MARTYMAR

AMGOODNESS

even if you are a discerning buyer it is hard to see problems with a car you are unfamiliar with. sometimes it takes a few weeks or month to begin to pick up on missing buttons, bad brakes, scratchEs, or missing components. when you go to pick up a new car you are excited and you can not wait to drive the car and leave the lot. in my mind the bottom line is that she trusted a reputable dealer and she got burned. if this dealership had done a thorough inspection they would have definitely found a missing fender liner. perception is the rule in most cases. the dealership represented the car as immaculate and so the buyer assumed that was the case. there is fault on both sides. she has admitted to hers and tried to do the right thing, be honest, and move on.

based on what i have read about her experience and based your email i can tell you that i would never buy from this dealership. you may consider yourselves enthusiasts but in the end you really dont care about your customer. if that 55 was a nice dinner the steak would have been overcooked and the baked potato would have been cold in the middle. in the end you are the product you sell. you sold a less than immaculate product and your customer service is poor at best. do you really think you had her best interest at heart? do you really think you handled the situation in such away that she would have no problem recommending you to someone else? the mark of a good company is how you handle adversity. your company had an epic failure.

MercPlease

+1. I agree 100%. That's ridiculous.

1985mb

As happens often enough, there are two sides to a story and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

CWW

Well, thing is, Franz came on here and even though he was trying to explain himself, he ended up confirming/admitting all the rude things that she originally said had happened to her, right down to the "If there was a house in the back of the photo do you think you should get that too?" comment by the employee. So I'm not really sure what other side of the story there could be, since both sides agree as to what happened.

Where Franz loses me is that he clearly acknowledges the atrocious customer service that his customer had to suffer through, but then he continues to try and turn it around on her, still acts like it's somehow her fault that they tried to send her used floor mats for the wrong car, and still won't apologize! This is just an old-fashioned case of bad service and bad attitudes, and in this case it looks like the old saying about that kind of thing coming from the top down might be true.

Bottom line: He owes her an apology, not more excuses.

1985mb

He did apologize for the rudeness and attitude of his staff. Go look again.

1985mb

And of course, they are going to be used mats. What kind of mats does a 3yr old car come with? (You won't get new mats by default on some new german cars, but that's besides the issue.)

Granted, they didn't have the AMG logo, but Franz does take responsibility for the breakdown in communications between his rude staff and the OP. (If it were me, I'd take the newer non-AMG mats over 3+ yr old AMG mats, but again I'm digressing here)

Coming back to your Q on where the grey area is, it's mainly about the $2700 bill: If you were the seller and received an invoice for that amount 35 days after the sale, would you pay it no questions asked? I mean, we all love to hate dealers and used-car salesmen, but how would you handle it 35 days after a sale? I'll bet the 35 days is part of the grey area, too.

You mention that "The net result of what you accomplished is that you sold your 100% feedback rating for a $140 set of floor mats." If that's really the crux of the issue, I'd suggest both sides agreeing to retract the negative feedback in exchange for AMG mats. Assuming it's not too late to retract ebay feedback.

Btw, why isn't this car covered by the MB new car warranty? It's surely less than 4 model years old. Is it because of the mileage?

bltserv

As someone thats been on E-Bay Since 1999.

I pride myself on my 100% rating. Sure I have had to eat some $$ and some crow on a few deals. But if you want that rating. You need to Exceed Expectations. Its all about communication. Save your E-Mails.
Its all about being resonable and customary.

As an AMG owner I would have been pissed with NON AMG Mats too.

Sure. She signed the Inspection.
Sure. She missed the Brakes and Rotors on the Inspection.

Its all about working with a client POST SALES.

Thats not a word most Car Dealers for some reason can understand.

POST SALES Customer Service. Thats how your earn a 100% E-Bay Rating.

Timeless

I think that above anything else is the lesson to be learned from this.

9 Million in sales (12 Million expected this year) and you argue over something like this. Not the actions of a 100% feedback company and they just proved it.

CWW

I'm sorry, but we're talking a $30k pre-owned car, and not some $2500 beater Civic. If the floor mats were missing, they should have just anted up and bought her a new set that were correct for the car, which would only have set them back $140. That was absolutely the only way to handle this properly. And I can't believe you're going to argue that if a car requires floor mat style X and the dealer provides style Y, and then on top of that they wind up being used, that anyone in their right mind is going to be satisfied with that...especially on an allegedly "immaculate" car.

