If you thought the subprime mortgage crisis was bad...

[kapkomet]

I could never imagine a car salesmen not being up front and honest. I'll keep this in mind the next time I go in ot buy a car.

 

Egggsactly.

 

[Texsox]

Do you expect them to commit crimes as well? Sad that we would accept that.

[Balta1701]

Do you expect them to commit crimes as well? Sad that we would accept that.

As long as the government steps in to bail out the banks, everyone's happy!

[Texsox]

As long as the government steps in to bail out the banks, everyone's happy!

 

And as long as the victims are stupid!

[sox4lifeinPA]

Take this step by step

 

She reveals to the "salesperson" her income. A professional says "as much as I'd love to see you drive off the lot today in that Mercedes, until you are working, they will not approve the loan. How about you come back when you are working and we will celebrate with that new car? And would you mind if I check in on you from time to time to see how the job search is going?"

 

 

Unfortunately, this is an illegal procedure and the company would have been facing a fine anyway.

 

you can't tell someone they can't apply for something based upon your assessment. That's what the application process is about.

 

 

that being said...the document by all accounts was forged and the car company should be held accountable.

[Balta1701]

that being said...the document by all accounts was forged and the car company should be held accountable.

But, they won't be. They've already made their money by selling the car and by selling the loan off to some bank/hedge fund somewhere, so they're no longer the one on the hook. And because the bank that bought the paper from them bought it without bothering to do any check on the quality of the loan, the dealer is probably going to wind up getting off without a problem. The bank will be left holding the bag for the loan, they'll repo the car but still lose a lot of money in the process, and then the federal government will step in with a big bailout to make sure the bank doesn't go under. Therefore, you'll get the buyer in jail and you'll pay taxes to run the jail, and you'll pay taxes to keep the bank afloat, while the people who made the loan and who bought and sold it will be happy with your money. Don't you know how much it costs to rent a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, damnit?!

[sox4lifeinPA]

But, they won't be. They've already made their money by selling the car and by selling the loan off to some bank/hedge fund somewhere, so they're no longer the one on the hook. And because the bank that bought the paper from them bought it without bothering to do any check on the quality of the loan, the dealer is probably going to wind up getting off without a problem. The bank will be left holding the bag for the loan, they'll repo the car but still lose a lot of money in the process, and then the federal government will step in with a big bailout to make sure the bank doesn't go under. Therefore, you'll get the buyer in jail and you'll pay taxes to run the jail, and you'll pay taxes to keep the bank afloat, while the people who made the loan and who bought and sold it will be happy with your money. Don't you know how much it costs to rent a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, damnit?!

 

breathe man.

 

I'm just saying that people come in all the time totally unqualified to my bank and I take their apps anyway.

 

one guy, who was on a fixed income, wanted to put his "synthesizer" up as collateral to buy a house. I was like, sweet, when you default, I'll start the Van Halen tribute band I've always wanted!

[southsideirish71]

Take this step by step

 

She reveals to the "salesperson" her income. A professional says "as much as I'd love to see you drive off the lot today in that Mercedes, until you are working, they will not approve the loan. How about you come back when you are working and we will celebrate with that new car? And would you mind if I check in on you from time to time to see how the job search is going?"

 

Instead she's in front of someone who realizes the only way to make this sale is through fraud. Now he has to determine if she is stupid and an idiot and gullible enough to go along with his fraud. It's his lucky day! He found someone "dumb" and an "idiot"! Even better, she has $30,000 in savings he can take! It certainly is his lucky day. Later message boards will be filled with scorn for her, but very little for him.

 

(at this point no one has any sympathy for her because she is a dumb idiot for going along with the con man's scam)

 

Later, his hopes are dashed because $6000 won't qualify. No problem! She's stupid and an idiot and he'll just squeeze an 8 in there and a decimal in here, and viola, he'll still have the sale, and she'll still be a stupid idiot. Again, message boards will be filled with scorn for her for not having any personal responsibility but he'll get off lightly.

 

She can't be a victim and a sympathetic figure because she's stupid and an idiot and walked into a Mercedes dealer? Cons and frauds work because people are trusting, stupid, gullible, etc. And we lock people up in prison for committing these frauds. Even when the person signs contracts, hands over cash, checks, etc. In fact, it usually isn't until they turn over valuables that a con can be convicted. Con men prey on the stupid and the idiots. This guy was a con man in a nice suit at a Mercedes dealership.

 

She clearly knew she was going along with something that is wrong, but the con man deserves 99% of the blame in this. It comes plenty close to entrapment. If he isn't willing to defraud the loan company. she doesn't.

