Baited into getting a Brand New 1 Year Old T4R Limited

[harper7]

Bottom line is what the papers that were signed and by whom ,that read 2012 or 2013 since it's basically a used 2012 4Runner now.Can't hurt anything to try I suppose to at least get some $ knocked off the price at least.

Oh well its the same car anyways, it ultimately doesn't matter.

Actually I rather have a 2012 then a 2013 anyways since the 2013's have the Rube Goldberg emissions crap added as outlined starting on page 8 of this 2013 engine pdf file.

 

[Eagle]

I'd still not trust what you read on this forum.

 

[Desert Fox]

You all better hope he doesn't have an assistant because of some sort of medical reason...


...if not, yeah? who do you think you are throwing around that you have an assistant and rubbing it in all of our faces? :sobbing:

Back in the 30's assistants did a lot of clean up work. Most of what they cleaned up went in the river or buried under a football field.
Did they ever find Hoffa? :uzi::uzi::uzi::gun4::gun4:

 

[Stifler]

I'd trust what Stifler says... his legal knowledge and analysis have proven to be invaluable.



wait, no... that's worthless. sorry.

hmmmm... please direct me to where any "legal advise" given was worthless.... I am pretty confident my knowledge on consumer law is up to snuff.... but I would be more than happy to recant once you provide a link.......


oh wait.... you are just talking out your arse aren't you?

 

[phillyd2]

Actually I rather have a 2012 then a 2013 anyways since the 2013's have the Rube Goldberg emissions crap added as outlined starting on page 8 of this 2013 engine pdf file.

Yeah. Forgot about that. OP, keep the 12 but still post pics of the assistant, if she is hot. If not, fire her and hire a hot one. And then post pics.

 

[philsey]

Yeah. Forgot about that. OP, keep the 12 but still post pics of the assistant, if she is hot. If not, fire her and hire a hot one. And then post pics.

She's fat.

 

[Hawaiian4runner]

She's fat.

So where is the OP? Got everyone worked up but never clarified anything. Sounds like a bunch of BS. It really is plain and simple. If you are for real, just answer the question as to what is on the contract you signed. Period!

 

[Jayhawk5G]

puhlease.... come back down to planet earth.... Whatever is on thr buyers order is what was sold. Plain and simple

100% disagree, if the purchase order says 2012 then that's a different story. If the purchase order says 2013 and that's what was signed and the only way of determining that it was a 12 which will depreciate faster than an equally new 2013... He will have legal recourse.

Tort based on deception of the dealership or fraud of the dealership. If you think showing up in court with emails from the dealer stating 2013 with the same price as the purchase order as well as the purchase order stating 2013 won't get a favorable decision well good luck. The consumer shouldn't have to go to extreme measures (most people don't know how to decode a Toyota vin) to verify a purchase and the dealership isn't allowed to misrepresent a product.

 

[Bay33saw]

I think we scared him away.......I'd fire his assistant.:gun6:

 

[Eagle]

oh wait.... you are just talking out your arse aren't you?

Yeah, I thought that was what we were all here to do...?

 

[Stifler]

100% disagree, if the purchase order says 2012 then that's a different story. If the purchase order says 2013 and that's what was signed and the only way of determining that it was a 12 which will depreciate faster than an equally new 2013... He will have legal recourse.

Tort based on deception of the dealership or fraud of the dealership. If you think showing up in court with emails from the dealer stating 2013 with the same price as the purchase order as well as the purchase order stating 2013 won't get a favorable decision well good luck. The consumer shouldn't have to go to extreme measures (most people don't know how to decode a Toyota vin) to verify a purchase and the dealership isn't allowed to misrepresent a product.

go back and READ this thread.... it has been said that if the order says 2013 and he got a 2012 then he should get a 2013.... if the buyers order says 2012 he bought a 2012... tort based on deception? LMAO. dont give up your day job....

 

[Jayhawk5G]

go back and READ this thread.... it has been said that if the order says 2013 and he got a 2012 then he should get a 2013.... if the buyers order says 2012 he bought a 2012... tort based on deception? LMAO. dont give up your day job....

