. The couple says they called to cancel delivery. Maybe the car was already delivered at that point. We just don't have all the facts. From the facts we do have, though, this looks like an example of 'bad consumer', for them not doing better research and being better prepared.

Just tow it back to the dealer (so you can say you never even drove it) and never pay for it. After all, they didn't sign a credit agreement, (can't go on their credit rating I'd say) and they did 'cancel' before delivery. When dealer sues them for payment they countersue for fraud by deception and make a big stink. Picket the dealership if they have time, dealer will back down. Like people say, it's not like these models are sitting on the lots.

Any claims that it's a 'used' car now are not their problem.

I think the controversy comes down to the following question: Were the Girouards misled into signing the contract? From the article, it's hard to tell. Let's not be too hasty in damning either party.

To everyone who jumps on the dealership's side: if this contract was misrepresented, should the Girouards be at fault?

I have actually bought a car from Karl Malone Toyota. A new 1996 Dodge Neon. I thought they were very professional. I moved from the state since then however. After hearing the Mormoms tell me "If you dont like our ways, move" a million times, I finally took them up on their offer. Utah is a hell hole if your not "one of them". 50% non Mormon population, yet the legislature is 97% Mormon. Its like having a religious babysitter watching your back 24 7. I sure dont miss the 15 kids every family has either. Its strange going into a restaraunt and seeing 8 adults but 45 kids running around!

I think there are valid comments here about whether the dealership has a moral obligation to undo the sale. That said, agreements have to mean something. The customers seem to have taken a willy nilly attitude to the binding nature of contracts and now want to be set free. In my opinion, a just result would be for the dealership to agree to rescind the contract in return for a payment of $500 or $1000 dollars -- something to reflect that the dealership was constrained from selling the car to another purchaser while the initial contract was in force.

What does it mean "they thought?" Are they going to ask the gubberment to pay for their car because they were too stupid, too ignorant, too excited, too naive, too anxious to read the piece of paper in front of them? Don't they know that car salesmen are scum and anything they say belongs in a bathroom?

The gubberment isn't letting people or institutions fail anymore and using taxpayer money to bail them out.

Sounds like a shifty salesman is hiding somewhere in this story.

Hey Consumerist: Enough of these "waah waah, I was an idiot and now I have to face the consequences" stories, eh?

But a couple things jump out, why in the world did the dealership force the car on them? Toyota Prius are not exactly sitting on lots. Now, they get bad PR, pissed off "customers" and some dubious prospect of recovering their money (even if they repo the car, they can't sell it as new). Any decent human would have weighted the outcomes and would have realized that the best course of action was to just keep the car since no money was exchanged or financing arranged.

Also, the buyers claim to have called. Where they, at the time, informed that the sale was indeed completed or did the dealer decide to punish them for buying from a competitor?

I would be very surprised if the contract does not contain a contingency for failure to obtain financing (which is usually not in favor of the buyer but there to protect the dealer and/or enable them to pull a good old spot delivery scam)

Now that I think of it, it does sound like a spot delivery scam pushed too far.

That dealership is just scummy. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find they lied about the papers the couple were signing. "Oh yeah, this will just hold the car for a few days, you're under no obligation here." Con artist car salesmen pull this shit all the time.

I find it extremely funny that this post is now located just a few posts below the post of the couple who did not know the law in their state with respect to the right of recision.

I have not really seen an attack the buyer mentality here but I honestly only read about 25% of the posts (I only read the ones I think I will find interesting).

My problem is when several readers defend an alleged victim but the issue is not really one of the 'victim' being morally wronged but rather the 'victim' did not know the law and all the posters here who have little understanding of the law swoop in to defend the 'victim' who themselves have little clue as to how the law opperates. Maybe you see it as attacking the victim but many times, it is correcting other posters who know little if anything about the law. This is especially prevelant with respect to intellectual property law. I am not even going to say copyright because so many people here cannot distinguish between copyright and trademark rules I hesitate to be so specific.

My point being that though it may look like an attack on the 'victim' it is not always so. Sometimes it is simply to try and correct people's incorrect understanding of the law. In short, stop defending copyright violators with the magic words Fair Use when you have no clue how to actually apply the doctrine.

Even smart people make bonehead moves now and then. I can't determine whether that's what happened here, or if the buyers were being a little too cute for their own good.

@Sam2k: Their consideration was the promise to buy the car. That's all that is needed for a valid contract.

In most places (I can speak for Massachusetts at least) the law presumes that a person who signs a document knew and understood its terms.

I also believe they should try to sell it immediately. I'd run ads for it in markets where dealers can't keep them in stock. Chances are you can find someone who will take it off your hands for the payoff amount. The only downside is that it is technically used so the warranty may be shortened (I don't know if Toyota does that).

There was a second sign, with much smaller font, that said that the interest rate was in fact negotiable. I figured they want you to see one, but not the other.

@Pro-Pain:

That is a truly brilliant plan of action, since if it went to court, it would require you to commit perjury by lying under oath that you were indeed drunk and drugged at the time you signed the contract. Add to that that the dealership can surely provide a couple of witnesses testifying that you were coherent and signed of your own volition, and sure, that's exactly the course of action to take.

After all, why pay for your actions with cash, when you can pay for them with cash and jail time?

OK, the customer screwed themselves when they signed, but doesn't it seem like the dealership attempted to aggravate the screwage by dumping the car in their driveway? Let's see, we could try to work something out or we could just slam-deliver the car and send'em a bill.

If she didn't take the first car with her then I would definitely be on her side but a used car is a used car, and there is no cooling off period in many states. At least in CA the salespeople have little placards that warn you about this.