 

I don't know what school of signing contracts you came from but when I have a written contract in front of me, I take the time to go through it, review the terms and rates and penalties and then put the old signature on it. I dont trust the salesman, I dont trust the company I only trust what I see in black and white and that I have a copy of. When you argue any of this in front of a judge guess how much weight will be put in what is in black and white in the contract, and how you felt that day. When I have went and purchased a car, I have asked the salesman for one number. What does it take to walk out the door with this. Not what is the cost, and then taxes, and other add ons later. I want to know, entire package what is the bottom line cost when I walk out the door. Then I ask them to present the sales contract listing that specifically, and then I peruse it and then will sign if I am happy with the terms and conditions. I am sorry that she got took. Take a quick look at the paperwork before you sign something. Caveat Emptor. Now if the contract is altered after the fact, you have your copy and you can then refute it. But if you take anyones word for it, and then sign blind then you are throwing your own money out the door. Take a few minutes to review anything you sign. Its just common sense. Now all of the heat of the moment, maybe she was depressed, maybe she was sad that day. Thats all rubbish. Is every sales associate supposed to have a shrink on staff to assess mental condition. I dont remember that being part of any credit approval process. Now as many times as I can say it. THe dealership and the sales force is at fault here. But so is the person who walked out with the expensive car.

 

[Texsox]

Unfortunately, this is an illegal procedure and the company would have been facing a fine anyway.

 

you can't tell someone they can't apply for something based upon your assessment. That's what the application process is about.

 

 

that being said...the document by all accounts was forged and the car company should be held accountable.

 

OK, after she is turned down, a salesperson who is not willing to commit a crime offers to sell them a less expensive car (could have paid cash), or what I mentioned. Either way a salesperson, even unethical and immoral, but not willing to commit a crime, would not have made this sale.

 

He could have sold her a $30,000 car and just taken her cash. He could have sold her a $50,000 car and strapped her with payments and took her life savings. But this assbag went for the kill. Sorry, he's to blame way more than Miss Stupid Idiot.

[Texsox]

I don't know what school of signing contracts you came from but when I have a written contract in front of me, I take the time to go through it, review the terms and rates and penalties and then put the old signature on it. I dont trust the salesman, I dont trust the company I only trust what I see in black and white and that I have a copy of. When you argue any of this in front of a judge guess how much weight will be put in what is in black and white in the contract, and how you felt that day. When I have went and purchased a car, I have asked the salesman for one number. What does it take to walk out the door with this. Not what is the cost, and then taxes, and other add ons later. I want to know, entire package what is the bottom line cost when I walk out the door. Then I ask them to present the sales contract listing that specifically, and then I peruse it and then will sign if I am happy with the terms and conditions. I am sorry that she got took. Take a quick look at the paperwork before you sign something. Caveat Emptor. Now if the contract is altered after the fact, you have your copy and you can then refute it. But if you take anyones word for it, and then sign blind then you are throwing your own money out the door. Take a few minutes to review anything you sign. Its just common sense. Now all of the heat of the moment, maybe she was depressed, maybe she was sad that day. Thats all rubbish. Is every sales associate supposed to have a shrink on staff to assess mental condition. I dont remember that being part of any credit approval process. Now as many times as I can say it. THe dealership and the sales force is at fault here. But so is the person who walked out with the expensive car.

You are absolutely correct. But look at where that leads.

If you go through that same thought process, then you would never be able to call anyone who falls for a con, fraud, or gets swindled a victim. Certainly it is possible to be a victim of a fraud, isn't it?

 

And how would you react if later they changed the information? Remember her copy shows $6000 in income, their copy says $8,600. HOw would you protect yourself from that?

[Harry Chappas]

Without knowing the whole story if this person on disabiltiy had saved $30,000 she obviously has some sense to have saved up. Now without defending the dealer what if she had the potential to make good money. Again she somehow had $30K to kick around. If she stated to the salesman that she will get a good job and be able to make the payments he could do what he had to get her the car. If not she will go next door and eventually someone will get it for her and make the commission which is what he salesman needs as it is his livelihood

 

At the end of the day he is wrong for assuming that her wage will be something but it is her responsability to understand what she is going to have to pay. If she agreed that she wanted to pay x amount a month, the dealer is going to got her that term for that car. If she truely feels she can not pay that she should walk away. The salesperson is going to get her what she wants as she is giving them $30K no mattter what. Now if she signs and agrees to the term of $300/mo and the contract is altered and she ends up with a payment of $800/mo then she has a case.

 

There really is no comparison of this and hte old folks getting hosed or the no downpayment bad arm mortgages.

 

The large downpayment makes her a good client to the dealer and worth the risk.

[StrangeSox]

You are absolutely correct. But look at where that leads.

If you go through that same thought process, then you would never be able to call anyone who falls for a con, fraud, or gets swindled a victim. Certainly it is possible to be a victim of a fraud, isn't it?