I have always written in this thread on the assumption that the purchase order was for a 13 but the VIN proved the vehicle was a 2012. You have decided to rudely respond as though you have seen the purchase order and the OP has yet to respond. Let me again help you out here.

In Kansas where I am from, one of our Statues is 21-3711 Making False Writings which includes:

"making, generating, distributing or drawing, or causing to be made, generated, distribuited or drawn, any written instrument, electronic data or entry in a book of account with knowledge that such information falsely states or represents some material matter or is not what it purports to be, and with the intent to defraud"

I assume most states have a statute like this on their books.

While it could probably be argued that if a person at the dealership wrote 2013 and inserted the VIN knowingly for a 2012 that they are guilty of a criminal act, they would probably argue it was just a mistake or error. In criminal court this would probably go nowhere.

Tort Law or Civcil Law is where the OP if not BS would find a path to remedy for the damages inflicted on him by the dealership (if you negotiated for a 2013 you would probably be prepared to spend more than on a 2012 even if both are new, and should you go to sell the 2013 would be worth more all things being equal). If you don't think there is civil law purtaining to fraud by deception then I have some oceanfront property here in Kansas I would love to sell you

 

[Stifler]

EVERYONE has said if it says 2013 then you get the 2013..... OP (obviously full of ****ake because he has yet to return) has not confirmed.... my bet is if it is a 2012 4R the buyers order says 2012.... not sure what you are even trying to argue about

 

[Eagle]

States have laws... Fraud is bad... Tort... civil law... blah blah

That is all secondary and requires far more knowledge than we currently have. Odds of getting a criminal verdict are nearly zero. Odds of seeing a civil trial through to judgment are about the same...

What matters is that OP feels he didn't get what he was supposed to get. He should address that with dealer and/or owner to see what solutions can be reached. If none are acceptable, then OP should consider his legal remedies, which may or may not involve a (real) attorney who can advise on what laws are applicable in OP's state. Lawyers cost money. Some are worth it... some are not. OP will have to examine his options and weigh expected costs and benefits.

OP may or may not have some legal backing... but I expect that OP really just wants the situation to be "fixed" and not wind up in court.

As previously stated, the 2012 has some benefits vs the 2013, so maybe OP should work with dealer to accept current model with either a price reduction or some dealer-comp upgrades...

 

[Stifler]

OP is obviously a troll

 

[Jayhawk5G]

States have laws... Fraud is bad... Tort... civil law... blah blah

That is all secondary and requires far more knowledge than we currently have. Odds of getting a criminal verdict are nearly zero. Odds of seeing a civil trial through to judgment are about the same...

What matters is that OP feels he didn't get what he was supposed to get. He should address that with dealer and/or owner to see what solutions can be reached. If none are acceptable, then OP should consider his legal remedies, which may or may not involve a (real) attorney who can advise on what laws are applicable in OP's state. Lawyers cost money. Some are worth it... some are not. OP will have to examine his options and weigh expected costs and benefits.

OP may or may not have some legal backing... but I expect that OP really just wants the situation to be "fixed" and not wind up in court.

As previously stated, the 2012 has some benefits vs the 2013, so maybe OP should work with dealer to accept current model with either a price reduction or some dealer-comp upgrades...

I think my point was pretty simple, and at this point I'm considering this a hypothetical situation...

If they lied, it doesn't matter if he drove the 12' 750 miles they will fix it or the OP would theoretically have legal grounds to sue them, hypothetically speaking of course.

If they put 12' on the purchase order, and faxed it to him and he signed it and didn't pay attention than they aren't entitled to do anything for him and in reality it really is his fault. I would never buy a vehicle this way, and if I did I would go over the contract with a magnifying glass.

Based on the low post count, the crazy situation, I'm inclined to believe bad troll is bad...

 

[Eagle]

I think my point was pretty simple, and at this point I'm considering this a hypothetical situation...

That is entirely my point... it is of little value to offer specific (though still unsubstantiated) solutions to a hypothetical when each reader assumes different facts as givens.

If they lied, it doesn't matter if he drove the 12' 750 miles they will fix it or the OP would theoretically have legal grounds to sue them, hypothetically speaking of course.