It's "rescission", like "scissor". Yes I work for lawyers.

@InfiniTrent: Fair enough. You simply snarked about how you apparently weren't supposed to "criticize" or "attack" people for their "obviously stupid decision," but you didn't call them morons.

I was generalizing about what not to do rather than quoting you, but if you're that upset than I apologize.

"Gentles, do not reprehend.
If you pardon, we will mend."

It's pretty complicated, and I don't know that I would try to fight this on the back end unless I was a contract attorney or had enough money to get a good one.

On the other hand, it can be tricky to learn about the laws regarding contracts in your state (even though ignorance of the law is no excuse and you should always try to know the law, expecting every layman to know it is probably unrealistic).

So, in trying to protect yourself, I would back up everyone on here saying not to sign anything until you are sure you are ready to buy. I wouldn't even count on rescissions, since as I recall they are discretionary (and may be contingent on things like actual defects, like yesteryear said).

[dmv.utah.gov]
"When financing a vehicle through a dealership, the financial disclosure section on the purchase agreement must be completely filled out, or the entire contract of sale is null and void."

They need to check their copy of the contract of sale (I hope they have a copy).

I would have went inside and got drunk, stinking fall down pass out drunk. Then call the dealer and tell them I'm on painkillers and alcohol. The deal is VOID. Come pick up your fucking car. Have a nice day.

@Trai_Dep:

Just going out on a limb here, but would you happen to be a Democrat, or at least non-Republican? I only ask because it's not clear from your Republican-bashing in every thread, whether it fits or not.

yeah i sell cars and i can't tell you how many people have been sued over this (mainly customers). they get buyers remorse and think they know the laws, but most of those types of laws aren't laws anymore. i know in my state their is no lemon law on a used car...anymore.

however, if someone signs all the paperwork but does not take possession of the car, they can still back out of the deal. i'm in the bhph biz so i'm sure it's different once a loan company cuts a check, and therefore puts you on the hook. in my biz, once you drive it off the lot....it IS your baby. sorry if you went home an blue booked it only to find out you got ripped off, that's not a legit reason for a return, especially in the bhph biz.

If you fail to pay the dealer in the alloted time, they obtain financing for you at an awful rate.

I don't think there was anything shady going on here, just a consumer not understanding what they were signing.

I also think that the dealer's hands are tied here. If the consumer signed a contract of sale, they now own the title. Since the vehicle has been titled, it can no longer be sold as "new". To anybody. No dealer is going to take that loss.

SirWired

I'm sorry.

How did they actually buy (pay for) the first car? If they were trying to figure out financing for it where did the money come from for the dealer to deliver it?

Actually, at this point the delivery of money doesn't matter in determining whether a sale has been consumated. The dealer delivered the car because they had a signed contract of sale. Now that the dealer has delivered the car, their end of the contract is complete and they can bill the Girouards for it. Its up to the Girouards to figure out how to pay for it.

An expensive lesson in contract law, indeed.

hmm... i'm looking for a prius... wonder if they'll let me take one of them off their hands cheap.

I hope they at least get the tax break on both cars. That would help soften the blow.

They did not actually purchase the car if they did not know they had entered into a contract of sale. Additionally, it would not be a valid contract because in their minds, they had not yet offered consideration.

Furthermore, what kind of dealer delivers a car to someone's house without their consent without receiving payment of some sort?

@InfiniTrent: Damn the torpedos. What were these people thinking?

There's something missing here...

@demonradio: good phrasing. maybe there should be a "cautionary tale" tag for this kind of thing!
I appreciate that they're at least not going all hysterical and claiming that the dealership told them that they could get out of the contract of sale and then reneged, but this was their mistake. They should just go ahead and pay for the car and get as much for it as they can on resale, and get the lawyers away from the whole thing.
Now whether Utah should have a three-day recission law to protect consumers could be a matter of debate, but yesteryear already pointed out that it's not really for this kind of thing to start with.

The issue is that some posters will blame the car dealership anyway, when it's obviously the error of the consumers in this case. That's what spurred my (apparently inflammatory) comments.

What they did was foolish. They signed the contract of sale.

The idea that the consumer should never be criticized is ridiculous - that was the point of my tongue-in-cheek comment. And in no way was I attacking Consumerist, or any other specific poster, other than the person who sent Consumerist the letter about "attacking the victim".

I wouldn't attack a true victim. In this case, however, these individuals unfortunately victimized themselves. The car dealer did nothing wrong that I can see.

I missed the part of my post where I called them "morons".

and even if you do have 3 days to return the car - that's not so you can buy a few different cars and return the one you don't like, it's to protect you if the car is defective, right? in california we have all sorts of fancy consumer protection laws, but i still wouldn't abuse them in this way. seems like an unnecessary hassle.

But, um, well... I'm just a couple of hours north of Salt Lake, and I need a car, so if they'd like to give me one...

@Buran: Yeah, I read it like FreemanB -- the movie proved to be disasterously unpopular the first week, so that particular showing was canceled. Bad business guessing, but nothing sinister about it. And nice that the manager let them see another flick for free.

@InfiniTrent: Well, you don't need to be a jerk and call them morons. I think the important point is to remind everyone that you should be really careful what you sign, especially if it involves a high-priced purchase, and that something called "Contract of Sale" should be a red flag that you've committed to buying something.

See, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

Don't just assume you know the law. Spend 5 minutes doing internet research before you do something this rash!

ummm, nope. i think you should have said "never sign anything. ever."

Oops indeed. At least they'll get good gas mileage on their way to court?

That sucks though.