Protecting Consumers against over charging

[ColdwaterHotrod]

I was reading a post earlier that mentioned Wal-Mart in Michigan not putting prices on items in their stores & of all places my home town store was one of them.... So it got me thinking???

 

Why not read the what the Laws are in my state Protecting Consumers? So I did just that & what I found out was that our State ATTORNEY GENERAL was the after Wal-Mart because of some many compliants were being filed about being told one price where the product sat on the shelf & at the register it rang up higher. Hmmm sound familiar? (MSRP sticker price vs. what the dealer charges us)

 

MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Act 331 of 1976

 

AN ACT to prohibit certain methods, acts, and practices in trade or commerce; to prescribe certain powers and duties; to provide for certain remedies, damages, and penalties; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for certain investigations; and to prescribe penalties.

 

Below is only a small sentence insert from many pages but I found it to be true....

 

"Charging the consumer a price that is grossly in excess of the price at which similar property or services are sold."

 

I don't know about you, but I plan on contacting my State ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE come Monday morning about these dealers charging us more than the PUBLISHED "sticker price" on the window of the car what ever it might be? I suggest you look into your own state & local laws regarding CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS & call your own State ATTORNEY GENERALS office & file a complaint. Maybe together we can limit the damages to our wallets .

 

IF FORD WILL NOT CONTROL THEIR DEALERS, maybe the our STATE Goverments will regardless of what the frachisee & FORD have written between them?

 

Yeah, I'm still P.O'd

[ColdwaterHotrod]

445.903 Unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in conduct of trade or commerce; rules.

 

Sec. 3. (1) Unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are unlawful and are defined as follows:

 

(a) Causing a probability of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.

 

(d) Representing that goods are new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, used, or secondhand.

 

(g) Advertising or representing goods or services with intent not to dispose of those goods or services as advertised or represented.

 

(h) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity in immediate conjunction with the advertised goods or services.

 

(i) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.

 

(j) Representing that a part, replacement, or repair service is needed when it is not.

 

(m) Causing a probability of confusion or of misunderstanding with respect to the authority of a salesperson, representative, or agent to negotiate the final terms of a transaction.

 

(n) Causing a probability of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the legal rights, obligations, or remedies of a party to a transaction.

 

(q) Representing or implying that the subject of a consumer transaction will be provided promptly, or at a specified time, or within a reasonable time, if the merchant knows or has reason to know it will not be so provided.

 

® Representing that a consumer will receive goods or services "free", "without charge", or words of similar import without clearly and conspicuously disclosing with equal prominence in immediate conjunction with the use of those words the conditions, terms, or prerequisites to the use or retention of the goods or services advertised.

 

(s) Failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer, and which fact could not reasonably be known by the consumer.

 

(t) Entering into a consumer transaction in which the consumer waives or purports to waive a right, benefit, or immunity provided by law, unless the waiver is clearly stated and the consumer has specifically consented to it.

 

(u) Failing, in a consumer transaction that is rescinded, canceled, or otherwise terminated in accordance with the terms of an agreement, advertisement, representation, or provision of law, to promptly restore to the person or persons entitled to it a deposit, down payment, or other payment, or in the case of property traded in but not available, the greater of the agreed value or the fair market value of the property, or to cancel within a specified time or an otherwise reasonable time an acquired security interest.

 

(v) Taking or arranging for the consumer to sign an acknowledgment, certificate, or other writing affirming acceptance, delivery, compliance with a requirement of law, or other performance, if the merchant knows or has reason to know that the statement is not true.

 

(w) Representing that a consumer will receive a rebate, discount, or other benefit as an inducement for entering into a transaction, if the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the consummation of the transaction.

 

(x) Taking advantage of the consumer's inability reasonably to protect his or her interests by reason of disability, illiteracy, or inability to understand the language of an agreement presented by the other party to the transaction who knows or reasonably should know of the consumer's inability.

 

(y) Gross discrepancies between the oral representations of the seller and the written agreement covering the same transaction or failure of the other party to the transaction to provide the promised benefits.

 

(z) Charging the consumer a price that is grossly in excess of the price at which similar property or services are sold.

 

(bb) Making a representation of fact or statement of fact material to the transaction such that a person reasonably believes the represented or suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is.

 

(cc) Failing to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of representations of fact made in a positive manner.

[Five Oh B]

N/A

[ColdwaterHotrod]

Five Oh B,

 

Thanks for the Great links & Great info.

