2014 SR5 -- missing turn signals on mirrors
- Thread starter Yotta
- Start date
More likely the guys that did the website, brochure, and malroney sticker ****ed up. I don't think the turn signals were meant to go on the non Premium SR5/TE.
but since the malroney says it suppose to have turn signal indicators, isn't Toyota on the hook now since its stated in black in white on an official govt required paper?
im reaching here
They'll probably just have to recall the sticker. :lol:
eddiebx
New member
Anyone notice that lots of the specs in that brochure scan are all sorts of off? ie. SR5 approach/departure angles, TE overall height, etc..I figure the SR5 would now have similar angles as the TE because of the new bumpers, and the TE would now have the same height as the SR5/LE because it appears to have the same roof rack now?
Hi All,
I think this could be a problem for Toyota. The item is specially listed on the window sticker and you paid for it.
I have a story that’s similar, My girlfriend bought a New Lexus is250, It had 17” wheels and all-season tires. She made the purchase. After owning it for a while she started to look at others in parking lots and in traffic and noticed some had “real nice” 18” wheels with “cool” wide tires, so At her First service (almost a year later) She asked about maybe upgrading. Guess what? , Her car originally came with the performance 18” wheels and performance tire package. The dealer that did the service (not selling dealer) pointed right to the door jamb and on the window sticker. She felt stupid and really taken advantage of. She called the selling dealer and Lexus corporate. It was pretty cut and dry; Bottom line was unless otherwise stated in accompanying paperwork you get what’s on the window sticker. No bait and switch. The window sticker in a legal document with VIN and EPA and listed equipment that’s standard and optional it’s pretty black and white. It turns out the original dealer swapped them out for someone. She received (4) new wheels and (4) new tires installed, reprogram TPMS all oem Lexus, and free service for the time she owns it.
This was a purchase not a lease.
Ps: A printed/online brochure can be “subject to change” But a window sticker IS NOT “subject to change”
I think this could be a problem for Toyota. The item is specially listed on the window sticker and you paid for it.
I have a story that’s similar, My girlfriend bought a New Lexus is250, It had 17” wheels and all-season tires. She made the purchase. After owning it for a while she started to look at others in parking lots and in traffic and noticed some had “real nice” 18” wheels with “cool” wide tires, so At her First service (almost a year later) She asked about maybe upgrading. Guess what? , Her car originally came with the performance 18” wheels and performance tire package. The dealer that did the service (not selling dealer) pointed right to the door jamb and on the window sticker. She felt stupid and really taken advantage of. She called the selling dealer and Lexus corporate. It was pretty cut and dry; Bottom line was unless otherwise stated in accompanying paperwork you get what’s on the window sticker. No bait and switch. The window sticker in a legal document with VIN and EPA and listed equipment that’s standard and optional it’s pretty black and white. It turns out the original dealer swapped them out for someone. She received (4) new wheels and (4) new tires installed, reprogram TPMS all oem Lexus, and free service for the time she owns it.
This was a purchase not a lease.
Ps: A printed/online brochure can be “subject to change” But a window sticker IS NOT “subject to change”
Last edited:
Keep in mind that a purchaser, likely in 1 of 43 documents requiring a signature, probably signs to indicate that he/she has had every opportunity to inspect the vehicle (or actually did inspect it) and that it is in fact what he/she believes was the subject of purchase. If the purchaser even viewed the vehicle once in person prior to purchase, it was rather obvious and conspicuous that the mirror signals were not present.
In the end, if you make a big enough deal about it you can probably get something in return. But the flip side of it is: Who really makes a big deal about mirror turn signals? Are there many people that would not have purchased that car due solely to the fact that it did not have them? Seems very trivial and the dealership knows this. What are they worth if missing? A free oil change?
Yes, I think they are useful and increase safety since it makes your intention to turn more visible to others. The down side is that it's useless if you decide to communicate with other drivers telepathically instead of via the blinker. The usefulness is further limited if the other driver isn't paying attention to it. That being said, I personally wouldn't in any way factor this feature into a decision to purchase or not.
In the end, if you make a big enough deal about it you can probably get something in return. But the flip side of it is: Who really makes a big deal about mirror turn signals? Are there many people that would not have purchased that car due solely to the fact that it did not have them? Seems very trivial and the dealership knows this. What are they worth if missing? A free oil change?
Yes, I think they are useful and increase safety since it makes your intention to turn more visible to others. The down side is that it's useless if you decide to communicate with other drivers telepathically instead of via the blinker. The usefulness is further limited if the other driver isn't paying attention to it. That being said, I personally wouldn't in any way factor this feature into a decision to purchase or not.
This is true on the paperwork, And Always read what you sign!, BUT there is also Faith in an agreement that the facts are true. An unknowing person maybe can't tell a v6 from a v8 so they trust the facts given to them by the dealer and window sticker. I am not saying this mirror thing is a huge deal but it can have legal implications. Also: were are talking about a New Car Purchase here not used.
