2014 SR5 -- missing turn signals on mirrors

[Yotta]

But no, given the facts and circumstances so far, I would not think they would be legally required to do so."

I have strong doubts that you have been admitted to the bar in the state where I bought the truck. Just as I have doubts that you are well-versed in nuances of consumer-protection laws in that state.

 

[Eagle]

I understand that fairly well, but look at the last bullet point: "substantially injures consumers"

You misinterpret "substantially." It is a legal term that has a more nuanced connotation than in lay use. It is a bare minimum threshold, not a requirement that the injury be very large. A substantial injury must be more than trivial, not speculative, and not something like "it hurt my feelings that the sticker is wrong." This is certainly a substantial injury.

As for the 43 pages the customer likely signed, in most states any ambiguity or conflict are strictly construed against the drafter of the contract. Thus, Toyota/dealer would have the burden of showing that the customer should have known that the contract & window sticker did not accurately represent the equipment on the vehicles. Given the typical consumer protection laws and that the dealer is engaged in the business of selling cards and is presumed to be more sophisticated, Toyota would have a tough time meeting that burden.

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."

You are right in this. This dispute will never see a courtroom. Toyota would simply settle with the aggrieved customer and save face. Another way of looking at it -- Toyota's legal costs in defending itself would dwarf the cost of restitution.

Toyota would simply either 1) install the signal lights, 2) pay the customer some negotiated value as settlement, or 3) rescind the contract and put all parties back to the same position they were in. The third option may not be available in some situations (if the customer sold his other vehicle and rescission would leave him without a vehicle).

 

[Yotta]

I am picturing some poor worker dressed in a kimono with his wakizashi placed in front of him ready to commit Seppuku to make amends.

Don't forget his supervisor with a katana standing over him :lightsaber: :-D

 

[1engineer]

You misinterpret "substantially." It is a legal term that has a more nuanced connotation than in lay use. It is a bare minimum threshold, not a requirement that the injury be very large. A substantial injury must be more than trivial, not speculative, and not something like "it hurt my feelings that the sticker is wrong." This is certainly a substantial injury.

As for the 43 pages the customer likely signed, in most states any ambiguity or conflict are strictly construed against the drafter of the contract. Thus, Toyota/dealer would have the burden of showing that the customer should have known that the contract & window sticker did not accurately represent the equipment on the vehicles. Given the typical consumer protection laws and that the dealer is engaged in the business of selling cards and is presumed to be more sophisticated, Toyota would have a tough time meeting that burden.



You are right in this. This dispute will never see a courtroom. Toyota would simply settle with the aggrieved customer and save face. Another way of looking at it -- Toyota's legal costs in defending itself would dwarf the cost of restitution.

Toyota would simply either 1) install the signal lights, 2) pay the customer some negotiated value as settlement, or 3) rescind the contract and put all parties back to the same position they were in. The third option may not be available in some situations (if the customer sold his other vehicle and rescission would leave him without a vehicle).

Glad you showed up for this one! "Injures" is another misinterpreted word in this context. Toyota will fix this one of two ways: Adding mirrors or changing the Maroney.

 

[VolksDragon]

I don't have mirror indicators or the line item on the sticker, and I don't care about them anyway. I suspect a FEW very squeaky wheels may get a free set of blinkers out of this, but it's clearly not an example of intentional deception...it's just a screw up. Someone in some department and their QC guy probably just missed it during production of the window stickers, and now the trucks are on the lots. It's a complex and significant screw up, but not a malicious one.

We now know that SR5 and TE base trucks don't have mirror indicators, the window stickers are just wrong. What are the chances we'll see an addendum to the sticker, or maybe just another document in finance that buyers will have to sign acknowledging the discrepancy? Is it even possible to just print off a shit ton of new window stickers?

 

[Yotta]

Someone in some department and their QC guy probably just missed it during production of the window stickers

Well, no, because the Toyota website also says that plain SR5s get turn signals on mirrors. And the brochure says the same thing. And the press release says the same thing. And the specs released say the same thing.

