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

[Cknolls]

I think she should sue AUTONATION for selling the car and BMW for making the car. Maybe John Edwards can represent her. He is pretty good at making up arguments to win cases for clients and he has some time on his hands.

[Balta1701]

I think she should sue AUTONATION for selling the car and BMW for making the car. Maybe John Edwards can represent her. He is pretty good at making up arguments to win cases for clients and he has some time on his hands.

"My 6 year old had her intestines sucked out by your faulty pool filter! And this was the 12th time it happened with your same design to a person, and yet you haven't fixed it!"

 

"Ha! What ever happened to personal responsibility? This is just another case of a lawyer making up arguments to win cases for his clients. You don't really need your intestines anyway".

[Texsox]

Obviously I believe the salesperson and anyone else at the dealership with knowledge of the fraud should be prosecuted. I'd have to know more about this woman before deciding her fate. We have a sliding scale of responsibility for kids, people with low IQ, the elderly, those that are mentally ill, etc. I can't imagine a world where we allow people to prey on those groups.

 

She was allowed to return the vehicle, the terms were not disclosed, but I doubt she got much of her $30,000 back. I would factor that in as well.

 

I'd also like to see an audit of that dealerships records and loan applications. I'd be even less willing to go after Vivian Snyder if I saw a pattern of this salesperson having applications like this. It seems wrong to me that we would allow someone to go around enticing people into committing illegal acts.

[kapkomet]

"My 6 year old had her intestines sucked out by your faulty pool filter! And this was the 12th time it happened with your same design to a person, and yet you haven't fixed it!"

 

"Ha! What ever happened to personal responsibility? This is just another case of a lawyer making up arguments to win cases for his clients. You don't really need your intestines anyway".

Oh, yes, everyone's a victim for something.

[mr_genius]

"My 6 year old had her intestines sucked out by your faulty pool filter! And this was the 12th time it happened with your same design to a person, and yet you haven't fixed it!"

 

"Ha! What ever happened to personal responsibility? This is just another case of a lawyer making up arguments to win cases for his clients. You don't really need your intestines anyway".

 

Not even in the same ballpark as dumbasses buying stuff they can't afford and expecting taxpayers to bail them out.

 

if someone buys a $100,000 car and they only make $20,000 a year, they deserve a bad credit rating. And if a bank finances it they deserve to take the hit. Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing either party out.

 

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

Not even in the same ballpark as dumbasses buying stuff they can't afford and expecting taxpayers to bail them out.

 

if someone buys a $100,000 car and they only make $20,000 a year, they deserve a bad credit rating. And if a bank finances it they deserve to take the hit. Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing either party out.

 

What situation are you commenting on?

[iamshack]

Honestly, this tort reform issue and the medical malpractice issues do not even need to be entered into this equation. The level of complexity regarding those issues far exceeds what this thread is about.

 

I'd be happy to discuss those issues in a separate thread, but this is an entirely separate issue...

Edited February 14, 2008 by iamshack

[mr_genius]

What situation are you commenting on?

 

I'm not really sure what you are asking. I thought the post was self-explanitory (not being a smartass, I don't understand what you are getting at).

[Texsox]

I hope there are two different things here. It would seem that many people here advocate for an open season on the stupid. Confused Senior citizens? Rip em good. Stupid people? Sell them twice and double the price. Because if anyone buys something they can't afford, it's their fault. No sympathy for stupid idiots

 

I really hope that isn't true. Certainly we can expect companies to not use fraud to make bigger sales against the stupid. The fact they could have sold her a $50,000 car legitimately and legally, but chose instead to sell her a $100,000 vehicle using fraud is reprehensible.

 

I view the truly stupid, the idiots, as needing protection.

[StrangeSox]

But you should know what you can afford in a payment. Your credit score shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that the 100k car is out of your reach. The dealer is at fault. But how do you not know that the car payments require payment. Just easy math, take the amount of the loan and divide by the months in the term of the loan. Now thats without interest rate and all but you can get a baseline if it fits.

 

With the plethora of payment calculators online, there's no reason not to know.

[iamshack]

I hope there are two different things here. It would seem that many people here advocate for an open season on the stupid. Confused Senior citizens? Rip em good. Stupid people? Sell them twice and double the price. Because if anyone buys something they can't afford, it's their fault. No sympathy for stupid idiots

 

I really hope that isn't true. Certainly we can expect companies to not use fraud to make bigger sales against the stupid. The fact they could have sold her a $50,000 car legitimately and legally, but chose instead to sell her a $100,000 vehicle using fraud is reprehensible.

 

I view the truly stupid, the idiots, as needing protection.

 

Well the sellers certainly get protection, so why should the buyers not?

 

And secondly, the larger issue to me is that the sellers are proceeding illegally to make sales. That that is somehow considered "equal" here to a woman getting in over her head with an impulsive decision is fairly shocking to me...

[StrangeSox]

Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted?

