Earnhardt Gilbert Dodge Purchase Contract Switching ripoff Gilbert Arizona

Now let's get down to business. When a customer is ripped by a car dealer like Earnhardt, where does that injured victim go for redress?

To the state's Attorney General? No. The state's AG office exists as the legal representation for the State.

But what about their "Consumer Protection and Advocacy Section?" That is a mystery to me. The AG cannot represent people in civil or criminal actions, that am aware of. Maybe you know better. Besides the AG will always tell the injured party to engage an attorney.

Then why are the taxpayors of Arizona footing the bill for a "Consurmer Protection and Advocacy Section?"

And what is it costing Arizona taxpayors?

Now if you go to the local police department that has the jurisdiction where the auto dealer is located, the police will tell you the same thing: "get a lawyer." But that costs money.

So now you have been denied assistance by the police, the attorney general, and I am sure the county attorney will sing the same song: "engage an attorney."

So if you are financially or unwilling to engage an attorney, what can you do? Picket, as Stick and Rip-off report says?

"Okay, Boys, let's head for town and have some fun and make some money... there ain't no shariff in town."

I await your reply.

The dealership defense that a "signed contract" is a bullit proof defense is not well founded in the law. There can be many flaws in a signed contract that may void it or make it voidable. For one, and a good legal reason withing the Arizona Revised Statutes is the obtaining of a signature by fraud, deceit or trickery or misrepresentation. There are numerous technical possibilities that could render a contract invalid.

This specific case is one that can be used for justice rather than revenge.

Additionally, an auto dealership cannot rely on being a "rich customer" of the media as a ticket for freedom from being a lawful. Auto dealerships NEED the media much more than the media needs them. But the media will not act injudiciously.

The media can effect the sales of an auto dealership very quickly and watch as the dealership is finally sold to the highest bidder.

As a long time journalist in Arizona, I can tell you that those companies with big ad budgets can push their weight just so far. I was present at meetings when a land sales promoter that ran thousands of dollars in advertising every weekend tried to squeeze the press that carried his ads. It wasn't long before that same Pulliam press was running news stories on the front page while his ads were on the back page.

I will tell you that the media is more community minded than you give it credit for being.

Yes, this is a case that needs more and wider coverage exactly for the reasons you wonderful advocates mentioned.

... You may be right... thanks for the observance, Lee.

... You may be right... thanks for the observance, Lee.

... You may be right... thanks for the observance, Lee.

... You may be right... thanks for the observance, Lee.

Unfortunately Ted, John's analogy couldn't be more on the money. The only difference is that car dealers aren't as honorable as snakes. Most people would choose an evening with a friendly Copperhead over a car salesman.

There's really nothing you can do at this point but learn, but chances are that if you got screwed like this at 71, you may never learn.

But I hope you do.

I wasn't saying you made it up, just trying to show you what you were up against. Here is the good part. If the ad in the paper has the stock numbers of the one on sale and it matches yours they have to honor the sale price. If they don't match the print ad it is considered a bait ad. From the AZ AG office on what makes an ad a bait ad.

Refusal to show, display, offer for sale, or sell the automobile advertised in accordance with the terms of the advertisement.

Notice the sell the automobile advertised... part

Thanks for your feed back, Mark. She admitted a previous written contract that indicated that I had read it, understood it and initialed it.

The existance of the first contract has never been in dispute. They have never denied the existance to the Arizona Attorney General. But they simply have not mailed it to me.

But what you say is true. If I took it to court, it would be my word against someone else's word. Not a ctrong case. That is why the AG passed on it.

The only thing Earnhardt would have to show is why I would pay $18,200 for a car on-sale for $8,900 in the existing newspaper and radio ads. I posess copies of those ads.

Thanks for your feed back, Mark. She admitted a previous written contract that indicated that I had read it, understood it and initialed it.

The existance of the first contract has never been in dispute. They have never denied the existance to the Arizona Attorney General. But they simply have not mailed it to me.

But what you say is true. If I took it to court, it would be my word against someone else's word. Not a ctrong case. That is why the AG passed on it.

The only thing Earnhardt would have to show is why I would pay $18,200 for a car on-sale for $8,900 in the existing newspaper and radio ads. I posess copies of those ads.

Thanks for your feed back, Mark. She admitted a previous written contract that indicated that I had read it, understood it and initialed it.

The existance of the first contract has never been in dispute. They have never denied the existance to the Arizona Attorney General. But they simply have not mailed it to me.

But what you say is true. If I took it to court, it would be my word against someone else's word. Not a ctrong case. That is why the AG passed on it.

