Jeep Cherokee ABS problem Part 2 - The Sequel

Good morning everyone

Thank you for your help in sorting out (well, starting to sort out -
see below) my Jeep Cherokee ABS problem. I promised I would let you
know how things turned out, but they haven't turned out yet, they are
still rumbling along, so this is an interim report and a request for
some more help.

The details of the original problem can be found by searching this NG
for "Jeep Cherokee ABS problem" in January and February this year, but
for your convenience here is a summary of what happened.

On 9 September last year I bought a 2001 Jeep Cherokee from Humber
Motors Ford of Stephenville, Newfoundland (yes, I am getting so mad
about this that I am naming names and pointing fingers this time). I
paid $19,540.50 for it and they told me (among other things) that it
had ABS fitted. In January this year I noticed while driving on snow
covered roads that the ABS didn't seem to be working. On 13 January I
took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS was
working perfectly. I still didn't think it was working so after a
great deal of help from this NG and some time with my head under the
hood I realised that there was no ABS fitted. On 3 February I took it
back to the dealership again and this time they admitted that it didn't
have ABS and said they would see what they could do about it. That's
where we left it at the close of the last discussion thread. Now read
on...

After many weeks of delay and numerous exchanges of e-mails, letters
and telephone calls we have reached an impasse. We have agreed that
the vehicle does not have ABS fitted, that it was mis-sold to me and
that I am entitled to return it and get a refund. What we are still
arguing about is the amount of the refund and specifically the amount
to be deducted for usage of the vehicle.

I bought the vehicle on 9 September 2005 for $19,540.50. I returned it
to the dealership on 17 March 2006 for an interim payment of $14,020.50
pending agreement on the final amount. The dealership sold it on again
a couple of weeks later so the vehicle itself is now out of the
picture.

My position on the refund is that I had it for 6 months and I should be
entitled to a refund of the purchase price less six months'
depreciation. If we assume depreciation of 30% per annum, the buy-back
price should be 85% of the purchase price or $16,609.42.

Humber Motors has adopted an alternative method of calculation. They
say that they want to calculate it on the basis of a usage charge of
$800 per month, or $4,800 over six months, plus tax. This is what I
would have paid them if I had leased the vehicle from them. They work
this out at $5,520, which when deducted from the purchase price leaves
a refund of $14,020.50 (the amount of the interim payment).

As you can see, there is a difference of $2,588.92 between the two
methods of calculation. The dealership has since increased its offer
by a further $1,619.50 but I have not accepted it because it still
leaves me about $1,000 short of what I think I should get, and because
as a matter of principle I don't think they should get away with this.
They mis-sold me a vehicle, they performed a shoddy inspection in which
they failed to identify a completely missing vehicle component, they
dragged their feet for weeks before even beginning to negotiate about a
refund, and now they want to rip me off $1,000 as well. This was a
sale, not a lease, and any refund should be calculated on the same
basis. Plus, I have been quite reasonable about the amount I am
claiming from them. I have not, for example, claimed for a complete
new set of winter tires which I put on the vehicle and left on it when
I returned it to them (because they were no further use to me).

So I'd be interested to hear what people here think would be a fair
refund, or better still, does anyone know of any reported similar cases
or precedents which would indicate how the refund should be calculated?

Peter

plain and simple they misrepresented the sale and the product you got
don't move a inch and threaten to go public such as the news and papers
they love that
and vocal with a firm voice in the showroom in front of other customers
sometimes help

Peter wrote:

