Sconn

The Carfax does not show the car was damaged and repaired... Only that the vehicle was "serviced." That's how the OP missed it in the first place.

65fastback

EXACTLY !

I certainly dont blame OP for being upset about this, its a new car with ALOT of undisclosed repairs done ....The car fax is wrong! and legally i have no idea what this could mean but it seems like something needs to be corrected.

Deweyox

He's right, the Brand does suck. The Corvette is their crowning achievement PERIOD and I would be effin pissed as well. I would already have my attorney on it as I couldn't be anything but what I am with those jerk offs...a Dick.

OntarioOrangeC3

You're exactly right, doing the right thing is a dying art in this country. It's all about "what the law says", when in fact in most instances it should be what's the ethical or right thing to do. Which in this case should have been what the Audi dealer did years ago. Disclose any damage/repairs done, so the buyer can make a decision whether to pursue the sale or walk. That's the kind of dealership I'd want to do business with. Why is that so hard to do business in that fashion? Because the law says you don't have to? Yup, doing the right thing is sadly a dying art in this country.
I agree 100% you should have been told before the sale exactly what happened to the car as far as damage & being repainted. That's what a ethical dealership would do, instead of going by "what the law says".
Good luck getting it resolved to your satisfaction. Hope it works out for you.

OntarioOrangeC3

He gets his attitude because he's stated in many previous threads that he's been in the car business for a number of years to the point of being the owner of dealerships.
And his replies here are the same as in others threads of this nature. It's all about "what the law says".
This guy wouldn't know what the word ethics meant if it bit him in the a$$. Just ignore him.

JALLEN4

You are absolutely right. None of us privileged few with Corvettes should ever consider being stuck with a normal Chevrolet! And, since we are privileged, we should never consider going by the laws of a state we don't even live in when we should be allowed to invent our own.
We should always be allowed to scream and yell over something we are not sure why we should be upset about... but we are. Car works good, looks good "after practically detailing it on the showroom floor", and even the carfax doesn't mention very minor damage of less than $2,000. Final verdict... I bought from a Bimbo hundreds of miles from home, did not get nearly as good a deal as I thought on a two year old car, and now I have severe case of buyer's remorse.

JDSKY

Who is inventing their own laws? After reading his experience the first question that came to my mind was: Is the dealer obligated, by law, to disclose the fact that this vehicle was in an accident (hit by a plow)? Should it have been recorded as such in the repair logs (which then would have shown up as such on the Carfax)?

This is a vehicle being sold as new so any buyer should assume it has never been in an accident of any kind. Some nicks and dings here and there? Sure, all possible as part of the manufacturing, shipping and just plain sitting on a dealers lot type of stuff but getting hit by a plow??? At least from my perspective that seems to cross over into different territory but maybe not - according to the law...

Again, I don't know the specific laws in play here so just asking the question.

JALLEN4

No, by Idaho law and by the same law in many states, the dealer is not obligated in any way to disclose the repair. Idaho law states the disclosure is triggered when damage repaired exceeds 6% of the MSRP. Following the law to its letter would be the very definition of ethics for the dealer regardless of any revisionist history on here. Obviously, the dealer did not make the laws.

Corvette ED

Sorry to hear about the damage to your new car. You keep harping on the fact Carfax doesn't show this? How would Carfax know what happened to this car? The car had lot damage done to it twice? The dealership isn't going to report this damage to Carfax? Did they sell you the car as a new leftover on an MSO or was the car titled? Did the factory warranty start the day you bought it? If this was a new car the dealer should do the right thing and refund your money or give you another Corvette.

VETTE-NV

It seems to me that there is no gray area here. They sold you a supposedly brand new car that had had some substantial body damage...not just from shipping but from an additional collision with a snowplow. And although it's not on Carfax now, there is no guarantee it won't show up later, especially if some sort of insurance company was involved. They got caught....plain and simple. They should just buy the car back and refund your expenses.

It's a shitty situation. Sort of like marrying the sweet, virginal girl of your dreams and then finding out she had slept with the L A Rams. Do you keep her? Do you keep the car? Neither one appears worse for the wear. Hmmmm....maybe that was a bad analogy.

JimNeedsC7

Just one team?

Man! You found a keeper.

CocoVette

Hope you get this figured out , I would be extremely distraught, as I'm very OCD about things and want them perfect. Can't wait to hear the outcome!

