Findlay Acura Sold car out from under me despite signed agreement and $5000 deposit. Sales Manager, "I found someone who was willing to pay more so we sold it to them" Henderson, Nevada

On December 28, 2009 I agreed to purchase a 2008 Mazda Miata, VIN JM1NC25F880147362, from Findlay Acura, 315 Auto Mall Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89014.  The purchase price was $18058.45 inclusive of all fees as per phone and email communications with John Pool, Sales Manager.  I learned about the car from an Internet ad and, since I live in Chesterfield, Missouri was concerned about my inability to visit the dealership to inspect and drive the car.  Based on assurances from Mr. Pool that a deposit would reserve the car while I arranged for its inspection on my behalf by a third party and a promise that the car would be "taken off the lot immediately" upon receipt of a $5000 deposit, I authorized that this amount be charged to my Mastercard account that same evening.  I spoke with Brian Parvin, General Salesmanager/Finance Director, on December 29, 2009 and provided all of the additional information he requested in order to expedite the preparation of paperwork necessary to complete the sale. 

I informed Mr. Pool when I received the sale papers from Findlay Acura via FedEx on December 30, 2009 and told him that the inspection date would be between Monday the 4th and Thursday the 7th of January.  He acknowledged this and stated that this presented no problems with regard to the hold on the car.  Mr. Pool indicated that the car had been removed from the lot and that as soon as I received results of the inspection and returned the signed papers along with payment of the balance due the car would immediately be released to me or to the transport company I had arranged.

Mr. Pool contacted me multiple times on Monday January 4, 2010  to update me on the status of the inspection and ultimately to let me know that he had spoken to the company and scheduled the inspection for the following day. On Tuesday morning January 5, 2010 I received a voicemail message from Mr. Pool requesting that I contact him by phone.  When I returned his call he informed that he had sold the car the previous evening to someone else because they were willing to pay more money for it.  This was the full extent of his explanation and he offered no apology for having taken this action.  

I briefly discussed my understanding (and questioned Mr. Pool's) of the purpose behind the $5000 deposit.  I also pointed out that I had been provided a Retail Purchase Order and other supporting documentation which verified the previously agreed upon terms of our agreement, all of which were signed as "Accepted by Authorized Dealership Representative".  I reminded him that he had been aware, in advance, that the prepaid inspection was set to occur within hours of our conversation and that he had expressed no misgivings with this timing as evidenced by the content of the multiple emails he'd sent the preceding day.  Again, Mr. Pool made no mention of any problem with the hold on the car, the timing of the inspection relative to receipt of the deposit or any other explanation for having sold the car out from under me beyond repeating,  "I found someone who was willing to pay more so I sold the car to them."

I have read all of the papers included in the packet Mr. Parvin sent via Fed Ex, including the reverse side of the Retail Purchase Order.  Please note that I am not asking for nor am I entitled to reimbursement of any other costs I incurred associated with inspection, transportation or insurance of the vehicle. I do, however, feel that I am entitled to an explanation regarding Findlay Acura's actions.

I believe that Findlay Acura failed to meet legal and ethical obligations to deliver a car (due to circumstances completely within their control) after asking for and receiving a sizeable deposit to hold the car and after an authorized representative of the dealership acknowledged acceptance of the terms of agreement by affixing their signature to the documents. 

My interpretation of Findlay Acura making unilateral changes to the purchase agreement is that it represents both unfair and deceptive business practices.   I am hopeful that bringing this situation to light will help protect others from such unseemly business conduct in the future.