Since we're all here to support each other, I will offer these words of support
to Melissa and anyone on this list who is thinking of buying an old car long
distance, and then let it drop:
I have bought 5 of my last 6 cars without actually seeing or driving any of
them, and I've only been burned once, and then not too badly. So it can be
done.
Sometimes it simply isn't practical to fly all over the country (or beyond)
looking at vehicles. In Melissa's case, if she had arranged a trip to look at
the car the surprise would have been blown. In the case of the last 2 cars I
sold on ebay, one of the buyers was from Sweden, the other was from Norway. It
would have been extremely impractical and expensive for either of them to fly
to the United States just to look at my cars. They had to rely on my
photographs and my representations of the car. (And neither of them was shy
about asking for specific, detailed photographs of certain areas of my cars.)
Fortunately for them, they were dealing with an honest seller-- me. In
Melissa's case, she was not.
It has been said that all one has to do to obtain an old Imperial is wait, and
eventually a good one will come on the market near you.
Hardly. I waited 10 years for a '68 Imperial convertible to come on the market
within a reasonable driving distance of my home and guess what? I'm still
waiting. I finally found one on the internet in Arizona, bought it sight
unseen from an honest seller, and am very happy with it.
It has also been suggested that seeking a low price for a vehicle somehow
entitles a seller to screw you. This is the old "blame the victim" defense. I
can almost hear the crooked salesman laughing "Well, if you hadn't tried to
lowball me I wouldn't have had to lie to you." Horsehockey.
Don't we all try to get the lowest price possible? Doesn't the dealer try to
get the highest? Isn't that the game? I don't think going after a low price
makes it okay for a dealer to lie to you. If a car is represented to a
customer as being a first rate vehicle at a bargain price, where does the fault
lie? With the customer? Or with the dealer who made the false representation?
Give me a break.
I wouldn't say Melissa's first e-mail "trashed" the dealer in question. All
she did was make his dishonesty public. This isn't "trashing" anybody-- unless
it's untrue. If what she claimed to have happened actually happened, why
conceal it? To protect the dealer? Why? On the contrary, I think she has an
obligation to warn the rest of us so we don't get the treatment she got. For
that, I thank her. Over the years I have considered buying a car from these
folks. Now I won't.
It has also been implied that she should have "known" something was wrong with
the car because it had been sitting on the lot for a long time and any car that
sits for a long time has to have serious flaws with it.
First of all, that isn't true. The car may have been sitting there because the
price was too high. And second, how are we as customers supposed to know how
long a car has been sitting on someone's lot? Again, we have to rely on the
seller's representations. It's up to the dealer to disclose flaws. In fact,
in some states, it is the LAW that all known defects must be disclosed, and
there is even a contingency written into the law to allow for problems that are
not discovered until after the purchase (in Maryland, for example).
The burden is on the seller, not the buyer. If the burden was on the buyer
we'd all be up the creek, because the seller has the advantage in most
situations. They KNOW the history of the car (in most cases), whereas the
buyer does not. This advantage has been negated somewhat by things like
Carfax, but the burden of disclosure still lies with the seller.
But I think what really bothers me the most is the notion that Melissa and the
dealer both share equal responsibility for what happened to her. That, to me,
is like saying a robber and his victim are both equally guilty because the
person who was robbed "let" the robber do it. And then, after you're robbed,
you're just supposed to go on about your life and try to learn from your
mistakes.
No, first you put the robber in jail. THEN you go on about your life and learn
from your mistakes. In my opinion, a crooked salesman is a robber, nothing
more, nothing less, and there should be a penalty for his behavior. Yes,
buyers must always try to protect themselves, but that in NO WAY excuses the
actions of a crooked seller.
Mark M
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network