King Nissan Volvo Bait-and-switch, sales fraud Bellingham, Washington

 When is hard head team rebutt going to learn, no one wants their rebutts

If you are not, nor have ever been, affiliated with any auto dealership, then you are, sir, in no position whatsoever to rebut this complaint. If you are not intimately connected with the process by which such defrauding of the naive consumer is accomplished, then you have no useful contribution to share. If you have no stake in the matter, then it is not your place to rebut, having no interest in defending the dealer's position nor information which might shed light on such a situation.

Opinions are a dime a dozen on the internet; yours has no value here.

King Nissan Volvo and The Interwebs: caveat emptor, boys and girls.

"finely-printed details buried in the sales contract"

You buried the answer [in your long response] to both questions. It appears as though the written documentation does not support your claims.

"This is certainly a bait and switch. Merriam Webster defines this as follows: 'the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor...then thwarting expectations with something less desirable.'"

That definition does not apply because your signature on the agreement indicates you find the terms desirable and acceptable.

Merriam-Webster defines contract as a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties and as a document describing the terms of a contract. Your agreement does not go beyond the four corners of your written contract.

You are angry with yourself for not reading the agreement before signing. Live and learn.

No, I am not (and have never been) affiliated with any auto dealership.

From the original poster:

This is certainly a bait and switch. Merriam Webster defines this as follows: "the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor...then thwarting expectations with something less desirable."

Furthermore, such business practices constitute fraud. Again, Merriam Webster: "deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick"

The salesman represented this car as "certified, pre-owned." This is the exact classification of certain vehicles used by Volvo Cars of North America to describe those cars that have undergone a corporate-approved inspection program and which, as a consequence, carry a corporate-backed warranty.

When this was discussed in his presence, the salesman supported the customer's description of Volvo's official "certified pre-owned" program, not correcting the customer's understanding that this was, in fact, a car certified by Volvo.

Further, when the sales manager was processing the sale, he was asked to confirm that this was a "certified" car, and he did confirm that. At NO TIME did any dealership staff make any effort to clarify that "certified" means one thing to Volvo Cars of North America and quite another entirely different thing to King Nissan Volvo.

The use of such misleading and obfuscatory terminology, especially in light of the well-known corporate use of exactly the same words to represent an official value added product sponsored by Volvo, and further verified when confirmation was requested by the customer, represents an egregious and deliberate misrepresentation of the product being sold. Whether or not the details of the written sales contract would pass the "reasonable man" test is a subject for debate. However, the only conclusion that said reasonable man can draw from the facts as presented is that the sales staff and management are fully aware of the likelihood of the customer believing that "certified" means "certified" as defined by Volvo. The reasonable conclusion is that dealership management, being intimately acquainted with Volvo's corporate certification program, deliberately chose to use the same word in describing their own, entirely separate and distinct, process of vehicle inspection.

How simple it would have been to call this "King Nissan Volvo's 20-point vehicle inspection" or something similar. How simple it would have been to clarify this with the customer when verification of the car's certification status was requested: "now you understand that our use of the term 'certified' is not meant to imply that this vehicle is certified by Volvo Cars of North America."

Do you actually suggest that, in spite of and in contradiction to explicit and verified understanding that exists between the buyer and the seller, the obscure, finely-printed details buried in the sales contract should be held up as proof that the dealership has not misrepresented his product?

King Nissan Volvo: caveat emptor indeed!

That is not Bait and Switch.

Does the bill of sale or other documentation state that the vehicle is certified pre-owned? What are the terms of the written warranty?