The only thing Earnhardt would have to show is why I would pay $18,200 for a car on-sale for $8,900 in the existing newspaper and radio ads. I posess copies of those ads.

Thanks for your feed back, Mark. She admitted a previous written contract that indicated that I had read it, understood it and initialed it.

The existance of the first contract has never been in dispute. They have never denied the existance to the Arizona Attorney General. But they simply have not mailed it to me.

But what you say is true. If I took it to court, it would be my word against someone else's word. Not a ctrong case. That is why the AG passed on it.

The only thing Earnhardt would have to show is why I would pay $18,200 for a car on-sale for $8,900 in the existing newspaper and radio ads. I posess copies of those ads.

Ted,

I went back and re read your original complaint. From what I can tell you don't have the first contract? What proof do you have that there was one? Without that, there is no case.

Everyone is blaming the dealer, how do you know this guy did not get a bad deal, and now made up a story about a second contract to try and get out of it?

Picture this in front of a judge: Your story is there was a second contract, the dealers story is there was not one, where is the proof?

Ted,

I went back and re read your original complaint. From what I can tell you don't have the first contract? What proof do you have that there was one? Without that, there is no case.

Everyone is blaming the dealer, how do you know this guy did not get a bad deal, and now made up a story about a second contract to try and get out of it?

Picture this in front of a judge: Your story is there was a second contract, the dealers story is there was not one, where is the proof?

Ted,

I went back and re read your original complaint. From what I can tell you don't have the first contract? What proof do you have that there was one? Without that, there is no case.

Everyone is blaming the dealer, how do you know this guy did not get a bad deal, and now made up a story about a second contract to try and get out of it?

Picture this in front of a judge: Your story is there was a second contract, the dealers story is there was not one, where is the proof?

Ted,

I went back and re read your original complaint. From what I can tell you don't have the first contract? What proof do you have that there was one? Without that, there is no case.

Everyone is blaming the dealer, how do you know this guy did not get a bad deal, and now made up a story about a second contract to try and get out of it?

Picture this in front of a judge: Your story is there was a second contract, the dealers story is there was not one, where is the proof?

Thank you, John. There was a reach for the analogy, but no reach for sympathy.

It would be good if the Earnhardt people popped in. Doesn't Ripoff send them notice that a complaint was filed so they can have an opportunity to respond?

I will try this case on the Internet, with Ripoff, or even in the press ... but not on their turf ... in a court room, where only procedure prevails.

You're gonna lose this one, John, you don't have the facts, you don't have the law, you only have "that's life, that's the way things are."

But nice try, but lame and (still) baseless in our society.

That rape victim anology used doesn't work here. Nice try for the sympathy approach though.

What it comes down to is the OP signed a blank contract giving the dealer carte blanche to fill in whatever. Verbal agreement? Please. Would he have given them a signed blank check? Of course not, but in a way, he did.

Sure it was a despicable action on the part of the dealership. There is no question about that. A disgusting way to run a business. It really sucks that you can't trust people. Unfortunately that's the world we live in.

Reminds me of the fable about a lady who finds an injured rattlesnake and the snake asks the lady to take care of him. It promises that it won't bite her. She takes it home and nurses it back to health. One day after it's healthy she's feeding it and it bites her. "Why did you bite me?", she asks. "You told me you wouldn't!". As the venom courses it's way through the woman's body the snake replies "I'm a snake. You knew that when you saw me, and you still picked me up.".

Good luck. If you find recourse from the dealership, please let us know.

John, I am deeply pondering your point of view, because I don't want to be accused of being blind to my own actions.

I admit that signing a contract with blank spaces in it, even though I knew that the monthly payments and financed amount would change. I expected that when I agreed to add-on the Service Contract.

To use your words, the "unauthorized modification" of the term, the price the discounts and trade credits were subtracted from (WSP instead of Invoice as indicated in the newspaper ad) is beyond "unethical", it is beyond the law.

"Unethical" is not illegal, altering an agreed upon amount by stealth and deception is illegal, not just unethical.

I disagree with your characterization of "bottom line". You idicate the "bottom line" is that I knowingly signed a blank contract.

In my opinion, the "bottom line" is that Earnhardt Gilbert Dodge altered an agreed upon amount. Remember the premise, the office manager and I reviewed, word by word each of the blank spaces and when I completed reading them with her, I inisitialed each one indicating that I had read it, understood it and agreed to it.