VETTE-NV

falcon5619

I agree it comes down to price. If the car had an MSRP of say $65k and you are able to buy it for say $50k, which let's assume is about wholesale value on a 2017 Stingray 3LT right now then so be it. You beat a big chunk of the initial depreciation and you have a great car that has been repaired properly and has no record of a bad Carfax. You justify the situation because of the price you paid for it. Let's face it, the car is 3 model years old at this point, so even though it had no miles and never been titled it is still realistically a used car by now. My point is, someone is going to buy that 2017 Corvette Stingray 3LT, even with a repaired bumper/fender, it is just a matter of price. If the price is right you could actually trade it in on a different Corvette and probably not lose much at all.

That said, if I owned the dealership I would have turned that specific car into a demo or loaner, etc. and then just sold it as used down the road since it is not right to pass it off as "perfect 2017" on the showroom floor.

JDSKY

If the law is that black and white it would be the first in my experience. Always some shades of gray. Perhaps its as simple as determining if the dealers reported costs for the repairs are completely accurate and representative of the actual cost to bring the car back to "new" condition. Very likely why the dealer will be taking some time to make sure they are fully within the "letter of the law."

Either way, I'm siding with the OP on this one. No matter how you slice it the dealer should have been upfront on the condition of the car. If as you say the car is still considered in brand new condition per the law then there would also be no reason whatsoever for the dealer to hide this fact when representing that condition to any prospective buyer. That is simply doing business in an open, honest and fully transparent way. Something the law does not require but most people who do business with others still fully expect.

23/C8Z

note to self- Checklist prior to signing...... "Salesman ______, has this car had any damage requiring any panel adjusting, replacement And/or paint work -- EVEN TOUCH UP -- done to it, once it left the factory when it was built? Put that it hasn't in writing.. thanks"

^^^^^^^ i will apply this to all new car sales... man that's tough OP. them saying they willget back to in a few days or whatever is them contacting the bosses boss and he in turn their counsel.. had this happen to me over a "flood car" sold from a chevy dealer that i purchased and found out what happened. afterwards.. the guy who traded the car in never disclosed it and it was repaired by a GM Dealer for CASH.. never showed upon the GM history.. 1.5 yrs later it did on carfax.. like C4 being detonated lol... if they don't take the car back you're in for it bro...

Truth be told, it may have been damaged coming off the trailer or maniac putting it up for PDI never lifted a vette before...

As for the front panels? that's ABSOLUTELY panel rub repair..you see when they tack that massive repair stuff on there it's to GET PAID BY GM FOR THE REPAIR which was probably a 1/3 of what it took for them to do it..

My C7Z was just painted.. remove paint and reinstall both front fenders..... but.... the fenders were never removed NOR repainted.. they were airbrushed, wet sanded and buffed in the corners of the cove vents due to paint chipping by the vents (happens to about 9 out of 10 Z06's).. that's how the dealer PAYS for the body shop to spend all the time needed to do a proper repair (in my case).. i have a detailed thread about it... with a copy of the service order which would lead someone to believe the car was dismantled.

Millerrock

JALLEN4

Talking only to the owner , and only the owner, might be just a little difficult. Dave Smith Motors is now owned by the RFJ Auto Group which is backed by Jordan Co. which is a New York private equity fund.

Do you normally bad mouth the product you make a living on and call the people you work for a$$ puppets or is your bravery limited to anonymous actions behind a keyboard?

montanaman

Wrong on all counts. In 800 miles I think the car is great. So far it's everything I heard it was and I expected it to be. The only remorse I have is that I bought a new ( not demo, not used) car that has sustained body damage that was not disclosed. This is the last thing I wanted to deal with. Sounds like you have some experience on a car lot so that's going to put you on the other side of the ball. And since you seem to be a "letter of the law guy" if you were selling this car on your lot and the damage done to the vehicle was slightly below the 6% mandate it sounds like you would go ahead and sell the car as "new" with no disclosure whatsoever. In my book that makes you unethical if you used the law to your advantage to unload a car that you obviously had trouble selling. It's wrong. Period. I'm confident they know that and are going to come back with a solution of some kind. I guess I still believe that there is some good still out there.

Back to the 6% situation since you think it's the only thing that matters. The law reads "6% measured by RETAIL repair costs. Their internal repair costs are about 4% of MSRP. On Tuesday I'm taking it to a reputable body shop to get their opinion of the work that was done and what their costs would be for all that work if I came in off the street. I'm pretty sure it will exceed the 6% and if it does, what say you now?

The other concern here is the history of the vehicle as it pertains to resale and knowing that the CarFax stays as it is. If the top line of the CarFax ever shows that that the car was damaged (at that time) then that changes everything. Anyone here would be concerned with resale and diminished value.

redzone

The "hit by a snowplow" was nothing more than supposition on the OP's part to increase the "horror" aspect in the readers minds.