> Good morning everyone
>
> Thank you for your help in sorting out (well, starting to sort out -
> see below) my Jeep Cherokee ABS problem. I promised I would let you
> know how things turned out, but they haven't turned out yet, they are
> still rumbling along, so this is an interim report and a request for
> some more help.
>
> The details of the original problem can be found by searching this NG
> for "Jeep Cherokee ABS problem" in January and February this year, but
> for your convenience here is a summary of what happened.
>
> On 9 September last year I bought a 2001 Jeep Cherokee from Humber
> Motors Ford of Stephenville, Newfoundland (yes, I am getting so mad
> about this that I am naming names and pointing fingers this time). I
> paid $19,540.50 for it and they told me (among other things) that it
> had ABS fitted. In January this year I noticed while driving on snow
> covered roads that the ABS didn't seem to be working. On 13 January I
> took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS was
> working perfectly. I still didn't think it was working so after a
> great deal of help from this NG and some time with my head under the
> hood I realised that there was no ABS fitted. On 3 February I took it
> back to the dealership again and this time they admitted that it didn't
> have ABS and said they would see what they could do about it. That's
> where we left it at the close of the last discussion thread. Now read
> on...
>
> After many weeks of delay and numerous exchanges of e-mails, letters
> and telephone calls we have reached an impasse. We have agreed that
> the vehicle does not have ABS fitted, that it was mis-sold to me and
> that I am entitled to return it and get a refund. What we are still
> arguing about is the amount of the refund and specifically the amount
> to be deducted for usage of the vehicle.
>
> I bought the vehicle on 9 September 2005 for $19,540.50. I returned it
> to the dealership on 17 March 2006 for an interim payment of $14,020.50
> pending agreement on the final amount. The dealership sold it on again
> a couple of weeks later so the vehicle itself is now out of the
> picture.
>
> My position on the refund is that I had it for 6 months and I should be
> entitled to a refund of the purchase price less six months'
> depreciation. If we assume depreciation of 30% per annum, the buy-back
> price should be 85% of the purchase price or $16,609.42.
>
> Humber Motors has adopted an alternative method of calculation. They
> say that they want to calculate it on the basis of a usage charge of
> $800 per month, or $4,800 over six months, plus tax. This is what I
> would have paid them if I had leased the vehicle from them. They work
> this out at $5,520, which when deducted from the purchase price leaves
> a refund of $14,020.50 (the amount of the interim payment).
>
> As you can see, there is a difference of $2,588.92 between the two
> methods of calculation. The dealership has since increased its offer
> by a further $1,619.50 but I have not accepted it because it still
> leaves me about $1,000 short of what I think I should get, and because
> as a matter of principle I don't think they should get away with this.
> They mis-sold me a vehicle, they performed a shoddy inspection in which
> they failed to identify a completely missing vehicle component, they
> dragged their feet for weeks before even beginning to negotiate about a
> refund, and now they want to rip me off $1,000 as well. This was a
> sale, not a lease, and any refund should be calculated on the same
> basis. Plus, I have been quite reasonable about the amount I am
> claiming from them. I have not, for example, claimed for a complete
> new set of winter tires which I put on the vehicle and left on it when
> I returned it to them (because they were no further use to me).
>
> So I'd be interested to hear what people here think would be a fair
> refund, or better still, does anyone know of any reported similar cases
> or precedents which would indicate how the refund should be calculated?
>
> Peter

....the bride is now driving a 2006 Honda Odyssey minivan (very suitable
for 3 small kids), thank you for asking, and I am now driving the
bride's old vehicle which is a 2002 Cadillac Escalade (very comfortable
but she found the high lift too much when hauling the kids into their
car seats).. So as I am no longer a Jeep owner I guess I'm kind of
disqualified from posting in this NG...!

That's probably more befitting your position anyway even though it is a GM
product.

Take good care of the sprouts!


"Peter" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ...the bride is now driving a 2006 Honda Odyssey minivan (very suitable
> for 3 small kids), thank you for asking, and I am now driving the
> bride's old vehicle which is a 2002 Cadillac Escalade (very comfortable
> but she found the high lift too much when hauling the kids into their
> car seats).. So as I am no longer a Jeep owner I guess I'm kind of
> disqualified from posting in this NG...!
>

You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
such, but you are talking about years to get relief.

My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
reputations.

Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.

PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
to remember it...

"Peter" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Good morning everyone

> I bought the vehicle on 9 September 2005 for $19,540.50. I returned it
> to the dealership on 17 March 2006 for an interim payment of $14,020.50
> pending agreement on the final amount. The dealership sold it on again
> a couple of weeks later so the vehicle itself is now out of the
> picture.
>
> My position on the refund is that I had it for 6 months and I should be
> entitled to a refund of the purchase price less six months'
> depreciation. If we assume depreciation of 30% per annum, the buy-back
> price should be 85% of the purchase price or $16,609.42.
>
> Humber Motors has adopted an alternative method of calculation. They
> say that they want to calculate it on the basis of a usage charge of
> $800 per month, or $4,800 over six months, plus tax. This is what I
> would have paid them if I had leased the vehicle from them. They work
> this out at $5,520, which when deducted from the purchase price leaves
> a refund of $14,020.50 (the amount of the interim payment).
>
> As you can see, there is a difference of $2,588.92 between the two
> methods of calculation. The dealership has since increased its offer
> by a further $1,619.50 but I have not accepted it because it still
> leaves me about $1,000 short of what I think I should get, and because
> as a matter of principle I don't think they should get away with this.
> They mis-sold me a vehicle, they performed a shoddy inspection in which
> they failed to identify a completely missing vehicle component, they
> dragged their feet for weeks before even beginning to negotiate about a
> refund, and now they want to rip me off $1,000 as well. This was a
> sale, not a lease, and any refund should be calculated on the same
> basis. Plus, I have been quite reasonable about the amount I am
> claiming from them. I have not, for example, claimed for a complete
> new set of winter tires which I put on the vehicle and left on it when
> I returned it to them (because they were no further use to me).
>
> So I'd be interested to hear what people here think would be a fair
> refund, or better still, does anyone know of any reported similar cases
> or precedents which would indicate how the refund should be calculated?
>
> Peter
>