Last edited:
I understand the conflict, but while good faith is required, ignorance is not a get-out-of-jail free card. There is a major difference between engine choices hidden under a closed hood compared to clearly visible (if present) mirror signals. There is nothing latent about mirror signals missing/present from a legal point of view for a standard in-person sale.
That would honestly be like a sticker mistakenly saying the vehicle is white when it is clearly black instead. You can't argue that you thought the car was or should have been white (unless you don't have a pre-sale inspection if buying remotely or something like that) - color variations may be a different issue depending on lighting for the inspection or if color-blindness is an issue.
A motor, Paint, Or Turn signals it does not matter what the item is, you cannot represent and sell a customer one thing and give them another period. "Ignorance is not a get-out-of-jail free card" for Toyota or the dealer either. I am sure Toyota will say this is a mistake (ignorance) on there part.
Who should know more about the vehicle and its contents Toyota or the customer? If Toyota can't QC the window sticker how is the customer to know what's true or not true. The motor example I gave is extreme but some people just do not know about cars/trucks. As stated above with my example with Lexus, She saw the wheels when she bought the car, but they had to fix it. Window stickers are a powerful tool when car shopping, Manufactures cannot make any claims they want.
Well, as expected the first reaction from the dealer was "This is very unusual" and "I dunno"... They're sending it up the chain.
About Toyota obligations, I always thought that "what's on the window sticker you get" was an ironclad rule. As has been said, brochures are subject to change but window stickers are not.
Toyota can, of course, lawyer up and and fight this, but I don't think they're stupid enough to waste goodwill on a couple of $50 parts.
They're sending it up the chain.About Toyota obligations, I always thought that "what's on the window sticker you get" was an ironclad rule. As has been said, brochures are subject to change but window stickers are not.
Toyota can, of course, lawyer up and and fight this, but I don't think they're stupid enough to waste goodwill on a couple of $50 parts.
Good luck trying to FORCE Toyota or the dealership into making good on something like this. It is quite different from anything hidden and quite different than your wheel example. This is a situation where the feature is clearly seen from the exterior of the vehicle. There aren't types of mirror indicators (like your wheel example) and the customer doesn't know if it is or should be type A or type B. This is a "is it on the exterior of the vehicle?" yes/no situation.
The likely end result is that if you make a stink, Toyota and/or dealership will want the problem to go away so they will throw something your way to make you happy (read: keep you quiet). But no, given the facts and circumstances so far, I would not think they would be legally required to do so. For an in-person sale, it is quite obvious that the signals are not present. Arguing against this is an uphill battle, especially if you factor in Toyota/dealership legal representation budgets compared to an individual's.
I really don't know how you can say it was such an important feature so as to change your opinion on the purchase (or influence your opinion in the slightest way possible) BUT at the same time you didn't notice it wasn't there. I wouldn't want to be the attorney making this [frivolous] argument in front of opposing counsel and the judge.
1engineer
Moderator
What is on the Monroney sticker is gospel. If the sticker says the truck has it, and it does not, then there is a real problem even if it's just a license plate screw. There are no "degrees" of violation, such as paint color is less evil than an engine size. If it's on the sticker then it has to be on the vehicle. If not, then it will have to be installed or some money will have to change hands. It's a law gentlemen.
Example: My sticker has anti lock brakes as a standard item. Is the average consumer (or even any of you) going to check that before you drive off? That is no different than the mirror with a turn signal missing. I predict there will be some mirrors being shipped out soon, unless there is no wiring and if that is true then I'm sure a suit will follow. If what you guys are saying is true; That "It is listed as a standard component of the vehicle and is documented on the Monroney sticker, then there is a problem.
From the American Bar Association:
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR CAR BUYERS
Other statutes protect car buyers besides lemon laws:
•
the federal Anti-Tampering Odometer Law prohibits acts that falsify odometer
mileage readings (the Maine Attorney General has a useful site on this topic at
http://www.state.me.us/ag/clg10.htm
) ;
•
the federal Used Car Law requires that dealers post Buyers Guides on used cars;
•
the federal Automobile Information Disclosure Act requires manufacturers and
importers of new cars to affix a sticker, called the "Monroney label," on the
windshield or side window of the car. The Monroney label lists the base price of the
car, the options installed by the manufacturer, along with their suggested retail price,
how much the manufacturer has charged for transportation, and the car's fuel economy
(miles per gallon). Only the buyer is allowed to remove the Monroney label.
By far, the statutes providing the strongest protection are those prohibiting unfair
and deceptive acts and practices. Every state has enacted such laws. Car buyers may
recover from the seller (the dealer and/or the manufacturer), regardless of who might have
done the deceiving.
Q. What is an unfair or deceptive practice?
A.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines "unfair conduct" as that which, although
not necessarily illegal,
•
offends public policy as established by statute, common law, or other means;
•
is immoral, unethical, troublesome, or corrupt; and
•
substantially injures consumers (or competitors or other businesspeople).
"Deceptive conduct" is behavior that could have caused people to act differently
than they otherwise would have acted. It does not have to involve the product's qualities,
but it might include any aspect that could be an important factor in deciding whether to
buy the goods. An example would be stating that the engine has six cylinders when it
13
really has four. The quality may be fine, but the buyer may have been seeking a car with a
six-cylinder engine. The FTC regulations are the basis of many states' laws.