As to the car itself, if it's a 2005 then I'm sure it was under warranty just fine. Thing is, the warranty won't cover any of the things that were a problem in this situation. Look at the issues here:

1: Missing floor mats. (Someone removed them, clearly not a warranty issue)
2: Missing inner fender liner. (Someone removed it, clearly not a warranty issue)
3: Curb damage under the front spoiler. (Physical damage is never a warranty item)
4: The brakes were totally shot. (Pads+rotors are not warranty items)
5: Missing buttons on the dash. (Again, physical damage, not a warranty item)
6: Interior leather damaged. (Again, physical damage isn't a warranty issue)

So none of this was covered under the factory warranty simply because none of the broken things were warrantable items. You seem to be making a lot of excuses for the situation, but the facts here still speak for themselves.

And as to this alleged "apology" by Franz, it frankly doesn't exist. He came on here with a "blame the customer" attitude, and titled his post "CUSTOMER WARNING"....real apologetic there, don't you think? It's pure retaliation for the fact that she shared her atrocious experience with him on this forum. That's not even a half-azzed apology, and it's lacking the most important step, which is admitting you're at fault. He still tries to blame the whole thing on her in his post!

Like I said before, this whole thing is utterly ridiculous, and she's owed a *legitimate* apology.

CWW

The car only had 28k miles on it, and was covered by the full factory warranty.

Here's the eBay listing...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...m=180239949246

supre55

There are certainly quite a few different issues and viewpoints in play here. We can only decipher the facts from what we've read. I have learned one thing is that a used car is exactly that... used. There are often minor things that are no longer perfect, especially on a three year old vehicle. There is a reason that a $70k car new sells for roughly $30k used... because things are no longer in a brand new condition... they have wear and tear. While I'm sure the car still looked great inside and out, it simply was not new and there is no way around that.

The floor mat issue was clearly one that could have been handled differently, and it appears from Franz's post that he admits as much. I simply cannot fathom traveling to another state to pick up a vehicle that I had never seen before without thouroughly inspecting it... and if I certainly would have asked that it be sent over to a local MB dealer. It also does not seem reasonable that one would not notice damage to the leather and missing buttons on the dash. $2700 for CLK brakes and a fender liner? Not a chance unless they were Evosport rotors. If that is what was paid, the dealership/shop ripped her off for about $1300.

Some have mention that she should have contacted a local lawyer to sue Forman MS for misrepresentation. I happen to be a local lawyer and I can tell you from a legal perspective, there simply is not much there. Dealers oftern sell their cars "As Is" or only containing the remaining balance of the factory warranties. As far as the hint of a misrepresentation claim, the fact that the dealer gave her a full opportunity to have the car inspected by a third party and she declined, combined with the somewhat patent nature of the challenges with the car, and inlight of the fact that she apparently waited more than 30 days to raises these issues (floor mats notwithstanding)... this claim is tenuous at best. If I were approached with this matter, I would advise her that any recovery is unlikely and I would require a retainer up front. There would be no chance of one taking this matter on a contingency basis.

However, being right legally does not erase the negative impression that has now been cast upon Forman MS because of one persons unsatisfactory experience. This is a risk that businesses run and you see it all to often where an unappy customer will try to hold the business hostage with the threat of a bad survey or negative feedback. Heck, there have been times when I've been to my MB dealer and you drop hints about the survey and the SA's attitude completely changes... because it is important to him. You can't always please all of the people all of the time.

Like I mentioned earlier... there are two sides to every story. Enough typing, time to go burn some gas and roast some tires. Happy motoring.

DrJfrmLA

Customer service is the bell I ring to every client I have. I makes good sense, always. Whether there is a legal claim here is largely irrelevant; there is a customer claim that the seller failed to acknowledge. The buyer seems reasonable--she ate $2700 in repairs and makes little claim that the misrepresentation ('Immaculate' is a product claim this car did not satisfy) should be remedied. She's pi$$ed about the high-handed way she was treated by the seller's agents, and she has every right to be. She is the customer. The seller's agents apparently couldn't be troubled to remedy a $140 floor mat issue; they had bigger fish to fry. As budding Masters of the Universe, yesterday's sale was history to be forgotten. It's only the deal on the table that matters. Customer service opportunities are just that.

