I do feel bad for the OP, because the fact is that SOME of this should not have happened. But - used car dealers have a reputation for a reason. Seriously. This should NOT be such a surprise.

And getting the car fixed elsewhere and THEN contacting them? Come on bud. That in and of itself seems outright silly and probably pretty dishonest on your part. Were you really thinking that you could replace your tires because they had under 4/32" tread (what does that mean 3 99/100" tread?) and have the dealer pay the FULL price for brand new tires of your choice? Did you take the vehicle back to the dealer when you noticed the oil, diff oil, brakes, etc? No? Why not? When you drive off the lot, in many ways their responsibility ends. If you drive off the lot, and then chose to go around and get repairs done without the dealers knowledge - how can they have liability? Seriously. The worn parts are gone, you voluntairly destroyed any and all evidence of their wrongdoing. What is your evidence? The fact you chose to change the parts out? The evidence of their wrongdoing is gone - you DON'T have a leg to stand on legally whatsoever. I have to admit that I am not a lawyer, but in order to prove there has been a crime or wrongdoing there must be some sort of evidence (and voluntary "upgrades" or "repairs" are NOT going to count). You destroyed it. I hate to be the bearer of bad news or the asshole - but you royally screwed up TWICE. Once by buying a vehicle with apparently no inspection whatsoever on your part, the second time by destroying all the evidence.

All of the positive advice you have heard is different. The house that was messed up? It was STILL messed up on contacting a lawyer or board. The bank account? Obviously messed up. Your vehicle? It is running fine, and the dealership is probably laughing their asses off at how bad they screwed you.

Let it go and move on - or push it and in all likelihood just make it worse for you.

 

you obviously dont know what the difference is in "Certified Pre-owned" and just plain "pre-owned"
this aint no mamma and pappa used car joint you might be referencing...

yes i agree he made a few mistakes when resolving some of the issues, but i still dont think it was right what the dealership did.
i hate seeing a big company getting away with bullshitting the little guy....

 

Yes, the evidence may be weaker. But receipts and testimony from the mechanic who did the repairs is still pretty strong evidence. And, yes, he should have contacted the original dealer. But, a court might be quite willing to entertain the seller reimbursing the buyer for the amount the seller would have paid had the seller done the work itself (seller's cost for parts and labor). That, and reimbursing the legal expenses of the buyer, plus court costs, plus the seller's legal expenses, might be enough to bump the seller into an out-of-court settlement that would be far less expensive than a court appearance, but still return most, if not all, of the seller's expense on this.

The point here is that the seller stated that the vehicle met certain standards of performance and serviceability. But, in fact, it did not. The seller lied. That's false advertising. State and local district attorneys and the Federal Trade Commission look dimly on that. Since this is a Chrysler program, I also suspect that Chrysler will look dimly on it, especially if their name is included in any lawsuit.

 

I would be shocked if the dealer sent him a check to reimburse him... if he would have called them first then it would be different. but it doesnt look like he did.... there is little to NO chance that they will just send him a check.

mainly because him paying the money to have things fixed is him accepting the responsibility for the repairs.

 

Thats a bummer... hope you get things resolved. Good-luck.

 

Not sure if this will help, but about 5 years ago, my wife bought a certified pre-owned Honda Passport from a local honda dealler. In less than a month, the rear ABS sensor went out, to the tune of about $800 bones.

Dealer who sold it did the work, and we argued that they should share in the expense to repair since they sold as CPO. They refused.

At the time, my wife was a paralegal, and one of the attorneys she works w/ was nice enought to call, talk to the service manager (I'm sure, stating he's an attorney). He kept asking the service manager, what CPO means (what is the definition - attorneys are big on definitions and terms). The dealer just danced on the phone.