I'm having a hard time as well feeling any real concern.
Getting rid of a perfectly good vehicle just due to a mistaken
impression it had ABS sounds a bit harsh. Driving it around for
depreciation and then selling it back again sounds like more wishful
thinking.

The salesmen probably had no clue whatever if the vehicle had ABS, they
rarely know if there are wheels under a vehicle. If that was a big deal
for the sale and the buyer didn't ask for an explicit check or have a
mechanic check [as in a mechanic familiar with the brand and with ABS]
then sounds like someone pretty much failed 100% to do their own
homework and has a bit of an issue with the concept of responsibility.

Just possibly, if the sales order for the vehicle stated it had ABS,
that could be used to void the sale, but very likely not after having
driven it so long. Whether an explicit statement that the vehicle had
ABS would override the common "AS IS" provision on used vehicles is
something only a lawyer familiar with that state law could answer.

And it is trivial to find out if any vehicle for which a VIN is
available had ABS. As would looking in the owners manual for startup
sequences.

Wonder if part of that dealer's buyout included a recommendation to a
competitor? Some folks you just don't need as customers.

Matt Macchiarolo proclaimed:
> You're probably entitled to more but it seems to me that since you accepted
> the initial cash buyback, you made it harder on yourself to collect what
> you think you were entitled to. Is the $1,000 worth your time and
> aggravation? If so, then take them on, remembering that if you decide to
> sue, you'll have to pay a lawyer, so deduct that cost from what you collect.
> There are also governmental agencies that would help, Attorneys General and
> such, but you are talking about years to get relief.
>
> My advice, take their offer, swallow your pride, chalk it up to experience,
> and tell everyone you know about what happened. These are used car salesmen,
> after all, and used car salesmen often deserve their bottom-feeder
> reputations.
>
> Next time you buy a used car, do your homework.
>
> PS We had a Honda Odessey as well, it was a lease, and Honda had to buy it
> back as a lemon...not really on topic, but your situation put me in the mind
> to remember it...
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
>>Good morning everyone
>
>
>>I bought the vehicle on 9 September 2005 for $19,540.50. I returned it
>>to the dealership on 17 March 2006 for an interim payment of $14,020.50
>>pending agreement on the final amount. The dealership sold it on again
>>a couple of weeks later so the vehicle itself is now out of the
>>picture.
>>
>>My position on the refund is that I had it for 6 months and I should be
>>entitled to a refund of the purchase price less six months'
>>depreciation. If we assume depreciation of 30% per annum, the buy-back
>>price should be 85% of the purchase price or $16,609.42.
>>
>>Humber Motors has adopted an alternative method of calculation. They
>>say that they want to calculate it on the basis of a usage charge of
>>$800 per month, or $4,800 over six months, plus tax. This is what I
>>would have paid them if I had leased the vehicle from them. They work
>>this out at $5,520, which when deducted from the purchase price leaves
>>a refund of $14,020.50 (the amount of the interim payment).
>>
>>As you can see, there is a difference of $2,588.92 between the two
>>methods of calculation. The dealership has since increased its offer
>>by a further $1,619.50 but I have not accepted it because it still
>>leaves me about $1,000 short of what I think I should get, and because
>>as a matter of principle I don't think they should get away with this.
>>They mis-sold me a vehicle, they performed a shoddy inspection in which
>>they failed to identify a completely missing vehicle component, they
>>dragged their feet for weeks before even beginning to negotiate about a
>>refund, and now they want to rip me off $1,000 as well. This was a
>>sale, not a lease, and any refund should be calculated on the same
>>basis. Plus, I have been quite reasonable about the amount I am
>>claiming from them. I have not, for example, claimed for a complete
>>new set of winter tires which I put on the vehicle and left on it when
>>I returned it to them (because they were no further use to me).
>>
>>So I'd be interested to hear what people here think would be a fair
>>refund, or better still, does anyone know of any reported similar cases
>>or precedents which would indicate how the refund should be calculated?
>>
>>Peter
>>
>
>
>

