I suppose if she t-bones someone in Quebec she can claim her disability prevented her from understanding that "arret" meant "stop".
Salesmen charged for selling $41,000 car for $66,000
- Thread starter Twister
- Start date
I have no doubt that the dealership is partially to blame and hold the lion's share of responsibility.For those of you that have said it's Madeline Leonard's fault.
Afterhours, mmmburritos and tboy. This dealership and two employees are snake oil sellers, and I wonder if it happened to your family or friends how you would react.
The only question regarding Madelain Leonard is she fit to be driving, but I'm sure MTO and her GP say yes. She probably doesn't drive alot. People don't have look like they have down syndrome to be intellectually disabled.
However, the customer holds SOME responsibility for her actions. Unless she has been deemed legally not responsible, then when she signs her name of a contract, no matter how ludicrous, she is responsible.
If it happened to my family? I'd be pissed. At the dealership AND my family member. In fact, a similar thing DID happen to me in my younger days. I owned an old chevy van that got 8 mpg and wanted to get rid of it at just about any cost. I went to a Honda dealership to look at a prior year new accord. Then ended up selling me a current year civic. At 23% interest no less. I had to take the car. Was I pissed after realizing I'd been had? Hell yeah..Did I learn from the experience? Hell yeah. Did I accept responsibility for my poor judgement? hell yeah.
I've owned 2 mazdas in my lifetime. They are great vehicles but in my experience the dealership personnel has always been dishonest and provide awful customer service. For that reason I will never buy a Mazda again. Also I make it a point to never go to the dealership for maintenance. They are thieves, plain and simple. This goes for all dealerships. Prices are inflated around 30% from what you would pay at a reputable mechanic.
Agreed!
I only use Dealership mechanics while the vehicle is under warranty. Once warranty expires I use reputable mechanics who always charge less for any repairs I can't handle.
I only use Dealership mechanics while the vehicle is under warranty. Once warranty expires I use reputable mechanics who always charge less for any repairs I can't handle.
Upselling is in the nature of every commission salesperson, they all do it in order to survive. Firing the guy just means another person will do the same thing.
It's one reason I won't buy a new vehicle, it's too easy to persuade me to spend more than I plan to. That's why I also despise ATMs in strip clubs.
It's one reason I won't buy a new vehicle, it's too easy to persuade me to spend more than I plan to. That's why I also despise ATMs in strip clubs.
Actually 4tees, it does say in there that if the customer returns the vehicle she'll get 8K back that they gave her on her used. Not sure if they'll return her old vehicle or not.....
I think there are some pieces of information missing from the original article. I just read it today, but something seems off here.
First off, the car that she traded in might have had money owed on it. Isn't it possible that she owed say $30k or more on this car and if the trade value was $8-$9k then she would have a "negative equity" of almost $20000.00. That discrepency amount would then be added to the list price and re-financed. This is a common practice among car dealerships and customers. In order to bring the payment down to a managable level, they extend the contract term to 84 or even 96 months. Again, hundreds of people do this everyday. Also, if she paid $4500.00 for a protection package then that will bring it up too. It's a little high, but most full packages go for $1200-$1500 for rust paint and fabric.
Bottom line is that there's more to this story. Consumer guides, newspapers and media are always ALWAYS trying to make car dealers into the bad guys. Math is math people, it isn't really disputable. I'm guessing that the dealer sold the car for full MSRP, which, for a demo doesn't really jive, but the customer sees the Bill of Sale BEFORE she signs it, how hard is it to do the math??
Now next will come all the moaning about evil car dealers etc...I'm okay with that, but if there is any other posters that are willing to listen to a logical explaination, I'd be happy to give a possible scenario.
First off, the car that she traded in might have had money owed on it. Isn't it possible that she owed say $30k or more on this car and if the trade value was $8-$9k then she would have a "negative equity" of almost $20000.00. That discrepency amount would then be added to the list price and re-financed. This is a common practice among car dealerships and customers. In order to bring the payment down to a managable level, they extend the contract term to 84 or even 96 months. Again, hundreds of people do this everyday. Also, if she paid $4500.00 for a protection package then that will bring it up too. It's a little high, but most full packages go for $1200-$1500 for rust paint and fabric.
Bottom line is that there's more to this story. Consumer guides, newspapers and media are always ALWAYS trying to make car dealers into the bad guys. Math is math people, it isn't really disputable. I'm guessing that the dealer sold the car for full MSRP, which, for a demo doesn't really jive, but the customer sees the Bill of Sale BEFORE she signs it, how hard is it to do the math??
