Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It technically was in the contract, per the article, he was a high-risk lease and the dealership uses the device to ensure payments are on time. It should have been included in the buy-out portion of the contract and wasn't. Non-disclosure is a big no-no in Canadian contract law and the dealer is going to get burnt by the court over it.
Dick move by the dealership, especially since the fee wasn't in the contract. That's attempted extortion and tampering with private property...lawyer up and take them to the cleaners.
I don't get it, a guy that obviously has money issues buys a $13000 car? Why not buy a $5000 car instead?
Most likely he can't sue due to the binding arbitration clause in his contract that allows for the car company to chose who they want to mediate.
Most likely he can't sue due to the binding arbitration clause in his contract that allows for the car company to chose who they want to mediate.
He should remove it himself then charge them $200 to get it back.
Most likely he can't sue due to the binding arbitration clause in his contract that allows for the car company to chose who they want to mediate.
I'm aware. I'm arguing in his favour.And Quebec law (provincial legislation here superceeds any federal law) is explicit this isn't allowed.
Its like i'm talking to a wall here, your reading comprehension skills are non existent.Irrelevant. His reasons are his own, and that decision has no bearing on the dealerships actions post buy-out of the lease.
If you had bad credit would you buy a 13k car? There are 1k cars too, even without a job he could probably afford it.He. Lost. His. Job.
If you had bad credit would you buy a 13k car? There are 1k cars too, even without a job he could probably afford it.
And you're missing my original point on why he bought a car he couldn't afford and not go for a cheaper one.
This is correct - generally done for very low credit borrowers who don't have ability to repay (at least on paper, low credit high income don't generally get this treatment). Lojack the car, provide subprime financing, and repo and resell. Dirty and the definition of unethical lending, hell unethical business practices. This guy probably fit the definition and they never expected him to fulfill his obligation - usually the dealership sneaks this type of stipulation in the loan/lease.This something a dealer adds to their cars. Typically used car sell and is something for their protections against people that default on their loan. The dealer is a shit bag for charging the customer to remove their equipment. My friend bought a used car with something like this installed years ago. Once he paid it off they took off the device at no charge.
I don't have all the facts obviously but I bet if you read the lease it may say different...I think you're missing the point of the story, here.
The dealership was at liberty to install the tracker on their LEASED vehicle.
When leasee lost his job, a family member purchased the car outright.
Dealer says they must pay an additional $200 to have their leased vehicle tracker removed.
Removal fee wasn't in the purchase contract, so they didn't pay that fee.
Dealer remotely disabled the vehicle, despite this.
Lawsuit against dealer incoming.
Dick move by the dealership, especially since the fee wasn't in the contract. That's attempted extortion and tampering with private property...lawyer up and take them to the cleaners.
I don't have all the facts obviously but I bet if you read the lease it may say different...
It technically was in the contract, per the article, he was a high-risk lease and the dealership uses the device to ensure payments are on time. It should have been included in the buy-out portion of the contract and wasn't. Non-disclosure is a big no-no in Canadian contract law and the dealer is going to get burnt by the court over it.
I don't have all the facts obviously but I bet if you read the lease it may say different...
I would have just removed the device. We are talking about a dealership who installs these so they probably just bypass the starter wire somewhere and use a cellphone type receiver to send and receive commands. Like allow car to start or don't allow car to start. Remove the device and reconnect the starter wire. I would take the GPS device and leave it at the dealership on the doorstep with a picture of a penis.
And you're missing my original point on why he bought a car he couldn't afford and not go for a cheaper one.
Its like i'm talking to a wall here, your reading comprehension skills are non existent.
If you had bad credit would you buy a 13k car? There are 1k cars too, even without a job he could probably afford it.
"I let my mom deal with it because I would have blown a head gasket."
Unless it's installed way inside the dash where it's impossible to reach, removing it yourself doesn't seem like it should be terribly difficult, unless they have really sophisticated ones now that trigger the immobilizer. Just locate the suspicious looking black box spliced into the vehicle's wiring without a connector, remove it, and then repair the wiring harness.This something a dealer adds to their cars. Typically used car sell and is something for their protections against people that default on their loan. The dealer is a shit bag for charging the customer to remove their equipment. My friend bought a used car with something like this installed years ago. Once he paid it off they took off the device at no charge.
note to self - check that any future car I buy doesn't have this *feature*
Crazy...
Only logical reason I can think of is reliability. I know some young men who can't even change a tire or check their engine oil.
dude, why don't you actually read the FULL article, not just the tidbit on the [H] home page, or just glancing over it.
AT THE TIME THAT HE BOUGHT THE CAR, HE HAD A JOB AND COULD AFFORD IT. HE THEN LOST SAID JOB (shit happens, happens all the time to lots of people). HIS GRANDMOTHER BOUGHT IT FOR HIM OUTRIGHT, SO IT WAS COMPLETELY PAID OFF, !!! INCLUDING THE $300 CHARGE FOR BEING PAST DUE !!!. THEN, AND ONLY THEN DID THE DEALERSHIP ILLEGALLY DISABLE THE CAR THAT THEY NO LONGER OWNED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PAY A $200 FEE TO HAVE THE DEVICE REMOVED, WHICH I WOULD HAVE ALSO NOT DONE BECAUSE THEY. DID. NOT. INCLUDE. THE. REMOVAL. FEE. IN. HIS. CONTRACT.
werds r hard
MOM SOLVE MY PROBLEMS FOR ME
When they defaulted on the court-mandated payment they sent a Bailiff to the guys house with my Dad and gave him the option of taking either his TV or Fridge (this was back in the 60s so not a small amount of cash to replace either). The guy paid promptly at that point!.
Dick move by the dealership, especially since the fee wasn't in the contract. That's attempted extortion and tampering with private property...lawyer up and take them to the cleaners.