So it's either it's the guys on the assembly line who screwed up, or Toyota changed their mind at the very last minute.

 

[Eagle]

it's clearly not an example of intentional deception...it's just a screw up. Someone in some department and their QC guy probably just missed it during production of the window stickers, and now the trucks are on the lots. It's a complex and significant screw up, but not a malicious one.

I agree 100%. It's my experience that incompetence is the cause of more problems than malice. That's particularly true in cases like this where true when there is little to gain by deceit or malice.

Well, no, because the Toyota website also says that plain SR5s get turn signals on mirrors. And the brochure says the same thing. And the press release says the same thing. And the specs released say the same thing.

So it's either the guys on the assembly line who screwed up, or Toyota changed their mind at the very last minute.

It may be a case of corporate incompetence where someone failed to make sure the product was consistent with the website description and the stickers.

The cause of the problem is probably a trivial issue here. It is a problem regardless and that problem should be corrected even if it was an accident or incompetence. I'm sure there is some number of people who got something less than they thought they were getting and Toyota will need to fix that. Correcting the sticker and description or somehow disclosing the inaccuracy will likely be Toyota's first step so the number of affected purchases does not continue to grow.

 

[Eagle]

Glad you showed up for this one! "Injures" is another misinterpreted word in this context. Toyota will fix this one of two ways: Adding mirrors or changing the Maroney.

Rare for anyone to be happy to hear from a lawyer

 

[dc2bar]

Hey Yota, sorry for the delay. Yesterday at the dealership here in westminster, CO, not a single SR5 had any mention of the signals/lamps on the side view mirrors, though the limited stated 'heated exterior mirrors with integrated turn signal indicators and puddle lamps'

hope that helps!

 

[Jayhawk5G]

It doesn't matter if they did it intentionally. They need to adjust the window stickers on unsold models, and then work with owners who have already purchased.

Toyota certainly likes to constantly give and take on options... few things can really be relied on as standard. My 2013 base SR5 has integrated turn signals and puddle lights, a feature I really like... now no longer available on base SR5 it seems, though other things have been added...

 

[Auntie Soshul]

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.

To me, the point is, you paid for something you didn't get. If I ordered and paid for 5 items from Amazon, and only received 4 items, even though the missing item was small and insignificant, I'd want resolution. You're right to fight the issue.

 

[mdogg]

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.

Are you talking about a representation/warranty claim? Or false advertising claim? Or just mixing terms thinking they're the same?

Quite different animals.... For false advertising, the buyer might have to prove that he would have made a different purchasing decision were it not for the false statement. In this case, that means either not purchasing at all OR purchasing whatever thousand dollar upgrade is required to get the Premium version or something similar.

I have strong doubts that you have been admitted to the bar in the state where I bought the truck. Just as I have doubts that you are well-versed in nuances of consumer-protection laws in that state.

Ok. You can continue to have any strong opinion you want. Have a ball; I won't stop you. I have strong doubts that the missing signal is a big deal at all. I have a strong inclination that you're looking for a hand out since you read the sticker after signing a ton of paperwork and driving home (smart move).

You misinterpret "substantially." It is a legal term that has a more nuanced connotation than in lay use. It is a bare minimum threshold, not a requirement that the injury be very large. A substantial injury must be more than trivial, not speculative, and not something like "it hurt my feelings that the sticker is wrong." This is certainly a substantial injury.

I understand the meaning of substantial/substantially. It is akin to "actual" rather than theoretical or imagined (although not always physical in nature for some of the newer claims being allowed). I would certainly not be able to call this a substantial (non-trivial) injury immediately without many more pieces of information. Actual? Non-trivial? Perhaps, depending on the other circumstances.... but it seems like a factual determination is needed. This becomes more difficult of an argument to make when Toyota would ask "if it is so non-trivial of an item to be missing, then how were you not able to see the lack of the feature that should have been clearly visible?"