Now your "Culture of Victims" characterization; John, I have pondered this. It first became the battle cry in the late 1960s and 1970s when we no longer had theives stealing cars; instead we had negligent people that refused or failed to lock their cars making the car an "invitation" to be taken. That defence was used in rape trials as well. The public defender argued that woman wasn't raped. "She invited the hot-blooded male to react to her apparent invitation."... In my case, the crime was not commited by the rogue office manager or whoever had the final say; it was my fault for leaving the spaces blank which merely invited corrupt acts by corupt individuals.

John, please point to cases like that were upheld by the Supreme Court.

Yes, I understand the victim responsibility arguement, but I don't believe your point of view ever survived the lower courts, the media and television shows.

It is probably time to hear from Earnhardt Gilbert Dodge or their attorney. They are invited to jump in anytime.

Thank you John. But I think Steve and Robert are far more accurate than your statements, even though they were being facetious. Ted, Arizona

but if you do seek that kind of satisfaction, select the darkest part of the lot away from the security cameras.

Good luck.

When dealing with big business, the law will NEVER help the consumer. That is because big business makes the laws. They make the laws that protect them and their own business interests.

Therefore, you have to bring them to their knees any way you can.

Here's how you deal with a scumbag car dealer.

Go to Wal-Mart. Spend $2.97 on a scratch awl. It has a very sharp point on it and can be concealed in your pocket. This tool when inserted into the sidewall of a tire makes the tire useless and unrepairable. It makes absolutely no noise, and goes totally flat in about 30 minutes.

Most car dealers are self insured to a large amount, so the replacement tires will come out of their pockets which now are a little less deep.

You can do repeat performances as needed to acheive the proper pocket depth.

Lots of satisfaction here.

And if you really want to get more satisfaction, go to a kino's, or the like and fax them a tire sale ad.

Ultimate satisfaction.

Don't get mad. Get satisfaction.

While the alleged unauthorized modification to your contract is completely unethical, and while I do not doubt for a minute that dealers have done and will continue this unconcionable activity, it still comes down to the bottom line...you DID sign a blank contract. Your failure to accept this fact and your attempt to divert ANY responsibility on your part is symptomatic of the "culture of victims" our society is becoming. No, I don't approve of the alleged contract switching. No, I have nothing against you personally and I sincerely wish that you had not had this happen to you. However the bottom line remains: if you had not signed a blank contract this would all be a moot point as they would've never had the chance to pull a fast one on you. I do have this suggestion though for some partial recourse and satisfaction: The dealer probably gets a small amount of the contract paid back to him through either a dealer reserve or a "flat" fee. If you go to the financial institution of your choice and refinance this note, not only will you get to negotiate your own loan terms at probably a better rate, the dealer will lose all pending reserve payments and/or will lose any "flat" payment he received if you refinance within 60 days of the dealer contract.

I do wish you well in this matter.

That is a worthwhile site. Thank you, Stick. As was said earlier, "Rule of Law" is gone... Dealers motto is, "We do what we want and if you don't like it, you have to sue. Can you afford the money to sue a dealership?"

Of course not. We are returning to the jungle.

The cases i brought up for this dealership indicated they sue frequently to garnishee wages for non-payment on contracts.

But the process to correct the course is working.

That is a worthwhile site. Thank you, Stick. As was said earlier, "Rule of Law" is gone... Dealers motto is, "We do what we want and if you don't like it, you have to sue. Can you afford the money to sue a dealership?"

Of course not. We are returning to the jungle.

The cases i brought up for this dealership indicated they sue frequently to garnishee wages for non-payment on contracts.

But the process to correct the course is working.

That is a worthwhile site. Thank you, Stick. As was said earlier, "Rule of Law" is gone... Dealers motto is, "We do what we want and if you don't like it, you have to sue. Can you afford the money to sue a dealership?"

Of course not. We are returning to the jungle.

The cases i brought up for this dealership indicated they sue frequently to garnishee wages for non-payment on contracts.

But the process to correct the course is working.

That is a worthwhile site. Thank you, Stick. As was said earlier, "Rule of Law" is gone... Dealers motto is, "We do what we want and if you don't like it, you have to sue. Can you afford the money to sue a dealership?"

Of course not. We are returning to the jungle.

The cases i brought up for this dealership indicated they sue frequently to garnishee wages for non-payment on contracts.

But the process to correct the course is working.

most consumers are NEVER told about how car dealers train their " LOT SHARKS" how to take advantage of car buyers.

So many want to come on this site and bash the victims. Try this go to the below URL and once you get there go to the Business NAME BOX and type in the first car dealer's name that comes to mind and hit search. You will see just how many law suits that dealer has had!


http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/
docket/civil/caseSearch.asp

Most of the commentaries have settled upon the action of the victim; that action being the signing of a blank contract.