 

And how would you react if later they changed the information? Remember her copy shows $6000 in income, their copy says $8,600. HOw would you protect yourself from that?

 

That fraud didn't change the information and knowledge they were providing her. She saw the payments, she knew what they were, and she agreed to lie about her income. That they changed it later doesn't change the fact that she should realize that she can't afford those payments in the first place.

[kapkomet]

That fraud didn't change the information and knowledge they were providing her. She saw the payments, she knew what they were, and she agreed to lie about her income. That they changed it later doesn't change the fact that she should realize that she can't afford those payments in the first place.

Oh just stop it. The VICTIM, whether she knew or not, was A VICTIM! She's in for the person of the year award to feel sorry for! How DARE she be irresponsible at all, because that evil motherf***er took advantage of her, even though she KNEW she couldn't afford it!

 

Again, for the seventh or eighth time in this thread, yes, the asshole salesman is more to blame, but she's STILL an idiot for KNOWING she couldn't make the deal happen and STILL did it.

[iamshack]

I don't know what school of signing contracts you came from but when I have a written contract in front of me, I take the time to go through it, review the terms and rates and penalties and then put the old signature on it. I dont trust the salesman, I dont trust the company I only trust what I see in black and white and that I have a copy of. When you argue any of this in front of a judge guess how much weight will be put in what is in black and white in the contract, and how you felt that day. When I have went and purchased a car, I have asked the salesman for one number. What does it take to walk out the door with this. Not what is the cost, and then taxes, and other add ons later. I want to know, entire package what is the bottom line cost when I walk out the door. Then I ask them to present the sales contract listing that specifically, and then I peruse it and then will sign if I am happy with the terms and conditions. I am sorry that she got took. Take a quick look at the paperwork before you sign something. Caveat Emptor. Now if the contract is altered after the fact, you have your copy and you can then refute it. But if you take anyones word for it, and then sign blind then you are throwing your own money out the door. Take a few minutes to review anything you sign. Its just common sense. Now all of the heat of the moment, maybe she was depressed, maybe she was sad that day. Thats all rubbish. Is every sales associate supposed to have a shrink on staff to assess mental condition. I dont remember that being part of any credit approval process. Now as many times as I can say it. THe dealership and the sales force is at fault here. But so is the person who walked out with the expensive car.

 

I agree with the precautions you take when you sign a contract, but the simple fact is, the courts have started to realize that salesmen of all types are smooth, smart, and ruthless. And the sheer mass of paper and fine print that's thrown at you any time you're making a significant purchase is enough to overwhelm all but the most patient and savvy customers.

 

These auto manufacturers and lenders can throw all the fine print and 17 page documents they want in front of you, but if a court peruses these documents and finds that their was an intent to mislead or defraud the customer, they are often times more than willing to throw the terms of the contract right out the window. What they will then look to is the intention of the parties.

 

This is a particularly tough case because the woman went along with the fraud to a degree. But there is a certain level of trust and good faith involved in these contracts, and one example of that is that one should assume that after the terms have been discussed and agreed to, one party won't alter those terms and ask the other party to sign the contract still unknowing of the changes. The salesman's clear intentions were to make a sale, but did not alert the customer to the change in terms that were necessary to make the sale a possibility. And while the courts will repeat that one should fully review all the terms of a contract they are signing, they're also fully cognizant of the fact that in the real world, we all don't have all the time in the world, we can't all hire lawyers to review every contract we sign, etc.

 

I actually think she might have a reasonable chance at having the contract voided if she really wanted to fight this, but it might be a bit of a hairy case because she participated in the fraudulent activity at first. That being said, she is an average customer who doesn't work in the financing industry. He is a salesman who works hand in hand with it every day. He may have told her "this is done all the time," or something to that effect, and if so, that could be a factor as well.

Edited February 14, 2008 by iamshack

[Texsox]

That fraud didn't change the information and knowledge they were providing her. She saw the payments, she knew what they were, and she agreed to lie about her income. That they changed it later doesn't change the fact that she should realize that she can't afford those payments in the first place.

No it doesn't change that. But again, does that mean that there are no victims of fraud? We could sit back and say anyone who falls victim to a con man should have known better, so they are at fault?

 

She couldn't afford it, and the lender would not have approved the application she signed. The lender approved the altered application. Does that count for anything?

[StrangeSox]

No it doesn't change that. But again, does that mean that there are no victims of fraud? We could sit back and say anyone who falls victim to a con man should have known better, so they are at fault?

 

She couldn't afford it, and the lender would not have approved the application she signed. The lender approved the altered application. Does that count for anything?