 

Everybodys State laws are different. It doesn't hurt anybody to contact their state Attorney General & ask questions about the sales tactics that are being used. You know as well as I do their will be many people lied too over this car & it won't stop until enough of us ban together & act as one to fix the problem.

 

Laws are meant to be changed if seen to be at a disadvatage to the consumer and since we can't buy direct I feel as if I'm being held hostage or better yet my car is being held for Ransom, just like everytime I pull up to the pump & fill up but yet the U.S. gasoline inventories are at record levels & the price keeps going up? Maybe the Automakers need to be called to the Hill & explain why they allow this?

 

 

Don't take this wrong, You have been an asset to this board, but what side of the fence are you on?

 

You seem to be all about providing honest info but at the same time it seems you are trying to protect the profession you are in?

 

If you were able to still make a decent profit from MSRP without taking advantage of the consumer I don't think we would be having this conversation & none of us would be unhappy & galdly willing to MSRP.

 

As I have said before, If you don't like the rules that FORD or any other manufacture sets forth for you when you beacame a dealer then don't sell their product or better yet change professions.

 

As an Automotive Engineer, I do sell USED (not new) cars on the side for extra money & I support the American dream of a free enterprise, but not when it turns into dishonesty & greedyness.

 

Thanks again for your honest opinion.

[Five Oh B]

N/A

[D.Boone]

I agree that nothing in this situation should be in court, unless a specific dealer has made a comittment in writing to a specific individual, and then broken that commitment.

 

However, I think this statement;

 

"A GT500 is not a necessity, so it is a great example of how supply & demand should work. Keep in mind that consumer can "vote" with the dollars, and if enough people withhold their dollars due to high pricing, then supply will catch demand and prices will adjust accordingly and beautifully as predicted by any number of economic theories out there about our free market economy." (Five Oh B)

 

is only part of the picture.

 

If many people who want this vehicle, but are not willing to pay ADM's, withhold their dollars, the manufacturer will be sent a false signal. The manufacturer will think that there is no demand for this product which would be incorrect. The demand for this vehicle is for the product AT THE PRICE THE MANUFACTURER has suggested it should be sold. So the manufacturer gets this false signal, i.e. lower than anticipated sales/orders, and adjusts production DOWN. This forces a reduction in supply and the price will escalate yet again.

 

I think that the free economy concept would work just fine if we were buying directly from the manufacturer. I understand that dealers all pay Ford the same invoice price for the vehicle. So Ford has no reason, (or probably legal means), to tell dealers what to sell for. But Ford is the one who will take the loss in the long run if consumers refuse to pay dealers ADM's.

 

I think that the bottom line has been stated by several people here. The dealers attempt to capitalize on a strong interest for this vehicle will cause additional problems for the manufacturer they are representing.

[owenkelley]

What makes anybody think the price would be any lower of you were buying directly from Ford? The demand would be the same, the production numbers would be the same, the difference is that Ford would be holding out for the big dough, not the dealers.

[ColdwaterHotrod]

What makes anybody think the price would be any lower of you were buying directly from Ford? The demand would be the same, the production numbers would be the same, the difference is that Ford would be holding out for the big dough, not the dealers.

 

 

 

I'm not saying it would be cheaper to place an order direct, just that you would know that you're not going to be paying more than the manufacturer says it worth from their marketing research. Once you (the Consumer, not owners of dealerships) buy it & title it, then you can sell it for what ever you want, maybe more or maybe less.

[Five Oh B]

N/A

[ColdwaterHotrod]

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Five Oh B @ Mar 18 2006, 07:26 PM) 5554[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

So, if I understand this statement correctly, you are saying that it is OK for an individual seller to sell the car for more than MSRP, but not owners of dealerships?!?!?

 

 

You are Correct...

 

The REAL consumer is not Buying & Selling cars at auto autions or buying direct from the MFG. at a discounted price for buying in volume like you are, plus the individual seller is not dealing in volumes of vehicles as their primary source of income like you are. I on the other hand hold a "B" class Dealers License because I do sell more than 6 a year in my spare time.

 

In Michiagn a private individual can not sell more than 6 vehicles in a given year, if they do... the state will investigate thru the department on motor vehicles records when the titles transfer to the new owner & then they find out why the individual is doing this (willingly or non-willingly) & if they are trying to avoid being a "USED CAR" dealer they get hit big time.

 

Like I said before...NEW car dealers are acting more & more greedy just because something is limited & if your not happy making what decent profit margins you get from the original invoice you buy at vs. the MSRP or lower w/rebates & discount plans when you sell it, then switch professions if you want more money or better yet turn more vehicles over instead of stilling on them & waiting for the GOLDEN EGG BUYER to come in & make your year.

