Dealership Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner And Dealer At War

[JT]

From another forum

Just a quick update for everyone...

1. I never demanded a new car. I merely stated that I should not HAVE to be forced to buy a new [read "different"] car when mine was totaled through no fault of my own. If I had been driving the car, I would accept the loss.

2. The difference in price between a good, used 2012 ZL1 and a new 2013 ZL1 is only about $5-6K considering rebates, etc.

3. Yes, the OP really was to just let everyone know what happened to #1635 that appeared on the ZL1 registry many months ago.

4. We actually made 3 payments on the car while the car was in the dealer's possession while they tried to figure out what to do about the paint issues [read "left the car there for weeks on end without actually doing anything."] I believe the last time I drove the car was the weekend of October 25, 2013.

5. GM and Berger Chevrolet (Grand Rapids, Michigan) have stepped in and are paving [not paying] the way for a new 2013 ZL1 to be sent to First State Chevrolet for me to purchase.

6. We have apologized to many of the employees at First State for the actions taken by many of the people who have been infuriated by this whole story and have called First State to voice their opinions. Anyone who thinks the dealership has not been affected by all of this must have his head in the sand.

7. We want to thank everyone for their support. We never expected this to take on a whole life of its own. A special thanks goes out to the suppliers who have so graciously stepped up to provide parts at their own expense to help ease the heartache we have experienced in this ordeal.

8. I am not the biggest tech guy out there, and I have never made it a practice to post on forums, don't have a Facebook page, etc. But I do plan to stick around on this forum, and I hope to meet many of you in person at various events.

9. When the situation is resolved, I will post photos of the new car. I understand that it will be about two weeks before the insurance check is cut, the old car is paid off, the new car arrives, and a new purchase contract will be signed by my wife and I for the PURCHASE of our new ZL1.

Thanks,
JRH (jhoop302)

[Radikl]

Looks like a great result!!!

[seldo]

As is usually the case, everyone jumps on the big, bad dealer, just because he is a dealer, and therefore he must be in the wrong and should pay...
You will find that when the car was booked in to the dealership the owner would have signed a waiver of any responsibility by the dealership, and any loss or damage onus is on the owner.
The fact that a staffer stole the car is really of no consequence - the car may just as well have been stolen by Fred Nurk, as it makes no difference except to cloud the issue, as the car was simply stolen.
Now, had the car been stolen from the local supermarket car-park, or the fore-court of the local servo, would it make any difference?
Of course not. Stolen is stolen and the fact the thief had a key to the premises just made it a bit easier for him.
The dealer still has no obligation to make good, but has made a (clumsy) effort to make good but has handled it poorly .
The owner taking it to the media has certainly helped his cause and he'll end up with a brand-newie, but the dealer will be out of pocket and also out of reputation, despite having no fault and no obligation.

[VYBerlinaV8]

The dealer can sue the thief for damages, although like most thieves there's probably no money to collect...

[Micks]

As is usually the case, everyone jumps on the big, bad dealer, just because he is a dealer, and therefore he must be in the wrong and should pay...
You will find that when the car was booked in to the dealership the owner would have signed a waiver of any responsibility by the dealership, and any loss or damage onus is on the owner.
The fact that a staffer stole the car is really of no consequence - the car may just as well have been stolen by Fred Nurk, as it makes no difference except to cloud the issue, as the car was simply stolen.
Now, had the car been stolen from the local supermarket car-park, or the fore-court of the local servo, would it make any difference?
Of course not. Stolen is stolen and the fact the thief had a key to the premises just made it a bit easier for him.
The dealer still has no obligation to make good, but has made a (clumsy) effort to make good but has handled it poorly .
The owner taking it to the media has certainly helped his cause and he'll end up with a brand-newie, but the dealer will be out of pocket and also out of reputation, despite having no fault and no obligation.

Exactly man that's where the avg Joe excepts what's put in front of him & signs off on it!! I'm a little different I actually read the Doc. & have been known to cross out & remove certain terms from their agreement!! A few times both of us have agreed to walk away! But that certainly sorts out the good from bad quickly & I certainly won't give in!!! Had many others who have agreed & had good outcomes!! Remember the Consumer is in the Box seat & does not always have to except the terms if they're paying.

[Ausmartin1]

At least they are sticking it up First state Chevrolet with a fake web page, they deserve every thing they get bad coming their way.

LOL!

https://www.facebook.com/Wewreckedazl1

[Radikl]

As is usually the case, everyone jumps on the big, bad dealer, just because he is a dealer, and therefore he must be in the wrong and should pay...
You will find that when the car was booked in to the dealership the owner would have signed a waiver of any responsibility by the dealership, and any loss or damage onus is on the owner.
The fact that a staffer stole the car is really of no consequence - the car may just as well have been stolen by Fred Nurk, as it makes no difference except to cloud the issue, as the car was simply stolen.
Now, had the car been stolen from the local supermarket car-park, or the fore-court of the local servo, would it make any difference?
Of course not. Stolen is stolen and the fact the thief had a key to the premises just made it a bit easier for him.
The dealer still has no obligation to make good, but has made a (clumsy) effort to make good but has handled it poorly .
The owner taking it to the media has certainly helped his cause and he'll end up with a brand-newie, but the dealer will be out of pocket and also out of reputation, despite having no fault and no obligation.