As for the 43 pages the customer likely signed, in most states any ambiguity or conflict are strictly construed against the drafter of the contract. Thus, Toyota/dealer would have the burden of showing that the customer should have known that the contract & window sticker did not accurately represent the equipment on the vehicles. Given the typical consumer protection laws and that the dealer is engaged in the business of selling cards and is presumed to be more sophisticated, Toyota would have a tough time meeting that burden.

Agreed, interpreted against the drafter (dealer). However, I wouldn't say that the dealer would have a tough time. Outwardly physical attribute vs. the 1-line description. It's a question of fact, not law.

You are right in this. This dispute will never see a courtroom. Toyota would simply settle with the aggrieved customer and save face. Another way of looking at it -- Toyota's legal costs in defending itself would dwarf the cost of restitution.

Toyota would simply either 1) install the signal lights, 2) pay the customer some negotiated value as settlement, or 3) rescind the contract and put all parties back to the same position they were in. The third option may not be available in some situations (if the customer sold his other vehicle and rescission would leave him without a vehicle).

Not sure option 3 is truly an option for a sale that has already taken place and where the purchaser has already registered the car and put miles on it. Obviously, this depends on the state law applicable as to what the dealer would be able to do with the car if the contract was rescinded. For example, if titled/registered cars cannot be sold as new then perhaps the dealer cannot be made whole if the transaction was "undone". Or, if the dealer is unable to advertise a car as "new" with more than XXXX miles on the odometer, then again it might not be able to be made whole again. I can see possible fact patterns that would not allow the purchaser to recover 100% of the sale price (or, more accurately, would require the purchaser to get 100% back, but then also pay the dealer for diminished value (or lost sale or something similar).


I am not defending Toyota or the dealership. I don't mind Toyota one bit, but I've never been a fan of dealerships given their sleazy reputations. The point is that there is a single line on the window sticker indicating the presence of a certain feature. IF the buyer read the sticker in detail (this is a big IF), the buyer would have had every opportunity to ensure compliance if any particular features truly would make a difference. IF the buyer read the sticker and did not notice the line at all, it is clear that the dealer's mistake had no impact on the buyer's decision. IF the buyer read the sticker and this one item's inclusion or lack thereof would have made a difference in the purchase decision, it was easily seen from the exterior of the vehicle that the item was not present. I honestly don't think there was anything intentionally deceptive here (though, consumer protection laws don't require malice or even intent). I'm also not sure that any prospective buyer would ever have their purchasing decision affected even a little bit if the vehicle does not come with the signals on the mirror (either not buy at all or step up to Premium or Trail or Limited).

It was a dealer/manufacturer mistake on the sticker. However, the buyer had the opportunity to see this and make a further inquiry prior to the contract (again - all assuming a standard face to face purchasing process). Seems that most people here think it's ok that the buyer also made a mistake in not checking before signing the papers (if he even cares in the first place). The OP didn't care or bother to check at the time of signing. Man up and live with it.

 

[Yotta]

I have strong doubts that the missing signal is a big deal at all.

I am unaware of anyone claiming it is a big deal.

I have a strong inclination that you're looking for a hand out

Do you, by any chance, have any evidence to support that inclination? Preferably in the form of quotes from my posts?

 

[HwyChile]

You should have received what was sold to you as shown on the window sticker. There is absolutely no responsibility for you to confirm that every item on the sticker is on the car, and it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect a purchaser to do that. It would certainly be reasonable to expect a buyer of fast food to check to make sure all the food is in the bag before he leaves the drive-through window, but not for buying a new car. Of course, if it was missing its wheels, then that would be reasonable for a buyer to notice that. I disagree with mdogg on this. Should he have checked to see if the mirrors were heated by turning them on and holding his hand on them? Should I have to go through my entire radio screen to see if it really has XM radio? Should I have to go lock up my brakes to see if it really has anti-locking brakes? Should I have to go put it in 4 wheel drive to see if the 4 wheel drive really works correctly? Should I have to go around my car and make sure every turn signal is on it, including on the mirrors? It is absurd to think a reasonable person should have a responsibility to check any of that on a NEW car--maybe a used car but not a new car.