Well hang on, this is a bit harsh isn't it? Could I point out FYI
three points:

1. One reason to buy a vehicle from a dealer as opposed to a private
sale is because it comes with warranties etc. and you can take it back
if it goes wrong or if it's not up to spec. If I was buying from a
private buyer I would have had an independent inspection done, checked
the vehicle's history etc. etc but you don't expect to have to do these
things when buying from a dealership - especially a major dealership
with four branches and a major manufacturer's franchise as is the case
here.

2. Having ABS is maybe not so important if you live in Texas or
Florida, but if you've never visited Newfoundland in the winter, I can
assure you that it's a tad more important here.

3. Having found out that the vehicle wasn't to spec and wasn't
suitable, I had to get it off my hands pronto. Otherwise I would be
stuck with paying insurance on a vehicle I wasn't using, and having a
rapidly deteriorating and depreciating asset. Hence the buy back and
the interim payment.

"Peter" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well hang on, this is a bit harsh isn't it? Could I point out FYI
> three points:
>
> 1. One reason to buy a vehicle from a dealer as opposed to a private
> sale is because it comes with warranties etc. and you can take it back
> if it goes wrong or if it's not up to spec. If I was buying from a
> private buyer I would have had an independent inspection done, checked
> the vehicle's history etc. etc but you don't expect to have to do these
> things when buying from a dealership - especially a major dealership
> with four branches and a major manufacturer's franchise as is the case
> here.
>

Which obviously is moot here. Yes, you do have to do these things when
buying from a dealership, if it's a used car.

> 2. Having ABS is maybe not so important if you live in Texas or
> Florida, but if you've never visited Newfoundland in the winter, I can
> assure you that it's a tad more important here.
>
> 3. Having found out that the vehicle wasn't to spec and wasn't
> suitable, I had to get it off my hands pronto. Otherwise I would be
> stuck with paying insurance on a vehicle I wasn't using, and having a
> rapidly deteriorating and depreciating asset. Hence the buy back and
> the interim payment.
>
Your impatience cost you a lot. You could have cancelled the insurance or at
least told your insurance company what was going on and that you werent'
driving it. The depreciation was moot, you got paid a fraction of what you
were entitled to.

Bottom line, you pretty much made the bed you have to sleep in.

If you have explained your position to the dealership, or attempted to, and
they won't budge (or you won't), then your next recourse is the court
system. You are alleging fraud here, and a judge should take that into
account when calculating any amount you are due. Another method of
calculation I could suggest is the amount for which the dealer sold the
vehicle, minus the payment of $14,020.50. This, your depreciation
calculation, and the dealer's "lease" calculation, are all basically
something pulled out of a hat. A judge can tell you what is fair, or what
according to Anglo-Saxon common law and tradition is thought to be fair. (I
assume that Newfoundland has some variant of Anglo-Saxon common law.)

In Colorado we have something called "Small Claims Court", where a county
court judge hears cases like this and gives his opinion. There is a minimal
filing fee, no lawyers, and the right to appeal to district court if one
doesn't like the judgment. Parties state their case, show their evidence,
and the judge makes his finding, based on his experience of dispute
resolution and his judgment of the facts. I don't know the court rules in
Newfoundland (although I do know one or two "Newfie" jokes) and my one
reservation is that the amount claimed may exceed county court jurisdiction.
See your local county court clerk's office for details. They can't give you
legal advice, but they should have brochures, forms and all the information
you would need to file, if that is what you want to do. It wouldn't hurt to
consult a lawyer, but get one with expertise in this area.

You are entitled to some consideration for having been deceived. "On 13
January I took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS
was working perfectly.", even though the vehicle didn't have ABS! This is
shocking behavior from a dealer to a naïve customer. Their lying to you
increased the amount of inconvenience you experienced, and may increase the
amount of damages you can claim. This and other instances of stalling and
foot-dragging may invalidate the "lease payments" they say they are owed, or
your depreciation calculation. A judge may decide, that you actually tried
to return the vehicle on numerous occasions, and were tricked into not doing
so. You may be underestimating the amount of consideration you are due in
this regard.

