Did he get over on?
Platinum Member
Joined: 05-09-2006
Posts: 6,805
From: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
Oh, I will give you, that the sticker is affixed to window pursuant to a Federal Law. But, you do know the Federal Government makes no mistakes. So, I will say the quote you provided is ambiguous, to say the least. The window sticker itself, under the Total Vehicle Price states....."This label has been applied pursuant to Federal Law-Do not remove prior to delivery (emphasis added)to the ultimate purchaser. *Includes Manufacturer's Recommended Pre-Delivery Service. Does not include dealer installed.....".
It appears GM may print these. But IF a Federal law is mandating these stickers, a submitted sample would need to be provided to the federal regulating agency, for approval.
It appears GM may print these. But IF a Federal law is mandating these stickers, a submitted sample would need to be provided to the federal regulating agency, for approval.
Platinum Member
Joined: 05-09-2006
Posts: 6,805
From: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
If he financed out a little over $17k with taxes included, that'd only be about $15k to $16k for the car itself. He may have indeed wound up with a car intended for the fleet market without the remote starter, too.
Honestly, though, if your stepdad really wanted the remote starter, he should have made sure it had it before he signed the papers. Also, anyone who doesn't at least look over the window sticker shouldn't even be ALLOWED to get financing on a car. That's just asking to get taken for a ride.
Honestly, though, if your stepdad really wanted the remote starter, he should have made sure it had it before he signed the papers. Also, anyone who doesn't at least look over the window sticker shouldn't even be ALLOWED to get financing on a car. That's just asking to get taken for a ride.
you and I have "bumped" heads over some issues
. In this case, I agree with you
Banned
Joined: 10-24-2006
Posts: 1,761
From: The Show-Me State
Well, on the Monroney sticker issue, I *highly* doubt that'd be enough to void out the contract. The window sticker on a car is an invitation to make an offer, the buyer's order is actually the final contract between the customer and the dealer. The finance contract is the contract between the bank and the customer. Neither of those contracts would probably be held unenforceable in federal court, unless there was just some sort of extreme fraudulent intent on the side of the dealership or the lender.
I used to sell cars. We'd remove window stickers when the car was being prepped for delivery and set them on the dashboard so the windows would be clean. Almost every customer I had would ask me if we were going to remove the window stickers and the resulting gunk off the windows for them too. It's a common practice.
I used to sell cars. We'd remove window stickers when the car was being prepped for delivery and set them on the dashboard so the windows would be clean. Almost every customer I had would ask me if we were going to remove the window stickers and the resulting gunk off the windows for them too. It's a common practice.
Member
Joined: 02-13-2007
Posts: 84
From: Ticonderoga, NY
Oh, I will give you, that the sticker is affixed to window pursuant to a Federal Law. But, you do know the Federal Government makes no mistakes. So, I will say the quote you provided is ambiguous, to say the least. The window sticker itself, under the Total Vehicle Price states....."This label has been applied pursuant to Federal Law-Do not remove prior to delivery (emphasis added)to the ultimate purchaser. *Includes Manufacturer's Recommended Pre-Delivery Service. Does not include dealer installed.....".
It appears GM may print these. But IF a Federal law is mandating these stickers, a submitted sample would need to be provided to the federal regulating agency, for approval.
It appears GM may print these. But IF a Federal law is mandating these stickers, a submitted sample would need to be provided to the federal regulating agency, for approval.
"The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1231-1233"
"The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered prior to sale to a consumer. Criminal prosecution is possible under 15 U.S.C. § 1233, for the willful removal of a label and is punishable as a Class A misdemeanor permitting a fine ($100,000 per violation for an individual and $200,000 per violation for an organization under 18 U.S.C. § 3571) as well as imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."
Plus your own post above:
"This label has been applied pursuant to Federal Law-Do not remove prior to delivery (emphasis added)to the ultimate purchaser."
I'm not trying to be argumentative...the facts are the facts and the law is the law.
Senior Member
Joined: 10-19-2005
Posts: 20,687
From: Miami
"The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1231-1233"
"The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered prior to sale to a consumer. Criminal prosecution is possible under 15 U.S.C. § 1233, for the willful removal of a label and is punishable as a Class A misdemeanor permitting a fine ($100,000 per violation for an individual and $200,000 per violation for an organization under 18 U.S.C. § 3571) as well as imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
"I'm not trying to be argumentative...the facts are the facts and the law is the law.
"The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered prior to sale to a consumer. Criminal prosecution is possible under 15 U.S.C. § 1233, for the willful removal of a label and is punishable as a Class A misdemeanor permitting a fine ($100,000 per violation for an individual and $200,000 per violation for an organization under 18 U.S.C. § 3571) as well as imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
"I'm not trying to be argumentative...the facts are the facts and the law is the law.
If the car is being prepped for delivery, that means the sale has been made, and therefore the above mentioned law does not apply any longer.
Member
Joined: 02-13-2007
Posts: 84
From: Ticonderoga, NY
"Affixed to the car window, this label is required by federal law, and may be removed only by the purchaser."