Arguing the blank contract issue is a red herring and an attempt to direct the attention away from the conduct of the dealership's personnel.

That makes me somewhat suspicious since the use of the 'red herring' is a classical stratagem of attorneys who defend criminals.

By talking about my signing the blank contract we are not debating the conduct of the dealership; that of falsifying a contract. Hmmmm!
Interesting but it won't work.

There is no reason they could not have completed the contract and then got your signature.

There is NEVER any legitimate reason to sign a blank contract.

I have dealt with the used car side of Earnhardt and that was a nightmare. I ended up winning, but only after threatening to park the dually I just bought on the sales managers desk.

NO car dealer should ever be trusted.

Thanks to d**k, clearer thinking minds prevail. A more serious fact is apparent; that America is no longer a place where the Rule of Law guides our conduct.

When the Rule of Law is abandoned anarchy prevails.

Law enforcement does nothing, can do nothing, will not do anything leaves us to return to the times in American history where "there was no marshall in town.".....

Well Ted, at 71 I guess I can't think of you as my kid brother. But I can think of you as my granddad and what they did to you still ticks me off.

Your faith in people is commendable, but you have to put it aside when you walk into a car dealership.

I don't know if you have any other option than to get a lawyer involved, which it sounds like you have.

Good luck.

The comments received are certainly welcome and they do add various points of view; and they themselves deserve a comment.

Firstly, I am no kid. To possess a trusting non-criminal thinking mind is not the domain of young, inexperienced people. I am 71 years old; and I refuse to believe everyone is unfair or worse, like the people encountered at Earnhardt Dodge in Gilbert.

Scondly, no on has touched the real issue here... the falsification of a recorded legal document, an installment sale contract. The contract that was agreed to was "initialed" at various key points. That contract has been destroyed apparently or at least not produced according to law. I will repeat, "according to Arizona revised statutes" that spell out that both parties to an instalment sale contract must receive a copy of that agreement. Although Earnhardt has been requested to do so; they have never at any time denied the existance of a primary contract, they simply demur. Which as you all know is an "admission" that they have it or had it.

However, they cannot avoid the process that is in motion. The parties involved who are sons of owners, I am told, will answer for their conduct which is in violation of Arizona law.

Under Banker John's theory; a woman walking down the street taht snatched and raped, deserves it for walking down that street. Banker John must be a lawyer searching for any kind of defence, valid or not.

Yeah, it touched a nerve. Ya wanna know why? I'll tell ya anyway.

This poor kid Ted (I assume he's young for not knowing better than to sign a blank contract) has had his car buying experience ruined by the dishonest, fraudulent, stab-in-the-back tactics of this dealership. Might even be his first new car. This should be a fun, exciting experience for him. Instead, he must be feeling angry, cheated, foolish, depressed, you name the negative emotion.

He comes here to vent. It would have been nice for the first response to kindly explain why this was a mistake, think of it as a relatively cheap life lesson, and enjoy the car. You know, let him down easy.

But oh no, here comes Banker John to dump on him and basically tell him he got screwed because he's an idiot.

You can't even throw him a bone by saying that what the dealership did was wrong. You do agree that what the dealership did was wrong, don't you? Or is the dealership above the law, and whatever's in their bag of tricks to trap the unwary or inexperienced is just too bad, so sad? Tell me, Banker John, that you don't believe that.

I thought of my kid brother in this situation and it pissed me off. How's that?

The use of the term "extortion" is referring to being compelled to make payments on a contract in discpute or suffer a reposession of a car, which could cause a catastrophy in a person's life in this day and age.

Sorry d**k if I touched a nerve. I would've thought that you could respond to the posting without resorting to childish name calling. Apparently you fancy youself a comedian. You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. If the contract had been forged, this could've been proven through signature comparisons and resolved throught he courts. The OP has no defense to a legally signed contract and I bet he has learned his lesson regarding such matters albeit an unfortunate and expensive lesson.

Merry Christmas to you and your family d**k. Maybe Santa will bring you a personality instead of just a lump of coal this year.

3TV, TV5 FOX 10 TV 12 and TV15 NONE of them have the balls to do a story on new car dealer Rip OFF's and scams. many local Tv stations will get into HOT WATER with their sales departments. Because they would loose BIG MONEY if their news departments were EXPOSING many local new car dealers.

Peep the below and ask if they are news you can use. Many in the local media believe it only leads if IT BLEEDS"

Now peep the below and post if you think they are NEWS you can USE.