Now next will come all the moaning about evil car dealers etc...I'm okay with that, but if there is any other posters that are willing to listen to a logical explaination, I'd be happy to give a possible scenario.
thanks 4 tees i was thinking the same thing about these two postersI would assume you know this from experience, eh.
Sorry, the note about her returning the car was in this article:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/806621--mazda-salesmen-fired-money-refunded?bn=1
"Bains promises to reimburse Leonard $8,000 the dealership paid for her trade-in once Leonard returns the car."
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/806621--mazda-salesmen-fired-money-refunded?bn=1
"Bains promises to reimburse Leonard $8,000 the dealership paid for her trade-in once Leonard returns the car."
I saw her on t.v. ...... all I can say is what an F'in MORON!!! They saw her coming a mile away!
You're all class*, cute-bald.
It says right in the article in the Toronto Star that she's Leonard is intellectually disabled.
*Too bad it's low class.
wordI suppose if she t-bones someone in Quebec she can claim her disability prevented her from understanding that "arret" meant "stop".
It's cute bald after all. Here's Cute-BALD on TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwfdTndbNfA&feature=relatedYou're all class*, cute-bald.
It says right in the article in the Toronto Star that she's Leonard is intellectually disabled.
*Too bad it's low class.
You guys can get off your high horses anytime now. I stand behind my opinion, this woman is not bright, and got taken because she let it happen to her.thanks 4 tees i was thinking the same thing about these two posters
The dealers obviously are bunch of con artists and I'm pretty sure the lack of future business at their dealership now that they have been exposed as such is punishment enough for their business practices. Their actions were greedy and uncaring, but that is not illegal nor should it be.
I don't see how the buyer is the victim here. Nobody forced her to sign any of the papers for this vehicle. Nor did they tell her that this was a magic car, or that it could do anything other than drive. I have yet to read anything that explicitly says the salesman lied to her. I'm pretty sure she could have walked out at any time. However, she did not. Buying a car is not like buying a bag of chips, it takes a little more time than that. Plus why would a dealer loan her the money to buy something that she obviously could not afford? Perhaps because she also misrepresented her own financial status when applying for the loan? Why lend money you'll never get back?
If it was one of my family members involved in this deal what would I do?
1. I'd never visit that business again. And would tell my friends and associates to do the same.
2. I'd tell my friend/relative that a deal is a deal. Even when it's a bad one. So if they can't get out of it by some legal means, then you honor the contracts you make. And that hopefully they will learn from their mistake and never get taken again. And yes I might tell them that they acted stupidly.
P.T. Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute" and that my friends is true. It's not my role on this planet to come to the defence of someone who is too daft to know that buying a $60,000 car is not something you should be doing when you don't have a job.
Last edited:
further to what mmouse said, anyone notice that they didn't do to all the lenders with the BS mortgages to those that couldn't afford to get them as they did to the dealer in this case?
They affected a LOT more than one woman's standard of living, they affected billions.......
They affected a LOT more than one woman's standard of living, they affected billions.......
Intellectually disabled.You guys can get off your high horses anytime now. I stand behind my opinion, this woman is not bright, and got taken because she let it happen to her.
I don't know how severe it was for the lady, but in my experiences someone who takes advantage of anyone who is disabled, mentally disabled or mentally ill is a slimeball. There has to be some kind of moral code, you don't steal candy from kids, you don't trip blind people and you don't knock over old folks. Sure, if this happened to someone on this board, I'd say 'sucker', but to me its just plain wrong to take advantage of those who can only barerly cope.
well you are jumping to a lot of conclusions as to just how intellectually challenged she is. I mean, if you're stupid does that mean you're exempt from responsibility? Hell, I know a LOT of stupid people but just being stupid doesn't make them exempt from responsibility for their actions.Intellectually disabled.
I don't know how severe it was for the lady, but in my experiences someone who takes advantage of anyone who is disabled, mentally disabled or mentally ill is a slimeball. There has to be some kind of moral code, you don't steal candy from kids, you don't trip blind people and you don't knock over old folks. Sure, if this happened to someone on this board, I'd say 'sucker', but to me its just plain wrong to take advantage of those who can only barerly cope.
If she's smart enough to live on her own, take care of the insurance, plating, licencing and maintenance of a vehicle, and get and hold a driver's licence, she can't be that stupid. Hell, I know smart people who don't know shit about all that.....
she turned you down, huh?I saw her on t.v. ...... all I can say is what an F'in MORON!!! They saw her coming a mile away!