 

I'm sure ALL new car dealerships had some sort of business plan when they originally started their dealership & in NO way did they go to their investors or banker & say "I will make a ton more profit eveytime we get a limited production vehicle in from the manufacture". That just makes poor business sence in my book to base your profits for an entire year strickly on this type of thinking?

 

Next question....

[Five Oh B]

N/A

[Joe G]

There seems to be one missing piece to this puzzle...

 

It seems as if Ford is squashing the "Free market" part of this arguement. If we were truely able to go to dealers (local or national) who treated us fairly and sold to us at the price each of us were comfortable with (which varies from person to person), this would not be a issue. However, Ford has artificially narrowed the field for each of us. THIS is what has helped create and fan the flame of this pricing issue.

 

Example: I have 10 dealers around me. Each is only able to get a few cars through this absurd allocation system. Because each can only get a few, they all want to get rich on the few they do get.

 

However, if it was "first come, first serve" with the dealers getting cars from Ford, good dealers who charge what each of us consider "fair" would get more orders and sales than ones who "overcharge" vs the competition. You could have a safety check in place to make sure that dealers weren't just ordering 20 to have on the lots - they would have to have sales contracts in hand for 80-90% of the cars ordered. This would ensure good sales for Ford, good demand for the car at lower prices, and would reward dealers who didn't try to change deals (either verbal or written) that many of us here had with our dealers.

 

This allocation system is what is allowing many (not all) of the dealers to have the opportunity to hold out for the big kill like many of them are. Ford set this up and should be the first to acknowledge that it is having a negative effect on their flagship car. Positive news lasts for days, negative news lasts years!

[Five Oh B]

N/A

[KingCobra]

There seems to be one missing piece to this puzzle...

 

It seems as if Ford is squashing the "Free market" part of this arguement. If we were truely able to go to dealers (local or national) who treated us fairly and sold to us at the price each of us were comfortable with (which varies from person to person), this would not be a issue. However, Ford has artificially narrowed the field for each of us. THIS is what has helped create and fan the flame of this pricing issue.

 

Example: I have 10 dealers around me. Each is only able to get a few cars through this absurd allocation system. Because each can only get a few, they all want to get rich on the few they do get.

 

However, if it was "first come, first serve" with the dealers getting cars from Ford, good dealers who charge what each of us consider "fair" would get more orders and sales than ones who "overcharge" vs the competition. You could have a safety check in place to make sure that dealers weren't just ordering 20 to have on the lots - they would have to have sales contracts in hand for 80-90% of the cars ordered. This would ensure good sales for Ford, good demand for the car at lower prices, and would reward dealers who didn't try to change deals (either verbal or written) that many of us here had with our dealers.

 

This allocation system is what is allowing many (not all) of the dealers to have the opportunity to hold out for the big kill like many of them are. Ford set this up and should be the first to acknowledge that it is having a negative effect on their flagship car. Positive news lasts for days, negative news lasts years!

 

 

 

Joe...WOW!!!

 

GREAT POINT!!!!!

 

You've hit the nail on the head.

 

I admit I have been just scimming the posts lately as they have become counterproductive bitching.

Albeit justified, but your last post really summed up, and even defined the cause of the problem.

 

BRAVO!!!

 

Glad I didn't scim over your last one.

 

Thank you Buddy.

 

 

KingCobra.

[Joe G]

Joe...WOW!!!

 

GREAT POINT!!!!!

 

You've hit the nail on the head.

 

I admit I have been just scimming the posts lately as they have become counterproductive bitching.

Albeit justified, but your last post really summed up, and even defined the cause of the problem.

 

BRAVO!!!

 

Glad I didn't scim over your last one.

 

Thank you Buddy.

KingCobra.

 

 

No problem. I've also tried not to get into the "us vs them" debates. I'm mad about the dealers who've gone back on their words - that's black and white to me. The issue of "price gouging" and outragous ADM's is, I'm afraid, what we in the US have to deal with. We kill the dealers to get a great deal on mass market/commodity goods (mini-vans, trucks, most "family" cars etc), but hate it when the dealers have the upper hand on the rare and fun cars that come out every few years.

 

I honesty believe that the B.S. behind the allocation system is what is fueling this. Kill this, and we'll see a more normalized supply/demand pricing in effect.

[KingCobra]

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

But, that's not the way this one is going to turn out.

 

 

KingCobra.