I get the same high-handed treatment from my MB dealer. They treat me like I have ***** on my shoes because I bought my car used and not from a dealer (it is still under factory warranty). My wife has an '04 Lexus LS430 that we also bought used and not from a dealer and the Lexus dealership bends over backwards to keep her happy. Today, for example, she took it in to have the rear window shade replaced (with 10 days remaining on the factory warranty). The part was $1100, they called early this week to remind her of her appointment, had a new ES350 loaner waiting, washed and vacuumed her car, and called her in three hours to tell her the car was ready SOONER than they expected. In the 8 months we have owned her car, there has been $4000 in warranty repairs (mirror motors, driver seat heater, rear window shade). Guess what I'll buy next time?

I told that story to make the point. The buyer above will probably never buy a second car from the seller, and the seller knows that. It's a matter of integrity. You do the right thing, no matter what. Not because you are obliged to legally or because you want to make another sale--you do it because it's the right thing to do.

Was the seller at fault? How? She bought a car that was misrepresented by a product claim. Should she have had the car inspected? Sure, if you want to make that case--but there were hidden flaws that even an inspection might not have revealed. Besides, she just wanted a new set of floor mats. Whether she was at fault or not, she was the customer. The seller should have done the right thing. If there was any discussion of what should be done, the seller was trying to avoid the right thing. The customer isn't always right, but the customer is always the customer.

Just my two cents. Methinks the seller doth protest too much. And his character witnesses do too.

DrJfrmLA

Sorry, the question in the next to last paragraph should have been "Was the buyer at fault?"

CWW

I don't think he is legally "right". This is clearly a situation where there was detrimental reliance on a misrepresentation by the seller. The car was described as having no damage, being "immaculate", etc., and since she wasn't in a position to see the vehicle in person, she clearly purchased it based on these misrepresentations. Ultimately, the vehicle was anything but "immaculate", and she is rightly upset at the discrepancy between the seller's claims and reality.

From a contract-law perspective, she is entitled to be placed back in the position she was in prior to the transaction, which means she gets rescission plus whatever costs she's incurred during the course of the deal, which would include her travel expenses, and the repairs needed to make the car safe during her ownership. Additionally, she should check the motor vehicle code of the state the seller is located in, since selling a car with the brakes down to 5% represents a safety issue, and may be illegal. I know for a fact that in NY state, selling a vehicle in that condition is illegal.

And the fact that she waived the independent inspection is completely irrelevant, since the burden of ensuring that the seller's representations were true rests (logically enough) on the seller, and not on her. It is also hard to argue that she failed to conduct due diligence, since as I pointed out in my previous post, the most expensive of the items at issue here (brakes, spoiler, fender liner) wouldn't have been visible during her walk-around inspection. Additionally, independent PPI's at the buyer's expense, while still a smart thing to do from a practical perspective, are far from an "industry standard" or a required part of purchasing a car, and so rejecting one in and of itself certainly doesn't waive any rights, and couldn't possibly serve to transfer the seller's liability for his own misrepresentations onto the buyer.

And that "as-is" language has repeatedly been tested in litigation over the past 100 years, and has universally failed in situations where a latent defect which was material to the value of the item being purchased went undisclosed.

All she would need to prove in court is that:

1: She relied on the representations contained in the auction listing and in the advertisement on the seller's website when making her decision to enter the contract (Which she clearly did),
2: That her reliance was reasonable (it clearly was, since the seller had personal knowledge of the vehicle, while she had none and wasn't in the vehicle's physical location),
3: That the representations she relied on were material and false (clearly they were), and
4: That she incurred losses as a result.

I'm afraid this one's pretty cut and dried from a contract standpoint. She was clearly entitled to rescission, in addition to whatever expenses she incurred in the course of performing under the contract to purchase the vehicle. I do agree nobody would take it on contingency, because it's just a simple contracts case where the main remedy will be non-economic, but that doesn't change the fact that her position is the stronger one.

If I were the dealership, I certainly wouldn't be as dismissive of this situation as they were. She did have legal remedy.

