JALLEN4

Yes, I have some experience around car lots. Operated and owned new car dealerships of multiple brands for forty years in multiple states. I have watched this statute type come into being and actually have served on advisory boards for such legislative matters.

I can comment on this matter with having had a considerable amount of experience with similar cases. You avow you received a "smoking hot" deal on a two year old car. You state you spent an inordinate amount of time inspecting the car before delivery and even used a found item as leverage for a better price. You insinuate the "Bimbo" salesperson did not have a clue and called her "the idiot salesperson". It would seem obvious, in your opinion, the dealership was dealing with a person of superior intellect and was very mismatched.

You bought the car, took delivery, and have had it for at least two weeks and 800 miles. You do not report finding any driving or structural problems. It is not out of alignment, no reported rattles or unusual noises, nor have you found any hidden damage. In short, by your own testament, the car seems to be great. The only thing you have found is some information that body work has been done on the car. Your not positive at this point the origin of such work as to whether it is all inflicted damage by accident or whether part of it is warranty.

You come to the Forum making wild statements as to how you have enough money for lawyers to make one of the Nation's largest dealerships quake in their boots.You insist they are going to give you all your money back, regardless of any laws, or give you another new car. You go out of your way to demean the people you are dealing with before they even give you an answer to your complaint. You revel in the silly forum replies that all dealers are idiots and you are a giant among consumers so get your pound of flesh...perfectly normal for any public car forum!

If you could prove you had actually suffered damage above and beyond the laws of the state you purchased in, I would be the first to support you. At this point you have no damages and not even a car-fax report that is negative. Your sole complaint is that the resale might be compromised years from now if the buyer might happen on to years old unexplained repair orders of a minimal amount before delivery. Who knows what is going to happen but I can assure you how most dealers would look at this scenario. My advice would be to hesitate hiring an out of state attorney if this doesn't end the way you wish.

JDSKY

As Paul Harvey used to say "And now we know the rest of the story."

VETTE-NV

Wrong. See post #30 which says:

Second trip to the body shop was reported as "snow damage by a plow".

Millerrock

VETTE-NV

it sounds like you lie every day to the people you work with and to the company You work for. Do you call them asshats to their face? Or do you lie and put a phony smile on your face and sell the product you hate?And then you insult 99.9% of the people on this forum. You should run for president.

hntrgthrs

Legitimate question. Would you ever recommend to a client that they only do the bare minimum? As an attorney, I've never seen the "pay off" for only complying with the bear minimum needed legally. It's far easier and less costly to avoid litigation by going a bit above-and-beyond what is required. Case in point would be a situation like this. If the dealership had disclosed this prior to sale, the OP could've made an informed decision. Perhaps the dealership legally didn't have to disclose this, but it makes much more business sense to actually do it. You also avoid the basically-inevitable lawsuit from the lack of disclosure.

It just seems like a much smarter business plan to disclose something like this rather than conceal it. You'd like to hope that a dealership would learn from such an experience, but I'm guessing not.

hntrgthrs

This is the part that would bother me, too. I would be fine buying the car and knowing the issues. It's easier to justify a deal knowing that. That the issues were hidden, though, means you're not really able to make an informed choice. Crappy situation, overall.

JimNeedsC7

I predict that 99.9% of the forum would say yes.

Fight the good fight - you are right to ask for compensation and keep us informed as this progresses.

Skid Row Joe

This ^^^^ is what happens when you eat lead based paint.

Skid Row Joe

This ^^^^ is why I'd dump that previously wrecked car......no question.

VETTE-NV

Oh, that's original.

redzone

There's a big difference between "snow damage by a plow" and "damaged by a snow plow".

DWillys

I don't see a real difference in the context of the issue at hand.

JALLEN4

If you wish to pander to the audience, good for you. But, we both know that your job is not to set business practices nor to act as a business morality czar. We hire attorneys to advise us about the interpretation of laws and to defend us. How we set "policy" is why we have millions invested. Unless you are operating a dealership on a long term basis, your opinion is not relevant.

Dave Smith Motors is one of the largest single city dealers with all their franchises combined. They stock and sell thousands of cars annually. While on this forum we all consider a Corvette to be something special, Dave Smith sells a number of different products that others also consider to be special. They are in a position with their vast inventories to be dealing continuously with transportation damage and potential lot damage. Practicality would tell you what a terrible business decision it would be to put paperwork on every car on their vast lots that had any transportation damage or that a porter banged up with a wash cart or snow shovel.

I would be the first to agree that if any new vehicle had structural damage before sale in excess of 6% of the MSRP, it should be disclosed to the consumer. In this case though, we are talking about somewhere around $1600 which in today's world is very little. The public would be amazed how often new vehicles suffer transportation or lot damage before the sale and are repaired. They would be even more shocked how often the vehicles are damaged before they even leave the manufacturer and are repaired before they are shipped. I have seen some very serious examples of this requiring re-working the damage before trying to sell the unit.

As an attorney, you well know the owner would need to show damage before having any kind of case. We just don't have any established damage in this case. It does not appear on the car-fax as body or paint work and there is no reason to think it ever will unless Dave Smith Motors wants to call and tell them. It looks fine, functions as advertised, and in the words of the owner "is great!".

I

PatternDayTrader

I think the issue in this situation is that the OP went out of his way to verify this was an undamaged car. Going as far as having a Carfax report produced in spite of it being a "new car". The dealer may not have a legal obligation to disclose the damage, but they do have a legal obligation to answer inquiries honestly.
The OP went out of his way to discover the true facts about this car, and the dealer went out of their way to conceal them. Some people call this fraud.

Sconn

I'm interested to hear if OP heard from the dealership today...

duanesZ06

Well I would be very disappointed I feel your pain. But on the other hand if you went over the car and it looked good enough that you bought it well it probably is fine. First time I tracked my ZO6 I had some rock damage to the front bumper. I took it to a custom body shop they pulled the bumper repainted it and it is perfect and it is a tint coat, my point being if the repairs were done properly, well drive it have fun the car will still preform the same. Really none of my business just a suggestion.

VETTE-NV

Ghostnotes

Exactly..

JALLEN4

The OP states he asked for a car-fax and they gave him one before the delivery. He states he assumed the listed service orders were for something like an oil change. When he later attempted to verify the oil change is when he discovered there had actually been body work.

There is absolutely no indication the dealer has in any way answered inquiries in any way except honestly. In fact, according to the OP they supplied copies of the repair orders when they were requested which they have no legal obligation to do. As I stated before, how the dealer chooses to react eventually is their choice but at this point there has been absolutely no indication of "fraud".