Long story somewhat shorter, dealer paid for everything.... So, you may have to send receipts to the selling dealer and ask them for some reimbursement. But, it all depends on your tolerance on dealing further with them. Good luck, whatever you decide to do

 

I made clear right away that I don't agree with what the dealer did - but now, what evidence is there that anything was wrong? What is the first question the judge is going to ask. What is wrong with the vehicle right now? The answer? Nothing other than the seats. Next he is going to ask why the original dealer refused to do the repairs, to which the OP will only be able to honestly answer that they offered to repair the brakes, but he didn't want to drive there. The engine and differential oil (subjective at best, we aren't talking about an objective measurement of "this oil is bad") was changed the next day, obviously without dealers knowledge. The tires? Accepted on the lot as being acceptable and then changed, again without the original dealers knowledge. Rear wiper? Again, changed without knowledge. Hmmmmm. That only leaves alignment, seats, and brakes as real possible issues that are "provable", but let us throw in the wiper anyways. The brakes were offered to be changed, so throw that out. We are then talking about alignment ($90) and wiper ($70) - or $160. The seats were plainly visible upon purchase, and deemed by the buyer to be acceptable then - and it is virtually impossible that he did not sign a form to that effect - so fair or not, I have a very hard time believing a judge is going to see otherwise.

Hiring a lawyer for $160 worth of provable damage is assinine. The largest items, tires and brakes are not going to be paid. The tires had as the OP said "near 4/32" of tread, acceptable as noted in the CPO form. The brakes were offered to be repaired, but the OP declined their services.

Lets be honest, for the sake of the OP - on paper, his actions seem absurd. Buying a vehicle without apparent inspection, then jumping into inspection overdrive and going around to various places to have it fixed to his liking, then sending the seller the bill.

 

The tires make up the bulk of the charge, and nobody is going to agree the dealer should pay for new tires of the OPs choice. Not even me, sympathising with the OP. It just isn't going to happen. Perhaps he might be reimbursed for a few thousand miles of wear, but what is the value of that? The brakes were offered to be repaired, and it isn't the fault of the dealer that the OP drove 90 miles away after purchasing the vehicle, their store is in the same place as when he purchased it. If you are planning on subpoenaing the mechanic what is that, $100? And to prove that the brakes were in such an unsafe condition that the drive back was impossible, is probably going to take more expert testimony than the average brake mechanic - certainly when the mechanic in question also profited by changing the OPs brakes.

You are never going to have persuasive testimony from someone who profits from their decision. You really think that looks persuasive to a judge? "He said I should buy it" Come on.

The oil changes - well....very subjective. What exactly does "unchanged" oil look like? What were the cues that this oil hadn't been changed? Was the oil analyzed? Was it full of particulate? Or was it just kinda brown?

The seats? Maybe - that would depend on how bad the tear was, and how visible. It would be very hard for the OP to say that he didn't notice a massive tear at the lot.


Again, I have to say that sucks for the OP. He got screwed. But the problem with anything in court is that it is a situation of "may". The judge "may" agree with him. The judge may also be in a bad mood that day, and have just listened to 30 scammers in a row. Judges are people, and prone to preconceptions and prejudices just like anybody else.

Unless you have some pretty damning evidence that is so clear as to be a guarantee of victory - you are taking a chance in court. And as stated by the OP, it doesn't sound like his financial situation is exactly excellent. The dealership is going to have a more expensive lawyer that is in all likelihood better prepared, more educated and experienced. If the OP loses that suit, which is damn possible, he might be saddled with the dealers lawyer fees, court costs, subpoena costs, etc. That is the worst possible outcome.

I don't think the OP is in that great of a situation right now and I feel for him, but it is done. It is hard to fix what has already happened, no matter how unfair or unjust it is. That doesn't make it somehow fair or just - but sometimes it is just better to cut your losses and move on - and in this case, given the OPs actions so far, is probably the path to take. No harm in a bluff certified letter, or a formal complaint to chrysler - but lawyers and courts aren't going to solve anything.

 

All,

Thank you everyone for your input and many of you for your support. I wanted to let everyone know where things are at today, since it was a pretty hectic weekend and I haven't been on for a few days.

I am meeting with an attorney, that I have a past relationship with, on Thursday. He will look over my documentation and listen to the story and let me know his thoughts. He will not charge me a fee for this, so I am not out any additional money. He will not take the case due to the distance, but can recommend a course of action.