Doctodd33

car was definitley misrepresented......dealer then tried to be deceptive and tried to "skate by" and then on top tried to forcefully remove negative feedback instead of being true and making it right with the buyer. I dont see how any blame can be put on the buyer. Maybe we should all change the definiton of "immaculate".

i wouldnt buy a car from that dealer after that feedback.

T

c32used

Stone Cold

I'm glad everyone was entertained by this post! The facts speak for themselves, as I (and now others) have pointed out. Everything could have been resolved with good customer service, but Forman MS chose to go another route. I told them they were wrong, eBay told them they were wrong, and now this forum has told them they are wrong. I've never received any apology from Mr. Forman or his employees, nor do I expect one (sliding a comment about your bad employee into a public post attempting to trash me doesn't constitute an apology.)

I admitted my mistakes, taking public and financial responsibility for them. It's too bad Forman MS won't do the same: lesson learned on my side.

fourml8r

i have been through a similar situation.

bottom line is the buyer was offered the opportunity to inspect the car prior to sale. buyer signs agreement stating he/she accepts car in "as is" condition (ITS A USED CAR!!!!!)

legally seller owes them nothing. granted seller tried to make good but has done a poor job of it. my 2cents is that complaining over "non-amg" mats is a stupid point. they got mats that fit the car. he could have sent them $20 pepboys generic mats.

the buyer misrepresented nothing. they described the "condition" of the car, which is subjective and open to interpretation. put 10 people in a room and you get 10 opinions. misrepresenting would be saying its' RED when its black. or saying its accident free, when the car was in an accident etc. saying its' immaculate / beautiful etc. misrepresents nothing.

both parties are somewhat at fault here. they buyer more than the seller.

they buyer needs to learn from their mistake. why does someone get rid of an $80K car with low miles......cause it has issues, thats why. and the lucky second buyer (just like me in my case inherits those issues).

CWW

That's the same as those retarded signs at the carwash that always say something like "We are not responsible for any damage to your vehicle, for any reason".

So do you really think that if you go to get your car washed and their employee drives it into a wall, that they don't legally have to pay for it just because there's a sign that says they don't have to? Of course not, they're still liable, and the true purpose of the sign isn't to dismiss liability (because it doesn't work, and they know this), it's just to make people THINK they have no recourse.

Well, it's the same deal with this. Just because they throw in some form with the words "As-Is" on it, doesn't mean they aren't responsible for misrepresenting the condition of the car. For that form to mean anything legally, the form would have to have been signed AFTER she discovered the seller's misrepresentations, and would have to read something like "Buyer agrees to hold harmless the seller for any and all damages resulting from false claims and misrepresentations, and also agrees to hold harmless the seller from any and all claims and potential claims extant at the signing of this agreement, and also agrees waive all future claims which may arise out of facts occurring prior to the execution of this agreement." That may work, but it's still not 100%.

But just having her sign some form that says "as-is", BEFORE she became aware that the vehicle had been misrepresented, doesn't accomplish a damned thing, and won't work at all. I don't see how she has any fault whatsoever in this situation, and I'm convinced she has legal recourse.

AMG Phoenix

I appreciate everyone's feedback on the subject (even if I don't agree with some of it). After reading everyone's opinions, the bottom line here from my perspective comes down to three items:

1) I owe Ms. Stone a legitimate apology for not getting involved sooner. My guy made a stupid comment (which I did previously acknowledge) and I take full responsibility for this. In retrospect, the right thing to do would have been to just send out a new set of AMG mats. Again, we sent newer CLK mats, but did not realize the importance of the AMG logo to the customer. Customer service in this case should have been better, and I apologize.

