Car dealer false advertising help?

[e60ral]

[MENTION=44432]Summit[/MENTION] unless you are okay with the SR5, you don't need to settle for what you proposed.

you should push for them to give you a limited for the price you agreed on. short of that, get your money back and buy from another dealer then make a complaint to the AG, Toyota, and your states dealership licensing board.

If they aren't okay with giving you your money back, an attorney will easily be able to get your money back and it won't cost much money since you have such clear evidence (ad and window sticker) showing the vehicle was misrepresented

 

[Summit]

OP said his girlfriend wants to throw it in 4WD all the time, rain or shine just like her Subaru. Read his post.

I can see how you might interpret the post that way. That is what the wife came from. But that isn't what I was actually asking.

I was asking if there was
1. A 4wd performance compromise on snow/wet vs awd
2. A problem occasionally running 4h in mixed wet/dry.

I gathered the answer is no and no.

The wife is fine switching to 2h when it's all dry. That's what I do now.

She tested the 07 in 4h and 4h with center lock both in wet/dry road and in a packed snow /slush lot. She felt virtually no difference in the snow. I noticed a slight difference in skid initiation but it was so minimal it could have been in my head. On the pavement steering is less responsive with the center locked but not in a way that one would not automatically compensate for. I figured this was the best way to simulate a 5th gen limited vs sr5p.

No wheel skipping or grinding except in tight turns on pavement as in parking lots wheel full over.

This indicates that the full-time Awd of the limited would be nice but she will be happy without it and it won't compromise safety nor the mechanicals if used as I described above.

Does that sound more reasonable?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

your WRONG. Period.

"You're".

OP, make your own call. Put that baby in 4 High on dry pavement and do your daily routine. Parking lots, lock to lock turns, etc..

Then we'll let you judge who is wrong here. Sound good?

It has nothing to do with liability on Toyota's part (seriously LMFAO on that - when was the last time you did a lock to lock turn at anything above 5 mph Vinsil?).

What I posted above, from Toyota, is them telling you if you drive a part time 4WD vehicle in 4WD on dry road, you WILL break something.

And yes, Vinsil, I speak for the majority because the majority of us know you don't use part time 4WD in the Target parking lot on dry roads.

You're wrong and got yourself in a spot where you can't admit it. Period.

 

[Summit]

[MENTION=44432]Summit[/MENTION] unless you are okay with the SR5, you don't need to settle for what you proposed.

you should push for them to give you a limited for the price you agreed on. short of that, get your money back and buy from another dealer then make a complaint to the AG, Toyota, and your states dealership licensing board.

If they aren't okay with giving you your money back, an attorney will easily be able to get your money back and it won't cost much money since you have such clear evidence (ad and window sticker) showing the vehicle was misrepresented

It's not a Toyota dealer so they don't have a limited nor would bringing the issue to Toyota be useful

 

[Blitzkrieg]

It's not a Toyota dealer so they don't have a limited nor would bringing the issue to Toyota be useful

Summit, your wife sounds like an intelligent woman. It's not so far removed from AWD except you run it in 2WD unless there is snow. It's pretty easy to get used to.

4WD (IMO) doesn't do squat in an SUV in rain so really no benefit there as it's not traction variable biased like say my Porsche Carrera 4S was or many of the AWD vehicles are today.

Just tell her to throw it in 4WD if the slick stuff is falling, o/wise not needed. The stability control on the 4Runner does a really good job, even in 2WD.

My .02

 

[Vinsil]

"You're".

OP, make your own call. Put that baby in 4 High on dry pavement and do your daily routine. Parking lots, lock to lock turns, etc..

Then we'll let you judge who is wrong here. Sound good?

It has nothing to do with liability on Toyota's part (seriously LMFAO on that - when was the last time you did a lock to lock turn at anything above 5 mph Vinsil?).

What I posted above, from Toyota, is them telling you if you drive a part time 4WD vehicle in 4WD on dry road, you WILL break something.

And yes, Vinsil, I speak for the majority because the majority of us know you don't use part time 4WD in the Target parking lot on dry roads.

You're wrong and got yourself in a spot where you can't admit it. Period.

:biggrin1: ok, have fun.

 

[MrTom]

Suggest you read section Dealer Sales And Buyers Guide of this link and find out what the law in the state of purchase is for 3 day return and also if you got the required Federal Buyers Guide . Known violation of Federal law could put you in a better position
Also before accepting the vehicle suggest you have a very good mechanic look it over for any other issues. There might be more to it than you can see, ie undesclosed flood or body damage rebuild. etc....
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0055-buying-used-car
.

 

[bamma]

Suggest you read section Dealer Sales And Buyers Guide of this link and find out what the law in the state of purchase is for 3 day return and also if you got the required Federal Buyers Guide . Known violation of Federal law could put you in a better position
Also before accepting the vehicle suggest you have a very good mechanic look it over for any other issues. There might be more to it than you can see, ie undesclosed flood or body damage rebuild. etc....
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0055-buying-used-car
.