I have seen a lot of common discussion and wanted to make sure I was clear. The bottom line is that when I left the dealer and discovered the oil needed changing 24 hours later, I was not about to drive 180 miles (round trip) to have the oil changed. Based on the fact that the dealer refused to even fill the tank when I purchased the Jeep, I wasn't sure I even wanted to ask. Even after I discovered the differential fluid hadn't been changed, I thought that was still not worth 180 miles and 4 1/2 hours of driving plus 1 hour of waiting.

Then, once I was advised of the tread depth on the tires, I made the decision to have the tires replaced. I figured that I probably should have noticed them on the lot and was not 100% sure about the ability of the tires to pass the inspection. The inside of the tire tread was at 4/32, however the outside of the tread was less. At this point I thought that the alignment was off, obviously, and made the appointments for new tires and the alignment.

I was honestly willing to bite the bullet and pay for the tires, but once I found out that the rear brakes were completely gone, I snapped. It was now obvious that they did not inspect the vehicle. When I confronted the seller about the issues, it further angered me and they openly admitted to not inspecting the vehicle.

I was not about to drive that distance with the brake issue. I know many of you may disagree, but it was not worth it to me to risk problems by driving on the brakes for another week until I could get up to that dealer on my next day off for the repair. FYI-I drive 90 miles round trip daily to and from work, so in essence I would be driving an additional 400 miles and then 90 to the dealer with bad brakes. Not only do I feel this is risky, but also for a possible pending case I feel it would be hard to argue that the dealer was negligent when I drive around on the brakes for a week before getting them replaced.

So, I then looked up the details of the CPO inspection. Now that they have openly admitted to not performing this inspection, I feel that they should be liable for all repairs that would have been caught and fixed during the inspection the failed to perform. I was not sneaking around behind the dealer's back as some have suggested. I hope the above storyline helps to at least paint a clearer picture.

In the end, the dealer falsely advertised the product. I was a victim of fraud by the dealer. Yes I could have done more to catch the problems myself. Yes I could have informed the dealer about the fluids, then the tires and then the brakes and made numerous 180 mile trips and had numerous arguments with them to get it fixed. But none of this matters. They still falsely advertised the product and committed fraud.

I feel that a judge, looking at the law and not at detailed excuses, storylines, and conversations (he said/she said), will see that the dealer broke the law and I suffered a financial injury. I am not an attorney, obviously, but I know enough from Business Law in college that the "fluff" and "filler" of a story do not matter. It always comes back to 1) What is the law? 2) Was the law broken? 3) Can the plaintiff show injury?

I will let you all know how the meeting with the attorney goes on Thursday and how I will proceed. Thank you again for listening!

 

I also wanted to point out that I immediately contacted Discount Tire (approx 4 hours after the tires were replaced), but unforunately they had already disposed of the tires. I did keep the brake pads from the replacement to have as evidence.

And for those that did not take the time to read my link to the CPO, I am posting the information here. There is no "small print" exlcuding these items.

CPO Inspection Items Affected:
#37 Windshield wiper system operation
#38 Wiper blades in good condition
#39 Rear window wiper and condition
#71 Change engine oil, oil filter and use Mopar parts
#72 Inspect air filter
#75 Front differential fluid
#76 Rear differential fluid
#77 Transfer case fluid
#80 Front and rear brake component condition
#81 Rear brakes have 50% or more of lining remaining
#86 Tread depth is 4/32" remaining
#87 Tire sidewall condition
#112 Seating condition

Items 37, 38 & 39 cover the missing rear wiper blade and required assembly replacement with a cost of $70.
Items 71, 72, 75, 76 and 77 were supposed to be performed and were not with a cost of $180.
Items 80 & 81 were definitely not met (0% lining remained) with a cost of $330.
Items 86 & 87 were harder to define based on uneven tread wear due to mis-alignment. The cost to replace the tires was $794 and I would be satisfied with a cost of 4 new Goodyear Wranglers as opposed to the tires I put on.
Item 112 was obvious to me at the time of purchase but should be covered by the inspection no repair has been made to date.
I am not sure what item the alignment would be inspected at but the cost was $90.