Dont want to turn this into a pi##ing contest.

BUT reading some of the posts on here and if it was theft and its not the dealers fault then that is what the insurance is for, is it not?

Claim it via insurance, let the insurers fight it out and we move on.

This is of course,what i read is what transpired hey

[Ausmartin1]

Dont want to turn this into a pi##ing contest.

BUT reading some of the posts on here and if it was theft and its not the dealers fault then that is what the insurance is for, is it not?

Claim it via insurance, let the insurers fight it out and we move on.

This is of course,what i read is what transpired hey

Yes - however if you read the details the owners are left out of pocket due to their own insurance at market value.
Yes this is there fault probably should have done agreed etc. but then they did have a perfect well cared for low mileage example....

One thing I do Like about the lawyered up US they do have a thing for "diminished value" ... eg a clown damages your car.
Car is repaired but it's not the same perfect conditions as a brand new one.
Why should the owner financial loose out later on when selling ?
In the US people can argue for financial compensation for the difference. (eg it has a mark on it record for being in an accident or the work can be noticed at time of trade in etc.)

So the customer was simply asking for what theirs $$ when being palmed off with a lesser quality item.
Now it's going to cost the dealership dearly - they would have been better off doing the right thing or staying right out of it and let the owners insurance company deal with them.

[Drizt]

Some posts here prove Holden dealerships are best avoided.

[seldo]

Yes - however if you read the details the owners are left out of pocket due to their own insurance at market value.
Yes this is there fault probably should have done agreed etc. but then they did have a perfect well cared for low mileage example....

One thing I do Like about the lawyered up US they do have a thing for "diminished value" ... eg a clown damages your car.
Car is repaired but it's not the same perfect conditions as a brand new one.
Why should the owner financial loose out later on when selling ?
In the US people can argue for financial compensation for the difference. (eg it has a mark on it record for being in an accident or the work can be noticed at time of trade in etc.)

So the customer was simply asking for what theirs $$ when being palmed off with a lesser quality item.
Now it's going to cost the dealership dearly - they would have been better off doing the right thing or staying right out of it and let the owners insurance company deal with them.

You obviously didn't read, or didn't absorb what I just wrote.
The dealer has no obligation. None!
The owner had parked his car at a place which happened to be a dealership, and it was stolen.
The owner needs to claim insurance, and if there's an issue, to fight it out with the insurer.
The dealer needn't/shouldn't come into it - he was just the poor bastard from whose premises it was stolen.

[Drizt]

Not my fault, not my problem. Typical of today's society.

[Ausmartin1]

You obviously didn't read, or didn't absorb what I just wrote.
The dealer has no obligation. None!
The owner had parked his car at a place which happened to be a dealership, and it was stolen.
The owner needs to claim insurance, and if there's an issue, to fight it out with the insurer.
The dealer needn't/shouldn't come into it - he was just the poor bastard from whose premises it was stolen.

Maybe .... However it was in their care and you are correct and I agree - as i have stated they would have been better staying right out of it.
But they didn't.
Eitherway the Dealer really screwed up with their actions making a right mess for themselves.

The dealer made good now anyway ......
http://jalopnik.com/owner-of-camaro-...g-a-1501366861

[Woodchukka]

Good to see it all come to a resolution. Funny how stuff posted online sorta makes things get out of hand.

[planetdavo]

As is usually the case, everyone jumps on the big, bad dealer, just because he is a dealer, and therefore he must be in the wrong and should pay...
You will find that when the car was booked in to the dealership the owner would have signed a waiver of any responsibility by the dealership, and any loss or damage onus is on the owner.
The fact that a staffer stole the car is really of no consequence - the car may just as well have been stolen by Fred Nurk, as it makes no difference except to cloud the issue, as the car was simply stolen.
Now, had the car been stolen from the local supermarket car-park, or the fore-court of the local servo, would it make any difference?
Of course not. Stolen is stolen and the fact the thief had a key to the premises just made it a bit easier for him.
The dealer still has no obligation to make good, but has made a (clumsy) effort to make good but has handled it poorly .
The owner taking it to the media has certainly helped his cause and he'll end up with a brand-newie, but the dealer will be out of pocket and also out of reputation, despite having no fault and no obligation.

Seems some of us old b@stards that knew of a world before social media better grasp the realities of what's gone on here seldo...
Social media is- very unfortunately- often abused to achieve an "easy" result.

[planetdavo]

Maybe .... However it was in their care and you are correct and I agree - as i have stated they would have been better staying right out of it.
But they didn't.
Eitherway the Dealer really screwed up with their actions making a right mess for themselves.

The dealer made good now anyway ......
http://jalopnik.com/owner-of-camaro-...g-a-1501366861

No doubt at all it would have been better they stayed out of it, but I think it's been clear from the start that the owner of the car in question had NO INTENTION of letting them stay out of it.
"Easier" to get the situation resolved by blaming the dealer for everything (even though the car was stolen by a criminal) than pursuing a civil claim against the criminal that stole the car...