Platinum Member
Joined: 05-09-2006
Posts: 6,805
From: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
You folks sure like to interpret thinks in interesting ways. The SALE is not complete until the customer has TAKEN DELIVERY of the vehicle. The act also states:
"Affixed to the car window, this label is required by federal law, and may be removed only by the purchaser."
"Affixed to the car window, this label is required by federal law, and may be removed only by the purchaser."
So, by the law, the removal of the MSRP does not void the sale. That's item 1.
Item 2....I intentionaly had you research the TRUE Federal Law. You see, I also researched prior to the beginning of the discussion, found the same information as you displayed and noticed a completely DIFFERENT wording than you originally provided as "the full information" (your words, not mine). I then looked at the MSRP sticker and noticed another wording.....that's why I explained the GM "loop hole".
So, now we have 3 different explanations for the law.....and the last you posted is correct. But, you're trying to "split hairs" to justify your position and I don't believe your applying common sense to your logic. Do you believe the Fed.'s would allow ALMOST every dealer in the country to violate this....especially if they could garner $100,000 every time. Let's see that's probably at least $10 million a day (i.e.,100 cars sold nation wide)going to the Federal government. And then think about how many years this has been done.
Item 3... I don't think the US Commercial Code supports your statements regarding possession. Although, it may be interesting to argue that point...even if you would lose.
Item 4....you still haven't stated how the dealer committed "a possible fraud".
Member
Joined: 02-13-2007
Posts: 84
From: Ticonderoga, NY
So, hhr majesty....
So, by the law, the removal of the MSRP does not void the sale. That's item 1.
Item 2....I intentionaly had you research the TRUE Federal Law. You see, I also researched prior to the beginning of the discussion, found the same information as you displayed and noticed a completely DIFFERENT wording than you originally provided as "the full information" (your words, not mine). I then looked at the MSRP sticker and noticed another wording.....that's why I explained the GM "loop hole".
So, now we have 3 different explanations for the law.....and the last you posted is correct. But, you're trying to "split hairs" to justify your position and I don't believe your applying common sense to your logic. Do you believe the Fed.'s would allow ALMOST every dealer in the country to violate this....especially if they could garner $100,000 every time. Let's see that's probably at least $10 million a day (i.e.,100 cars sold nation wide)going to the Federal government. And then think about how many years this has been done.
Item 3... I don't think the US Commercial Code supports your statements regarding possession. Although, it may be interesting to argue that point...even if you would lose.
Item 4....you still haven't stated how the dealer committed "a possible fraud".
So, by the law, the removal of the MSRP does not void the sale. That's item 1.
Item 2....I intentionaly had you research the TRUE Federal Law. You see, I also researched prior to the beginning of the discussion, found the same information as you displayed and noticed a completely DIFFERENT wording than you originally provided as "the full information" (your words, not mine). I then looked at the MSRP sticker and noticed another wording.....that's why I explained the GM "loop hole".
So, now we have 3 different explanations for the law.....and the last you posted is correct. But, you're trying to "split hairs" to justify your position and I don't believe your applying common sense to your logic. Do you believe the Fed.'s would allow ALMOST every dealer in the country to violate this....especially if they could garner $100,000 every time. Let's see that's probably at least $10 million a day (i.e.,100 cars sold nation wide)going to the Federal government. And then think about how many years this has been done.
Item 3... I don't think the US Commercial Code supports your statements regarding possession. Although, it may be interesting to argue that point...even if you would lose.
Item 4....you still haven't stated how the dealer committed "a possible fraud".
2. The information I provided as full information was gleaned from the FTC's website. It has slightly different wording than the actual AIDA but the bottom line meaning is the same. If you would have read further, the fact that a dealer removes the sticker would not mean they would automatically get slapped with a fine. They would generally receive warnings before these measures would be taken. There would also have to be a complaint of some kind. The FTC certainly isn't staking out dealerships for missing Monroney stickers. Most dealers do remove them and give them to the customer with their other paperwork. I personnally don't have a problem with that, but it is the dealer who takes the risk...and not much of one, granted.
3. Do you really believe a "SALE" has been completed BEFORE goods have been delivered? Sellers compensation for the goods and the receiving of the goods by the buyer...according to the terms and conditions of a valid contract are required for the completion of any sale. If I pay for a vehicle at a dealership and the dealer doesn't deliver the vehicle do you consider that a sale?
4. See number 1. The only reason I brought up the Monroney law in the first place was because the way in which this individuals transaction took place. If the dealer removed the sticker in order to hide relevant information from the buyer, that is fraudulent behavior in my book. The dealer should not be rewarded with fraudulent behavior and if this guy needs ammuntion to fight back with, I think he needs every it of it he can get.
All of the above is my own personal opinion and I don't expect anyone else to agree with it. I respect your beliefs in this matter and I will gladly agree to disagree. I am going to bow out of any further discussion as I think we have beat this to death and I don't want to come across as a know it all. I certainly do not know all there is to know, but I do know when I smell a rat and in my opinion this deal has that distinctive odor.