I see nothing wrong with your use of the business' name in this context.
Publicly registered and licensed businesses receive a benefit from whatever
good reputation they have with the public. They put this at risk with every
sale and interaction, especially when they behave badly. You didn't sign
any confidentiality agreement when you bought the car, now did you?

Earle
"Peter" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Good morning everyone
>
> Thank you for your help in sorting out (well, starting to sort out -
> see below) my Jeep Cherokee ABS problem. I promised I would let you
> know how things turned out, but they haven't turned out yet, they are
> still rumbling along, so this is an interim report and a request for
> some more help.
>
> The details of the original problem can be found by searching this NG
> for "Jeep Cherokee ABS problem" in January and February this year, but
> for your convenience here is a summary of what happened.
>
> On 9 September last year I bought a 2001 Jeep Cherokee from Humber
> Motors Ford of Stephenville, Newfoundland (yes, I am getting so mad
> about this that I am naming names and pointing fingers this time). I
> paid $19,540.50 for it and they told me (among other things) that it
> had ABS fitted. In January this year I noticed while driving on snow
> covered roads that the ABS didn't seem to be working. On 13 January I
> took it back to the dealership and they assured me that the ABS was
> working perfectly. I still didn't think it was working so after a
> great deal of help from this NG and some time with my head under the
> hood I realised that there was no ABS fitted. On 3 February I took it
> back to the dealership again and this time they admitted that it didn't
> have ABS and said they would see what they could do about it. That's
> where we left it at the close of the last discussion thread. Now read
> on...
>
> After many weeks of delay and numerous exchanges of e-mails, letters
> and telephone calls we have reached an impasse. We have agreed that
> the vehicle does not have ABS fitted, that it was mis-sold to me and
> that I am entitled to return it and get a refund. What we are still
> arguing about is the amount of the refund and specifically the amount
> to be deducted for usage of the vehicle.
>
> I bought the vehicle on 9 September 2005 for $19,540.50. I returned it
> to the dealership on 17 March 2006 for an interim payment of $14,020.50
> pending agreement on the final amount. The dealership sold it on again
> a couple of weeks later so the vehicle itself is now out of the
> picture.
>
> My position on the refund is that I had it for 6 months and I should be
> entitled to a refund of the purchase price less six months'
> depreciation. If we assume depreciation of 30% per annum, the buy-back
> price should be 85% of the purchase price or $16,609.42.
>
> Humber Motors has adopted an alternative method of calculation. They
> say that they want to calculate it on the basis of a usage charge of
> $800 per month, or $4,800 over six months, plus tax. This is what I
> would have paid them if I had leased the vehicle from them. They work
> this out at $5,520, which when deducted from the purchase price leaves
> a refund of $14,020.50 (the amount of the interim payment).
>
> As you can see, there is a difference of $2,588.92 between the two
> methods of calculation. The dealership has since increased its offer
> by a further $1,619.50 but I have not accepted it because it still
> leaves me about $1,000 short of what I think I should get, and because
> as a matter of principle I don't think they should get away with this.
> They mis-sold me a vehicle, they performed a shoddy inspection in which
> they failed to identify a completely missing vehicle component, they
> dragged their feet for weeks before even beginning to negotiate about a
> refund, and now they want to rip me off $1,000 as well. This was a
> sale, not a lease, and any refund should be calculated on the same
> basis. Plus, I have been quite reasonable about the amount I am
> claiming from them. I have not, for example, claimed for a complete
> new set of winter tires which I put on the vehicle and left on it when
> I returned it to them (because they were no further use to me).
>
> So I'd be interested to hear what people here think would be a fair
> refund, or better still, does anyone know of any reported similar cases
> or precedents which would indicate how the refund should be calculated?
>
> Peter
>

In article om>,
Peter > wrote:
#My position on the refund is that I had it for 6 months and I should be
#entitled to a refund of the purchase price less six months'
#depreciation. If we assume depreciation of 30% per annum, the buy-back
#price should be 85% of the purchase price or $16,609.42.
#
#Humber Motors has adopted an alternative method of calculation. They
#say that they want to calculate it on the basis of a usage charge of
#$800 per month, or $4,800 over six months, plus tax. This is what I
#would have paid them if I had leased the vehicle from them. They work
#this out at $5,520, which when deducted from the purchase price leaves
#a refund of $14,020.50 (the amount of the interim payment).

Take a Kelly Blue Book and figure out the value for it when you bought
it and when you sold it. The difference (either the actual sum or the
percentage) is what they should subtract.

/herb