That is a parallel to my point above... the specific solutions offered are unsubstantiated. Too much remains unknown to be able to say that it does not matter whether the OP drove 750 miles. In fact, driving 750 miles would be pretty solid evidence of acceptance of non-conforming goods under a contract for the purchase of personal property. At that point, the burden would then be on the OP to show that there was an excuse or other exception to his acceptance.


If the OP is real and seeking legal advice, he should consult a real lawyer.
If the OP is real and seeking some general guidance, there is no point to offering questionable legal advice from a particular jurisdiction that assumes facts that may or may not be true.

 

[Jayhawk5G]

That is entirely my point... it is of little value to offer specific (though still unsubstantiated) solutions to a hypothetical when each reader assumes different facts as givens.

If you really believe that then you should probably go into your account settings and deactivate your account now. The beauty of a forum is that people who don't know each other can come together over a shared interest in a subject and interact. There is no vetting process for posts requesting advice or opinions. If the OP is real or fake, advice was asked and it has been given. It is of high value to get as many opinions and takes on a scenario as possible.

That is a parallel to my point above... the specific solutions offered are unsubstantiated. Too much remains unknown to be able to say that it does not matter whether the OP drove 750 miles. In fact, driving 750 miles would be pretty solid evidence of acceptance of non-conforming goods under a contract for the purchase of personal property. At that point, the burden would then be on the OP to show that there was an excuse or other exception to his acceptance.

I disagree as I feel that a court would recognize that decoding a VIN for verification of model year is an unreasonable burden for a purchaser. If you really feel like a defendant could make the arugment, "well we might have put 2013 on all the paperwork... but the purchaser could have checked the VIN," and win... well, again I disagree. However as you said we don't have enough information and so we form opinions based on what we have to work with.

If the OP is real and seeking legal advice, he should consult a real lawyer.
If the OP is real and seeking some general guidance, there is no point to offering questionable legal advice from a particular jurisdiction that assumes facts that may or may not be true.

I don't remember anyone giving legal advice beyond, I think you probably have a case if your wild story is true and you would want to consult with a lawyer if the dealership doesn't budge. My statute reference was just a general example of my states statute on the matter, please name me a state or jurisdiction where comitting fraud isn't technically illegal?

 

[calikev]

The OP has to be a fraud. Firstly, I've never heard of a dealer giving ownership to anyone but the signer. A fax is not a legal contract for a car purchase. They would have to send the original to him for "wet" signatures and then have them overnighted back. If this were the case, then the dealer knew exactly how far away he was from them. If not, then why didn't he go get it himself. No dealer gives keys to a $40k vehicle to an "assistant" having never actually met the buyer. He would have been required to notarize the contracts he signed as well, if he never met the dealer. This is a fake posting.

If he returns the vehicle, he is essentially trading it in from a contractual standpoint. Dealers are linked to the DMV in most states and register when you buy it. Once the car has been titled those fees don't get reversed/refunded. It will be titled as used and is definitely devalued at this point. "IF" they accept the trade, he will lose the tax $$$ for the 12' and pay again for the 13' How do I know...cuz' I've been in this situation and IT SUCKED!!!!!

 

[Hawaiian4runner]

If you really believe that then you should probably go into your account settings and deactivate your account now. The beauty of a forum is that people who don't know each other can come together over a shared interest in a subject and interact. There is no vetting process for posts requesting advice or opinions. If the OP is real or fake, advice was asked and it has been given. It is of high value to get as many opinions and takes on a scenario as possible.




I disagree as I feel that a court would recognize that decoding a VIN for verification of model year is an unreasonable burden for a purchaser. If you really feel like a defendant could make the arugment, "well we might have put 2013 on all the paperwork... but the purchaser could have checked the VIN," and win... well, again I disagree. However as you said we don't have enough information and so we form opinions based on what we have to work with.




I don't remember anyone giving legal advice beyond, I think you probably have a case if your wild story is true and you would want to consult with a lawyer if the dealership doesn't budge. My statute reference was just a general example of my states statute on the matter, please name me a state or jurisdiction where comitting fraud isn't technically illegal?

You are a piece of work. You just love to argue for the sake of arguing. You open with I disagree to just about everything and then your point seems to be more in agreement. This is a total waste of time.