I'm hoping somebody here can help settle a discussion I'm having with a colleague. Suppose you order a car from a dealership and get the 3.2L engine instead of the 3.9L. But the manufacturer has stopped making the 3.2 and the 3.9, instead making a 3.5L. Since you didn't get the car you ordered, is the contract still valid? My view is the contract is invalid, while my friend says it's valid.
Any thoughts, especially from the attorneys in the crowd? Thanks for your time.
I'm not an Attorney but if you order or bill of sale shows something different than what you received it's not valid, at least in the investment world it isn't.
It all depends on what loopholes/exceptions are included in the fine print.
"No one that's sane gives a make the beast with two backs about baseball. It's a like an addiction to boredom."
[drink]
Quote from: kopfjäger on October 13, 2012, 10:08:02 PM
"No one that's sane gives a make the beast with two backs about baseball. It's a like an addiction to boredom."
[drink]
Still true.
Quote from: Buckethead on October 13, 2012, 10:05:48 PM
It all depends on what loopholes/exceptions are included in the fine print.
Plus 1
fine print on this one about substitutions, product improvements etc
if you inked the dealer standard contract there are probably loopholes for the seller that they could fly a jumbo jet through
that being said you could probably fight your way out of it at a cost to you
Quote from: Buckethead on October 13, 2012, 10:05:48 PM
It all depends on what loopholes/exceptions are included in the fine print.
The large print giveth.
And the small print taketh away.
Quote from: kopfjäger on October 13, 2012, 10:08:02 PM
"No one that's sane gives a make the beast with two backs about baseball. It's a like an addiction to boredom."
[drink]
A needlessly random interlude there.... [laugh]
100% accurate though [thumbsup].
Quote from: kopfjäger on October 13, 2012, 10:08:02 PM
"No one that's sane gives a make the beast with two backs about baseball. It's a like an addiction to boredom."
[drink]
Quote from: sugarcrook on October 13, 2012, 10:17:03 PM
Still true.
Take it to pm children.
what does your order form show for available engine options? I hope you kept a screen print as you went through the options.
It's a hypothetical. What happens to the contract if the manufacturer changes something substantial without the seller or buyer knowing?
haha... could you imagine the holes in a contract for a monster..
There is no way to render a coherent opinion without seeing the contract of sale. If the contract has some allowance for substitution, then that may apply. If your state has laws which prohibit substitution, then those parts are invalid.
and so on. until the contract is read fully and the relevant state law reviewed, it's all a big if.
I do recall a problem with GM back in the late 70s or early 80s when they started using GM engines from different brands is some models. Some folks opened the hood of their Olds Cutlass to find nestled in the engine bay a Chevy V8 instead of the Olds Rocket V8 they expected. This triggered a class action suit. The owners received a small cash settlement to ease their pain.
Anyway, not being a lawyer I have no legal opinion. I do think it would be a mistake for a dealer not to make things right if there is a major difference like a different engine.
Quote from: sugarcrook on October 13, 2012, 09:20:57 PM
I'm hoping somebody here can help settle a discussion I'm having with a colleague. Suppose you order a car from a dealership and get the 3.2L engine instead of the 3.9L. But the manufacturer has stopped making the 3.2 and the 3.9, instead making a 3.5L. Since you didn't get the car you ordered, is the contract still valid? My view is the contract is invalid, while my friend says it's valid.
Any thoughts, especially from the attorneys in the crowd? Thanks for your time.
Did you get the 3.2 they don't make anymore, or did you get the 3.5?
You might want to jump up and down and get a discount instead.
is not getting the 3.9 really a deal breaker?
Should not be valid. This is stuff I field every day. At the very least, contact your state's auto dealers association. Or tell me what state you're in and I can likely connect you with the right person. Good luck!
Quote from: sugarcrook on October 14, 2012, 10:43:18 AM
It's a hypothetical. What happens to the contract if the manufacturer changes something substantial without the seller or buyer knowing?
Whoops. Just now saw this. My previous post. Reading it is optional. ;)
So it turns out the loophole for the manufacturer is something called request of discharge for supervening impracticability, keeping the contract valid. Kinda weird, but here's the relevant part of the UCC:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-615.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-615.html)
Quote from: sugarcrook on October 17, 2012, 09:43:05 AM
So it turns out the loophole for the manufacturer is something called request of discharge for supervening impracticability, keeping the contract valid. Kinda weird, but here's the relevant part of the UCC:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-615.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-615.html)
I would not read that UCC cite as keeping the contract valid, I read it as not holding the seller of the vehicle liable for breach.
Impracticability usually allows the affected party (in this case, the buyer) to void, but not hold the seller liable for breach. It's as if the contract never existed.
No breach isn't the same thing as the contract remaining valid. Unless there is something else in the fact pattern, if the sales contract specifies the engine type, the buyer will be permitted to void the contract, and no one can be held for damages.
And this is why I never would've made a good lawyer.