Carmax problem resolved

[Greenman]

Please clarify how he is wrong? I'm unaware of any state that will allow the "reversal" of a title transfer.

I'd like to see how this would work as well.

 

[TerryMathews]

Decision analysis?

Legally extorting someone over an honest mistake.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'd like to see how this would work as well.

They're not going to answer. Just idiots running off at the mouth, thinking you can return a car like you can a big screen to WalMart.

The dealer might take care of you but that doesn't mean the process is the same for them.

 

[senseamp]

Legally extorting someone over an honest mistake.

I don't think you understand what extortion is. Consequences of honest mistakes are reimbursed by cash all the time. That's what car insurance is, for example.
If someone accidentally dings my car, the insurer can pay to repair the damage, or I can choose to not repair it and settle for a cash sum. This is no different.
The dealer already agreed to bear a cost, this would be an alternative settlement that costs the dealer less than what it already agreed to absorb.
This transaction actually maximizes the mutual benefit to the customer and the dealer, since no additional tax and title costs to the pair would be incurred.

 

[tortillasoup]

He probably thinks that people who "cash out" when their car gets wrecked are "extorting" the insurance company, that the only way to fairly handle damaged to a car after a car accident is to ALWAYS repair the vehicle.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't think you understand what extortion is. Consequences of honest mistakes are reimbursed by cash all the time. That's what car insurance is, for example.
If someone accidentally dings my car, the insurer can pay to repair the damage, or I can choose to not repair it and settle for a cash sum. This is no different.
The dealer already agreed to bear a cost, this would be an alternative settlement that costs the dealer less than what it already agreed to absorb.
This transaction actually maximizes the mutual benefit to the customer and the dealer, since no additional tax and title costs to the pair would be incurred.

Negative. I disagree because the dealer already stated how they preferred to deal with the situation. For whatever reason they felt a buyback was in their best financial interest. That is their prerogative.

The buyer bears partial liability as well - all the information he needed was available to him at the time of purchase.



Finally, the dealership likely bears no legal responsibility for two reasons:

A) the contract is written for a specific vehicle based on VIN. Not a list of options.

B) even if somehow the buyer was able to make a case that he was shorted the bigger engine, their liability would be the difference between the price paid and the prevailing price for that spec car. Since the OP stated he paid the 1.6 price, that number would be at or close to $0.

He probably thinks that people who "cash out" when their car gets wrecked are "extorting" the insurance company, that the only way to fairly handle damaged to a car after a car accident is to ALWAYS repair the vehicle.

Stfu troll.

 

[senseamp]

Negative. I disagree because the dealer already stated how they preferred to deal with the situation. For whatever reason they felt a buyback was in their best financial interest. That is their prerogative.

The buyer bears partial liability as well - all the information he needed was available to him at the time of purchase.



Finally, the dealership likely bears no legal responsibility for two reasons:

A) the contract is written for a specific vehicle based on VIN. Not a list of options.

B) even if somehow the buyer was able to make a case that he was shorted the bigger engine, their liability would be the difference between the price paid and the prevailing price for that spec car. Since the OP stated he paid the 1.6 price, that number would be at or close to $0.

I don't think he asked the dealer about cash offer. So we don't know if they would have accepted it or not. It is their prerogative to not accept it, but if the cash settlement is lower than what their offer would cost them, it would be irrational for them to refuse it.