 

*Raises hand*

[StrangeSox]

Well the sellers certainly get protection, so why should the buyers not?

 

And secondly, the larger issue to me is that the sellers are proceeding illegally to make sales. That that is somehow considered "equal" here to a woman getting in over her head with an impulsive decision is fairly shocking to me...

 

Here's why: she was also a willing participant in the fraud. She signed her name to a document that falsified her income. She was also proceeding illegally to get the car.

[Texsox]

With the plethora of payment calculators online, there's no reason not to know.

 

She went into the store just looking. She knew she couldn't afford it. The salesperson showed her a way she could get a loan. He pointed out how she would be working soon and making all sorts of money. He sold her on her future then showed her how to lie on the application. When that wasn't enough, he went back and changed the contract she signed.

 

Perhaps if she was told she would need $8,600 to qualify she would have stopped it there.

 

Much of what he did was within the law, but when he told her how to commit fraud, she should have told him no. But by then, she was caught up in the excitement, she was about to be a Mercedes owner. She got owned. They took advantage of her.

 

I really wish we would have had 100 posts blaming the scum bag who called himself a salesperson.

[StrangeSox]

She went into the store just looking. She knew she couldn't afford it. The salesperson showed her a way she could get a loan. He pointed out how she would be working soon and making all sorts of money. He sold her on her future then showed her how to lie on the application. When that wasn't enough, he went back and changed the contract she signed.

 

Perhaps if she was told she would need $8,600 to qualify she would have stopped it there.

 

Much of what he did was within the law, but when he told her how to commit fraud, she should have told him no. But by then, she was caught up in the excitement, she was about to be a Mercedes owner. She got owned. They took advantage of her.

 

I really wish we would have had 100 posts blaming the scum bag who called himself a salesperson.

 

But she didn't. That's the point and why she shares the blame. She is responsible for her own actions.

 

It was a BMW, BTW.

[iamshack]

Here's why: she was also a willing participant in the fraud. She signed her name to a document that falsified her income. She was also proceeding illegally to get the car.

 

Well, it certainly wasn't a deal that was "on the up and up" by both parties, but her part in this, is to me, a lot smaller than the dealership's.

 

She said she honestly believed she thought she would be returning to her previous income level of $6k/mo very shortly. I'm sure quite a few people fudge a bit about their income when buying a car, but that notwithstanding, this was her mistake and her fault. But it is still his role to say "Ma'am, I understand that, and I have full faith that you will be returning to that income level shortly, but until then, I simply cannot obtain the necessary financing for this vehicle with the current state of your financial situation. Perhaps we could interest you in some more affordable models, or you could come back and get financing for this vehicle once you return to your previous income level." And that fact that he didn't is a far larger transgression in my opinion than what she did.

[EvilMonkey]

But by then, she was caught up in the excitement, she was about to be a Mercedes owner. She got owned. They took advantage of her.

Didn't she have to come back with her $30,000 down payment? I don't think she had a pimproll with her hiding in the bottom of her purse. Whatever time that took should have been enough for her to reflect on the decision and change her mind. I am not going to say she is equally as guilty, not sure where some people got that idea, but she is wrong here as well.

[Balta1701]

Well, it certainly wasn't a deal that was "on the up and up" by both parties, but her part in this, is to me, a lot smaller than the dealership's.

 

She said she honestly believed she thought she would be returning to her previous income level of $6k/mo very shortly. I'm sure quite a few people fudge a bit about their income when buying a car, but that notwithstanding, this was her mistake and her fault. But it is still his role to say "Ma'am, I understand that, and I have full faith that you will be returning to that income level shortly, but until then, I simply cannot obtain the necessary financing for this vehicle with the current state of your financial situation. Perhaps we could interest you in some more affordable models, or you could come back and get financing for this vehicle once you return to your previous income level." And that fact that he didn't is a far larger transgression in my opinion than what she did.

Actually, I don't believe that's the dealer's role at all. He's made his money here, the dealer's job is to sell a car on a contract that is either cash or that his finance person will approve. It's the job of whomever the finance person is to determine whether or not the person is actually qualified for the contract that the dealer wrote. Or at least, that's what his job was supposed to be...but the problem I keep pointing to is that in the last few years his job changed from making sure people could pay the loan to writing as many loans as possible so that he could sell those loans off to some other bank or hedge fund.

 

Pay attention to where the incentive is in each of these cases. The remarkable thing here is that each person is acting rationally in how the new system was built. If she can find some financing way to maneuver herself into a car she rightly shouldn't be able to afford, then that's a logical thing for her to do. If she wanted a car she couldn't afford, then it's in the car dealer's interest to try to sell her one. If it's in the loan officer's interest to write as many loans as possible, then he doesn't care about the quality of them. When you build a system where each person acting in their interest produces a disasterous result, then you might consider that the problem is with the system, not the people involved.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Balta1701

[DrunkBomber]

This is also only her side of the story and she is the one who went to the media for sympathy. For all we know she might have told the salesman she made 6k a month just to get the financing done. She also might have told the dealer, "I dont care what you put on the loan app, I want this car." There is even the chance that she is the one who doctored the application being shown. If she walked out of the dealer approved at 6k what would be the purpose of changing it later? Its not like the lender changed their mind an hour later so they had to change it and reapply, thats not how that works. Just like going to the press that could have been another measure to get rid of the car.