Example: My sticker has anti lock brakes as a standard item. Is the average consumer (or even any of you) going to check that before you drive off? That is no different than the mirror with a turn signal missing. I predict there will be some mirrors being shipped out soon, unless there is no wiring and if that is true then I'm sure a suit will follow. If what you guys are saying is true; That "It is listed as a standard component of the vehicle and is documented on the Monroney sticker, then there is a problem.
From the American Bar Association:
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR CAR BUYERS
Other statutes protect car buyers besides lemon laws:
•
the federal Anti-Tampering Odometer Law prohibits acts that falsify odometer
mileage readings (the Maine Attorney General has a useful site on this topic at
http://www.state.me.us/ag/clg10.htm
) ;
•
the federal Used Car Law requires that dealers post Buyers Guides on used cars;
•
the federal Automobile Information Disclosure Act requires manufacturers and
importers of new cars to affix a sticker, called the "Monroney label," on the
windshield or side window of the car. The Monroney label lists the base price of the
car, the options installed by the manufacturer, along with their suggested retail price,
how much the manufacturer has charged for transportation, and the car's fuel economy
(miles per gallon). Only the buyer is allowed to remove the Monroney label.
By far, the statutes providing the strongest protection are those prohibiting unfair
and deceptive acts and practices. Every state has enacted such laws. Car buyers may
recover from the seller (the dealer and/or the manufacturer), regardless of who might have
done the deceiving.
Q. What is an unfair or deceptive practice?
A.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines "unfair conduct" as that which, although
not necessarily illegal,
•
offends public policy as established by statute, common law, or other means;
•
is immoral, unethical, troublesome, or corrupt; and
•
substantially injures consumers (or competitors or other businesspeople).
"Deceptive conduct" is behavior that could have caused people to act differently
than they otherwise would have acted. It does not have to involve the product's qualities,
but it might include any aspect that could be an important factor in deciding whether to
buy the goods. An example would be stating that the engine has six cylinders when it
13
really has four. The quality may be fine, but the buyer may have been seeking a car with a
six-cylinder engine. The FTC regulations are the basis of many states' laws.
1engineer
Moderator
It's not frivolous, it's deceptive. No matter if common sense says "Duh, look at the mirror dumbass, if you see lights it has it, if you don't see them then it don't have them." In my opinion, common sense and laws rarely go together.
I understand that fairly well, but look at the last bullet point: "substantially injures consumers"
All I am saying is good luck to the attorney arguing that the missing feature that his client did not even notice in person is something that "could have caused [him] to act differently than [he] otherwise would have acted." As I mentioned previously, it's rather difficult to argue that you didn't notice it beforehand, but it is "an important factor in deciding whether to buy the goods."
All I am saying is good luck to the attorney arguing that the missing feature that his client did not even notice in person is something that "could have caused [him] to act differently than [he] otherwise would have acted." As I mentioned previously, it's rather difficult to argue that you didn't notice it beforehand, but it is "an important factor in deciding whether to buy the goods."
You're missing the point. Toyota is a big foreign consumer-facing company in a highly competitive business. It cannot afford to be seen screwing its customers, however insignificantly, over its own mistakes. It's not a legal issue, it's a public relations issue. If it ends up in court, Toyota already lost.
I get the point.
I've already commented (above):
"The likely end result is that if you make a stink, Toyota and/or dealership will want the problem to go away so they will throw something your way to make you happy (read: keep you quiet). But no, given the facts and circumstances so far, I would not think they would be legally required to do so."
eddiebx
New member
Let's forget about the people whom have already purchased the vehicle with the missing signal lights and seeking recourse, and talk about the 4runners still sitting on the lot right now waiting to be purchased.
Is it you opinion that, by offering for sale a mis-represented 4runner, Toyota has done nothing that: (1) offends public policy as established by statute, common law, or other means; (2) is immoral, unethical, troublesome, or corrupt; and (3) substantially injures consumers (or competitors or other businesspeople)?
To me it would seem like a pretty obvious case of false advertising because it sure seems like it would offend some kind of public policy, is down right unethical, and well substantiality of injury is in the eye of beholder. Quite frankly, I don't see a many consumers out there that would NOT act differently should they realize that a line item on the window sticker is missing from the vehicle they are about to purchase.
I understand you keep trying to plea the case that well the consumer bought it without caring/noticing so tough luck, but what about when you don't have this as deciding factor?
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of 4runner sitting on the lots right now waiting to be sold and with the incorrectly advertised options. Would you say that it is fair to assume that Toyota has some kind of legal responsibility to either correct the window sticker, or add the option before sales? And if so, why is it that all of a suddenly after Toyota sneaks one by you and you mistakenly purchase the vehicle, they are no longer legally responsible?
This issue is probably not clear-cut as you make it seem...IMO, the deciding factor is going to be in one of those 100s of legal documents you sign off when your purchased the vehicle.