 

You keep missing this fact: the dealership didn't con her. They conned the lender. She agreed to those payment terms. They did not change anything on her end of the deal. The payment amount didn't change, so it didn't change any budget on her end.

Edited February 14, 2008 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

This is a particularly tough case because the woman went along with the fraud to a degree. But there is a certain level of trust and good faith involved in these contracts, and one example of that is that one should assume that after the terms have been discussed and agreed to, one party won't alter those terms and ask the other party to sign the contract still unknowing of the changes. The salesman's clear intentions were to make a sale, but did not alert the customer to the change in terms that were necessary to make the sale a possibility. And while the courts will repeat that one should fully review all the terms of a contract they are signing, they're also fully cognizant of the fact that in the real world, we all don't have all the time in the world, we can't all hire lawyers to review every contract we sign, etc.

 

 

There's a difference between a Best Buy CC application and a lease on a $100k car. If you're signing a lease like that, you better sit your ass down and read it through several times and make sure you completely understand it.

[Texsox]

You keep missing this fact: the dealership didn't con her. They conned the lender. She agreed to those payment terms. They did not change anything on her end of the deal. The payment amount didn't change, so it didn't change any budget on her end.

 

Yes, they changed her income from $6000 to $8600 to get it approved by the lender. The dealership (actually the salesperson) showed her a way she could lie and get that car. The salesperson knew he could not make a sale without a fraudulent application and convinced her to do it. Yes, she should have been smarter to listen to the salesperson. Lucky for the sales rep he found someone really stupid for his con.

[iamshack]

That fraud didn't change the information and knowledge they were providing her. She saw the payments, she knew what they were, and she agreed to lie about her income. That they changed it later doesn't change the fact that she should realize that she can't afford those payments in the first place.

 

This is the EXACT reason the credit system is in place! To prevent people from being sucked in by smooth advertising campaigns, salesmen, and their own stupidity.

 

It is NOT supposed to operate with salesmen and lenders manipulating the credit system to circumvent it.

 

I can't go in to a Porsche dealer and just say "I can afford to put 15k down and pay $1500/mo." Now here is my actual income, this is my credit rating (which doesn't come close to backing up my actual statement to him). Make it happen, no matter what you have to do.

 

 

 

[Harry Chappas]

No it doesn't change that. But again, does that mean that there are no victims of fraud? We could sit back and say anyone who falls victim to a con man should have known better, so they are at fault?

 

She couldn't afford it, and the lender would not have approved the application she signed. The lender approved the altered application. Does that count for anything?

 

She had $30K cash, good credit and agreed to a fixed monthly amount. How exactly was she misled/conned?

 

Every dealer is going to get you to tell them what you want to pay a month and get you a car that makes them the most money they can for that amount. She did not agree to pay 'x' and then got a bill for 'y'.

 

It is not the dealer's job to get you the best deal.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Jenks Heat

[southsider2k5]

As long as the government steps in to bail out the banks, everyone's happy!

 

The banks shouldn't be bailed out either. But then again, if we are going to be a nanny-state, who are we to descriminate against who we bail out? That would be so anti-PC.

[iamshack]

You keep missing this fact: the dealership didn't con her. They conned the lender. She agreed to those payment terms. They did not change anything on her end of the deal. The payment amount didn't change, so it didn't change any budget on her end.

 

They absolutely DID con her. How are you missing this?

 

The credit system is in place to not only protect sellers, but to protect buyers as well. And the credit system determined she was NOT qualified to buy the car. Yet they fudged the income figures, so that she suddenly appeared to be qualified to buy the car. But in the end, they did everyone a disservice but themselves. They conned all parties involved.

[Texsox]

She had $30K cash, good credit and agreed to a fixed monthly amount. How exactly was she misled/conned?

 

Every dealer is going to get you to tell them what you want to pay a month and get you a car that makes them the most money they can for that amount. She did not agree to pay 'x' and then got a bill for 'y'.

 

It is not the dealer's job to get you the best deal.

 

She was led to lie about her income in order to qualify. Later the dealer altered the contract she signed to inflate her income even higher. She agreed to use her expected income (same as before her disability) they bumped it up another 35%.

[Texsox]

The banks shouldn't be bailed out either. But then again, if we are going to be a nanny-state, who are we to descriminate against who we bail out? That would be so anti-PC.

 

Later this summer, when our checks arrive, is that a bailout?

[sox4lifeinPA]

They absolutely DID con her. How are you missing this?

 

The credit system is in place to not only protect sellers, but to protect buyers as well. And the credit system determined she was NOT qualified to buy the car. Yet they fudged the income figures, so that she suddenly appeared to be qualified to buy the car. But in the end, they did everyone a disservice but themselves. They conned all parties involved.

 

kind of like eBay buyers and sellers being able to give negative feedback?