Peep the pic's in this one
http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff38266.htm

COMBAT VET DEAD Why I don't know, you be the judge. Peep the pic's
http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff36168.htm

Man with huge balls willing to picket got what he wanted at Mel Clayton Ford. Peep the pic's
http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff5137.htm

Sweet on reguarding Earnhardt Ford. Love the pic's

http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff5183.htm

This dealer's BIG HOT DOG did what he should have done. But ONLY after 2 Phoenix Police cars drove up. Peep the pic's SWEET! Your's truly took the pic's.

http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff138219.htm

Ted NO locay form of media has any balls.

Unfortunately, Ted, you have learned a few hard lessons, but don't make the mistake of forgetting them!

- As was noted, never trust a dealership!

- NEVER, for any reason, EVER sign a blank contract.

- Never leave a contract behind for them to "finish up". They'll finish it, alright.

- Always read the contract, or at least, scout out the dollar amounts stated. This can be tricky, cause they may SPELL OUT the dollar amounts, in hopes you'll skip over them, not realizing they are dollar amounts.

But, at a minimum, search out all dollar amounts.

- Don't be rushed into NOT READING THE CONTRACT. Had the contract been completed, the dealership (and lots of businesses) would have rushed you through it, discouraging you from reading it, and since there's so much small type, a consumer feels pressured to just "go along" and "trust" the business.

DON'T DO IT! Always read your contract before you sign. This is uncomfortable to insist upon, and not easy to find a quiet place to do so, but it's so much WORSE when you are on the other end of not having read it.

I have learned, in reviewing contracts, and Terms & Conditions of offers, to scan the documents, AT THE VERY LEAST, looking for all the dollar amounts stated. This works, in a lot of cases, although I don't recommend it for contracts of any significant amount.

It's AMAZING what just hunting for those dollar amounts can reveal!

I am so sorry you were forced into these lessons, all at once, no less! But, please, don't forget them! Passing the lessons learned on to others that you know, that's a great benefit of experience. Friends and family will take to heart what is told to them as an actual experience, with the details explaining what all went wrong, as opposed to theories that have no applicable point of reference for them.

Unfortunately, Ted, you have learned a few hard lessons, but don't make the mistake of forgetting them!

- As was noted, never trust a dealership!

- NEVER, for any reason, EVER sign a blank contract.

- Never leave a contract behind for them to "finish up". They'll finish it, alright.

- Always read the contract, or at least, scout out the dollar amounts stated. This can be tricky, cause they may SPELL OUT the dollar amounts, in hopes you'll skip over them, not realizing they are dollar amounts.

But, at a minimum, search out all dollar amounts.

- Don't be rushed into NOT READING THE CONTRACT. Had the contract been completed, the dealership (and lots of businesses) would have rushed you through it, discouraging you from reading it, and since there's so much small type, a consumer feels pressured to just "go along" and "trust" the business.

DON'T DO IT! Always read your contract before you sign. This is uncomfortable to insist upon, and not easy to find a quiet place to do so, but it's so much WORSE when you are on the other end of not having read it.

I have learned, in reviewing contracts, and Terms & Conditions of offers, to scan the documents, AT THE VERY LEAST, looking for all the dollar amounts stated. This works, in a lot of cases, although I don't recommend it for contracts of any significant amount.

It's AMAZING what just hunting for those dollar amounts can reveal!

I am so sorry you were forced into these lessons, all at once, no less! But, please, don't forget them! Passing the lessons learned on to others that you know, that's a great benefit of experience. Friends and family will take to heart what is told to them as an actual experience, with the details explaining what all went wrong, as opposed to theories that have no applicable point of reference for them.

Wanker John:

"The bottom line is you signed a blank contract. Regardless of the reason, you did this to yourself."

True. Ted made a HUGE mistake: he trusted a car dealership. I bet he never does that again.

Wanker John:
"I'm not saying that they are right and you are wrong, but you have no defense here."

Gosh, don't go out on a limb there, Wanker. The dealership committed fraud.

Wanker John:
"How can it be referred to as extortion and how could the AG's ofice do anything when they have a signed contract?"

No, it's not extortion. It's fraud. But I suppose that's morally and legally equivalent to naivete, huh Wanker?

What if they had forged the signature?

"They have a signed contract."

Well, then. Case closed.

I've read some drivel on this site, but this takes the cake. Maybe you're just trolling, but you could at least make it funny.

The bottom line is you signed a blank contract. Regardless of the reason, you did this to yourself. I'm not saying that they are right and you are wrong, but you have no defense here. How can it be referred to as extortion and how could the AG's ofice do anything when they have a signed contract?

Banker John