AZ has no required return period.

 

[Knight-Errant]

that doesn't apply

you are not required to disclose everything when you sell something, but what you can not do is misrepresent it. The ad and sticker misrepresented the vehicle.

If the dealership doesn't work in good faith to fix the problem, an attorney shouldn't have much difficulty getting this resolved for you.

I don't disagree, but it seems to me that the buyer here was completely ignorant of what he was shopping for. If he did a little bit of research he'd know the difference between an SR5 or a Limited. SR5 and Limited actually have badges that say which is which model it is, not to mention the front grill, wheel size, wheel/rim style, potential suspension differences, seating differences (softtex vs ventilated leather), 4wd system differences.

If you're going for a used car you need to put some time into figuring out what it is you're actually getting since dealers goof up like this all the time and you can't take the dealer at face value. Like somebody said, dealers misidentify cars all the time. The missing features that were noted upon examining the car should have been the first red flags. Even the photo in the ad clearly shows an SR5 (grill + no hood scoop +rim style are the identifiers).

Now he has a headache that he could have avoided if he did just a little bit of research... Caveat emptor on the most basic level is just "buyer beware". If you're buy something used, and don't educate yourself about what the product is, you're going to run into problems.

 

[e60ral]

I don't disagree, but it seems to me that the buyer here was completely ignorant of what he was shopping for. If he did a little bit of research he'd know the difference between an SR5 or a Limited. SR5 and Limited actually have badges that say which is which model it is, not to mention the front grill, wheel size, wheel/rim style, potential suspension differences, seating differences (softtex vs ventilated leather), 4wd system differences.

If you're going for a used car you need to put some time into figuring out what it is you're actually getting since dealers goof up like this all the time and you can't take the dealer at face value. Like somebody said, dealers misidentify cars all the time. The missing features that were noted upon examining the car should have been the first red flags. Even the photo in the ad clearly shows an SR5 (grill + no hood scoop +rim style are the identifiers).

Now he has a headache that he could have avoided if he did just a little bit of research... Caveat emptor on the most basic level is just "buyer beware". If you're buy something used, and don't educate yourself about what the product is, you're going to run into problems.

could they have done more due diligence and noticed the photo? maybe. but that doesn't absolve the dealer of responsibility.

telling someone to suck it up when they don't need to be liable for the mistake is piss poor advice

you guys should really stop that line of reasoning, its absolutely awful advice

 

[mdrudy]

Post above is dead on.

And the others about calling an attorney. A 15 minute call or two from your attorney is all it will take. Possibly a brief letter as well, but doubtful.

This is totally on them. Don't let all the folks that stayed in a holiday inn last night give you terrible "legal" advice and telling you to suck it up buttercup.

And what a pain in the ass to travel that far, etc etc and not get the truck that you bargained for. And Feel free to PM me if you want more details.

Oh, and one last thing...and yes everybody "will take care of you" ...well, until they don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Engineer]

could they have done more due diligence and noticed the photo? maybe. but that doesn't absolve the dealer of responsibility.

telling someone to suck it up when they don't need to be liable for the mistake is piss poor advice

you guys should really stop that line of reasoning, its absolutely awful advice

It certainly is worth fighting to make right but at the same time if a guy was selling diamonds out of his pickup for $500 per karat and someone bought them and they turned out to be fake would you say that guy was in the wrong for selling (he was) and then completely absolve the buyer from responsibility? There has to be some consumer responsibility here, we live in a culture were everyone just lawyers up and takes no responsibility for the actions they took. OP seems to have it right, be polite - don't roll over and play dead, talked to the dealer and then progress further as the situation requires why run straight to a lawyer because you can't stick up for yourself?

I would be more sympathetic if it had been an SR5 vs SR5 Premium etc but you are talking 2 vehicles that at a base glance can be easily distinguished by even non enthusiasts. (not saying the dealership has no responsibility here but that its equally the consumers fault for not knowing what they were spending 40k on, on an out of state, remote purchase no less)

To the OP, good luck in getting it resolved you are in a tough spot with the money and time spent traveling and the distance the dealer is from you.

 

[e60ral]

Stop being an idiot

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[KuhDunkADunk]

It certainly is worth fighting to make right but at the same time if a guy was selling diamonds out of his pickup for $500 per karat and someone bought them and they turned out to be fake would you say that guy was in the wrong for selling (he was) and then completely absolve the buyer from responsibility? There has to be some consumer responsibility here, we live in a culture were everyone just lawyers up and takes no responsibility for the actions they took.

Uhh... What?

That's gotta be one of the worst analogies I've read in awhile. Not even close to the situation here. A better one would be, if a jewelry store was selling diamonds @$500 a karat and advertised it as FL, but it turned out to be VVS1. Then is the customer wrong for buying what he thought was FL? Should the customer have known it was VVS1?