2) No one on this forum that has shared their opinion, with the exception of Ms. Stone and myself, have actually seen the car that we are all talking about. Someone hit the nail right on the head about customer perception and opinion- One man's gem is another man's nightmare. I have seen two different clients look at the same cars on hundreds of test drives and have completely different things to say about the condition of the SAME car. I stand behind our description of the car and would offer it to any of you without apology. In fact, Ms. Stone was very happy with the car when she left with it as well. What are we to do as a dealership when a customer has left happy and does not start complaining about cosmetic issues until after 35 days? Someone brought up an analogy about a tough stake and a cold potato- Is the restaurant supposed to do something about your lousy meal a month after you ate it? Of course not. If we don't know the customer is unhappy until she blasts us in public, you bet we are going to be upset because we feel unjustly accused. Not to mention a car that has at least 1,000-1,500 more miles on it and we don't know if the car has been on a track, who all has driven it, or who told her the car had bad brakes. All of us who drive AMGs out there know that we can go through a perfectly good set of brakes in one weekend of aggressive track driving. If she ran into a service writer at a dealership who was behind his quota, God only knows what he could have sold her and told her about our car. The reason that we offered to have the local Mercedes dealership inspect the car for her is because we had nothing to hide. Why have there been no comments about this? This is plain and simple- people are sharing opinions and legal advice about a car that they have never seen from a financially troubled person with buyer's remorse. I will (and have) admitted to my salesman's off-handed comment, but I am not going to ruin my integrity over a $30K car. I stand behind the CLK55 that was sold 100%.

3) A pre-owned (used) car has been previously driven and this one was no different. In fact, it was three years old and had nearly 30,000 miles. All of the car's components will have been subject to wear and tear. This includes everything from the brake pads and rotors to the tires, engine, and transmission. This is why a $70,000 car costs $30,000 after three years. This does not mean that the car was a problem vehicle, or is a piece of junk, it simply means that it has been used. Any buyer that wants to save 50-60% off the original factory MSRP needs to look at this as a two-way street. You should expect a used car to be safe and hopefully under the balance of the factory warranty, but any buyer that expects a brand-new car with all brand new components should also expect to pay $70K instead of $30K. This is the primary reason that we offer every single customer the opportunity to have their purchase inspected by someone other than us. We don't want you to take our word for it. It makes us look that much better if someone else tells you that we have delivered you a great car. I said it before, but we have nothing to hide. If we were selling junk, why would we want buyers to have the cars inspected?

In summary, there are two sides to every story as people have pointed out. I'm sure that we both feel like things could have gone differently. However, before passing judgement on a car that you have never seen and offering up suggestions to sue someone whom you have never met, be careful not to jump on the bashing bandwagon. We do try to do things differently and hopefully someday we can prove it to you though our actions rather than our words. -FF

nkole

Now you've got us all wondering how an "immaculate" car can have all these issues that might not be issues to some buyers?

OPALW208

i can see BOTH sides of the story here. Bottom line is, however, that the dealership should have taken care of the floor mats, and everything would have been kosher.

Stone Cold

You “Googled” yourself, found this thread, and joined just so you could respond: we get it. I voiced (and attempted to voice) my concerns to your salesman: if he chose not to relay them to you, not my fault. He (and the GM) also never offered to have the local MB dealer do anything: the bottom of the ad talked about a local inspection, but nothing about it was ever mentioned by any of your staff, so let’s not try to make it seem as if they were shouting “DEALER INSPECTION!” from the rafters. If you as the owner really want to take things “personally”, I suggest you do so from the beginning of the sale, not retroactively.

So what if some random person says I should sue you? If you are as much in the right as you claim, why should you care? I wouldn’t waste that much time/effort on you: I’ve wasted enough already. I’m a realist: I f@cked up, you f@cked up, get over it and get on with it. But instead of saying, “mistakes made, lesson learned” and moving on (and maybe regaining some standing with possible customers), you continue to add fuel to your funeral pyre by casting dispersions on my inspection by an MB dealer (while claiming your inspection by an MB dealer would have shown differently), and suggesting that I am somehow responsible for the bad brakes. You infer that I tracked (or otherwise abused) the car when, in fact, you know I did no such thing, since that information was included in my response to your failed attempt to have my eBay feedback removed. And again, you accompany a weak apology with an attempt to redirect the blame, claiming “buyer’s remorse”…the used-car salesman’s go-to when they’ve run out of excuses. I sold the car to AVOID financial trouble. That’s called being “proactive” instead of “reactive”: I realize this is a new concept for you.

Does your ego know no bounds? Do yourself a favor and stop reaching. Or better yet: do you know how to get out of a hole? STOP DIGGING.

So done: can’t believe I wasted even this much time on this reply…

Timeless

Just to play Devil's advocate (), he cannot admit blaim on here as that does open him up for future legal troubles.

Deep down he knows he is at fault and just has to live with it...and his not so perfect Ebay rating anymore.