 

As a lot of people keep saying, she knew EXACTLY what the monthly payment was and she agreed to it. She wanted the car, they leased it to her and she knew how much it would cost each month and that never changed. She signed the contract saying she would pay X per month so its her responsibility to read it and sign it. There is no law of ethics at a car lot and if you think there is when you go there then stuff like this will happen.

 

Since nobody knows what was said between her and the salesman its hard to prove fraud because she might have said she made that much money, she signed a contract saying she did at least. Until they can find out who changed the 6k to 8600 you cant point a finger for it. Like I said, there would be no reason for the dealership to change it because they WOULDNT let her take the car off the lot if she wasnt qualified from the lender, and the lender wouldnt change their mind after she already drove the car off the lot, and all of a sudden decide that she needed to make more.

 

As fun as it is to call this lady a victim and criticize for calling her an idiot at the end of the day thats simply the case. She made an extremely dumb decision and her and the financier are gonna have to pay for it.

[Texsox]

So can anyone be a victim of a con man? It seems we can always say, they should have known. No matter how smooth the con, they handed over the money, they should have known. They clicked on that link, they should have known. They singed the contract, they should have known.

 

Someone describe a person to me that you all would say, should not have known, and was an actual victim?

[southsideirish71]

So can anyone be a victim of a con man? It seems we can always say, they should have known. No matter how smooth the con, they handed over the money, they should have known. They clicked on that link, they should have known. They singed the contract, they should have known.

 

Someone describe a person to me that you all would say, should not have known, and was an actual victim?

 

If the price of the car itself was skewed or lied about that would make her the innocent victim of a con man. But at the end of the day, she knew the price of the car and therefore the price of her debt for the car.

[Texsox]

If the price of the car itself was skewed or lied about that would make her the innocent victim of a con man. But at the end of the day, she knew the price of the car and therefore the price of her debt for the car.

 

 

We would say she signed the contract, her fault. Ultimately the dealership lied about her income. Her lie wasn't good enough. But since she agreed to the first lie, she was open to whatever the dealership needed to do after that.

[southsider2k5]

She went into the store just looking. She knew she couldn't afford it. The salesperson showed her a way she could get a loan. He pointed out how she would be working soon and making all sorts of money. He sold her on her future then showed her how to lie on the application. When that wasn't enough, he went back and changed the contract she signed.

 

Perhaps if she was told she would need $8,600 to qualify she would have stopped it there.

 

Much of what he did was within the law, but when he told her how to commit fraud, she should have told him no. But by then, she was caught up in the excitement, she was about to be a Mercedes owner. She got owned. They took advantage of her.

 

I really wish we would have had 100 posts blaming the scum bag who called himself a salesperson.

 

Has anyone person said that the salesperson didn't do something wrong? Why is it so hard to accept, that when you do a crime, you need to deal with the consequenses? If she doesn't agree to commit fraud, none of this ever happens. Stop and think about that for a second. No matter what the salesman, financier, or anyone else did wrong, if the woman in question doesn't agree to falsify information, NONE of this happens.

[DrunkBomber]

We would say she signed the contract, her fault. Ultimately the dealership lied about her income. Her lie wasn't good enough. But since she agreed to the first lie, she was open to whatever the dealership needed to do after that.

There is no proof the dealership lied about her income. She claims she told them how much she made and that they agreed to change it together but how do we know thats true. She is desperate to give the car back so she will say anything that helps her case. She signed a contract saying she made that much so how do we know she told the salesman she didnt? The only way to prove it is if the salesman admitted it. Like I said before, nobody knows who changed the income on the second contract so how is the dealer all of a sudden committing fraud when for all we know she changed it. There would be no reason for the dealer to need to change the income if she was already approved at 6k.

 

If youre so concerned about her why dont you contact the news outlet she used and make a donation to her?

[Texsox]

Has anyone person said that the salesperson didn't do something wrong? Why is it so hard to accept, that when you do a crime, you need to deal with the consequenses? If she doesn't agree to commit fraud, none of this ever happens. Stop and think about that for a second. No matter what the salesman, financier, or anyone else did wrong, if the woman in question doesn't agree to falsify information, NONE of this happens.

Which is why I pointed out there can be no victims of fraud. They all should have known, they all should not have done something. If someone doesn't hand over their social security number, the crime doesn't happen. If they don't send their bank info, none of this happens. Greed and stupidity describes everyone who is involved in a con.