In short, you should get something for being short-changed. That's not a hand out--that's just getting what you bargained and paid for. I don't need a false advertising claim when it is on the window sticker. Of course, if you are the type who just wants to let it be, that is certainly fine too. I bought a 2014 Trail base and did not get the XM radio. I would like some kind of payment for that from Toyota (not the dealer), but I doubt I will push it.

I think if Toyota has gotten complaints about some of these missing items and they continue to show it on their website as being standard after being informed of their mistake, then that crosses over into false advertising or some other type of tort (deceptive trade practice, etc.) for those who buy them and it is not shown on the window sticker.

The only party that needs to "man up" is Toyota.

 

[Antman]

Something tells me a bunch of people are going to end up with these...

 

[05Rrunner]

You should have received what was sold to you as shown on the window sticker. There is absolutely no responsibility for you to confirm that every item on the sticker is on the car, and it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect a purchaser to do that. It would certainly be reasonable to expect a buyer of fast food to check to make sure all the food is in the bag before he leaves the drive-through window, but not for buying a new car. Of course, if it was missing its wheels, then that would be reasonable for a buyer to notice that. I disagree with mdogg on this. Should he have checked to see if the mirrors were heated by turning them on and holding his hand on them? Should I have to go through my entire radio screen to see if it really has XM radio? Should I have to go lock up my brakes to see if it really has anti-locking brakes? Should I have to go put it in 4 wheel drive to see if the 4 wheel drive really works correctly? Should I have to go around my car and make sure every turn signal is on it, including on the mirrors? It is absurd to think a reasonable person should have a responsibility to check any of that on a NEW car--maybe a used car but not a new car.

In short, you should get something for being short-changed. That's not a hand out--that's just getting what you bargained and paid for. I don't need a false advertising claim when it is on the window sticker. Of course, if you are the type who just wants to let it be, that is certainly fine too. I bought a 2014 Trail base and did not get the XM radio. I would like some kind of payment for that from Toyota (not the dealer), but I doubt I will push it.

I think if Toyota has gotten complaints about some of these missing items and they continue to show it on their website as being standard after being informed of their mistake, then that crosses over into false advertising or some other type of tort (deceptive trade practice, etc.) for those who buy them and it is not shown on the window sticker.

The only party that needs to "man up" is Toyota.

Agree 100%, imagine showing up at the dealer with a tool box to pop the valve covers to check and make sure it has the 24 valve heads like they say, Or measuring the brake rotor’s with calipers before you buy. It shows a real lack of reasoning to blame the end purchaser for missing something. Toyota builds the thing and they missed it, the assembly line workers missed it, the dealer pdi department missed it,And the customer is somehow supposed to catch it, and if not oh well to bad. Ridiculous

 

[Telepi]

I remember hearing someone say, "If you like your turn signals on the mirrors, you can keep them". Period. I'm just glad my '13 SR5 is grandfathered in.

 

[Yotta]

An update: I got an email...

"We appreciate you taking the time to contact the Toyota Customer Experience Center. I am your Case Manager assigned to your case for handling and follow up. ...

Please contact me directly at 1-800-XXX-XXXX, Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time. Your contact has been documented at Toyota Headquarters under your name and case number XXXXXXXXX.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXX
Case Manager
Toyota Customer Experience

 

[4glite]

Hello fella's, you may want to check this out as an alternative option.
Turn signal mirrors installation for 2011-2014

 

[Telepi]

I see a 10% off your next oil change coupon coming to those who
didn't get turn signals on their mirrors. Oh, wait. The first two are
free.