To many here on the forums, it's obvious that the original picture was an SR5, but if I were to show the a picture of an SR5 and a Limited to my girlfriend, she wouldn't have a clue...

Either way, good luck OP! Let us know how it goes!

 

[NorthwoodsRunner]

DEALER CALLED

They were pleasant and I was polite in explaining the situation. At first they were in disbelief that it wasn't a Limited, but realized it was the case although they aren't sure from where the mistake came other than saying they aren't Toyota experts. They agree it is an issue as they were selling a "Limited." I proposed a return or a price difference which I said was at least $4K. I'm guessing they will agree to some money back because they don't want that vehicle back on their lot (it was there 90+ days) any more than I want to drive it back there (not to mention the depreciation of a second owner and an extra 1600 miles). Dealer said "we'll take care of you." It has been escalated to the GM who obviously isn't in on a Sunday but will call me first thing tomorrow.

Hopefully your expectations are NOT too high on this deal that turned bad. Things get real ugly when the expectations are not aligned between the two parties involved. It is hard to enjoy your new 4R-SR5 when your main focus is on the sour deal. If that dealer is willing to accept the return, I would just return it and get the LE that you wanted. Trust you know the difference between SR5 and LE going forward. I wanted LE but did not want to spend another $4000-$5000 for it so I bought SR5 instead.

 

[Summit]

I'm not naive enough to believe the GM is going to cut me a $5000 check

As I've repeatedly acknowledged, I could have researched better. Most posts here have been pretty fair. I do find it amusing that there is a small current feeling no expectation that an auto dealer should be expected to be more knowledgeable than a customer about their specialty in life... or at least some expectation for being accurate.

I think there is a fair solution here. Dealer says it was an honest mistake. Actually, I believe that, as they've not done anything that was unmistakably dishonest. "Do not ascribe to malice what can be explained by [mistake]" is my operating philosophy until proven otherwise, even in an industry with a reputation like car dealing. This dealer has a good rep and I will take them at their word as long as their actions match.

My friend always tells me I am a hopeless optimist.:crazy:

I certainly needed to know options and alternate recourse because that has some bearing on negotiation.

We'll see if I am so cheery after the GM calls me this morning.

 

[mgproudfit]

Dealer will probably offer OP free oil changes and car washes for life. Knowing he's 1600 miles away.

 

[bamma]

I'm not naive enough to believe the GM is going to cut me a $5000 check

As I've repeatedly acknowledged, I could have researched better. Most posts here have been pretty fair. I do find it amusing that there is a small current feeling no expectation that an auto dealer should be expected to be more knowledgeable than a customer about their specialty in life... or at least some expectation for being accurate.

I think there is a fair solution here. Dealer says it was an honest mistake. Actually, I believe that, as they've not done anything that was unmistakably dishonest. "Do not ascribe to malice what can be explained by [mistake]" is my operating philosophy until proven otherwise, even in an industry with a reputation like car dealing. This dealer has a good rep and I will take them at their word as long as their actions match.

My friend always tells me I am a hopeless optimist.:crazy:

I certainly needed to know options and alternate recourse because that has some bearing on negotiation.

We'll see if I am so cheery after the GM calls me this morning.

The standard USAA disclaimer in the ad alone is probably enough to protect the dealer from the inaccurate ad itself.

The AZ consumer protection statute is pretty broad in regards to fraud. If you still have the window sticker that shows limited, that will help you a lot since the purchase contract did not specify it was a limited. Any other statements made to you likely won't carry any weight with a finder of fact unless there were witnesses.

It sounds like they will most likely take care of you. If you don't get the remuneration you want, and they won't take a return, the next step is to contact an attorney. Martindale is a good resource, and you can also look on the AZ state bar website. Look for someone with experience with consumer fraud.

Obviously the best course of action is to work something out with the dealer, and it sounds like they are amenable. Good luck.

 

[Summit]

The standard USAA disclaimer in the ad alone is probably enough to protect the dealer from the inaccurate ad itself.

Not from their own website ad which also represented a Limited and only disclaims "absolute accuracy," and then one can argue if Limited vs SR5 is minutia under "absolute accuracy" or a gross inaccuracy, most would go with the latter.

No ad disclaimer helps with their on-site representation of it as a Limited.

But hopefully, none of it matters and an amicable solution is reached.

 

[BlueRidge77]

Not from their in-person representation of it as a Limited or their own website ad which also represented a Limited.

Agreed. Posted earlier by [MENTION=83135]bamma[/MENTION]...

Just looked at the USAA site. Each ad I saw states:

"Features and options are descriptive of what can be expected on the vehicle. Actual options should be verified by the customer and dealer."

Not sure you have any recourse.

It wasn't a "feature" or an "option" that was wrong. They misstated the model which isn't mentioned in their disclaimer...