"Market Adjustment" request for #1 gt4 spot
#76
I'd tell them to pound sand. There will be plenty of the GT4's for all who want one. It will appeal to a very limited market. Grab the internet and a phone - there are plenty of dealers who are not greedy and/or crooks.
#77
Some times it's not cost-effective to litigate. That is a factor to consider along with costs and time. Attorney fees or liquidated damages for breach can also be contracted. Mine was a simple contract sent via email that I requested the SA read very carefully. I told him not to run my credit card for the deposit unless he read, understood and was authorized to do so after reading the terms because his doing so, per the email, constituted an acceptance.
Mooty, if I had to litigate, because I was being screwed, yes, I may have. Or, I may have let it slide at my option. If they breached, I had a legal recourse. I wouldn't have to just stew about it and just complain about it on a forum, although, I probably would have done that too. I could, if I wanted to, screw them back and, that is far more gratifying than taking it.
That said, I'm not saying your method is wrong. Having trust and faith in business relations is important. But, if you've been around as long as I have, and have had 20+ year old friends screw you, you know that trust is a rare commodity, something you're never going to have speaking with some dealer or sales agent for a half hour. I don't leave business to trust anymore, and, that's how I operate.
Dan (doesn't bend over)
Mooty, if I had to litigate, because I was being screwed, yes, I may have. Or, I may have let it slide at my option. If they breached, I had a legal recourse. I wouldn't have to just stew about it and just complain about it on a forum, although, I probably would have done that too. I could, if I wanted to, screw them back and, that is far more gratifying than taking it.
That said, I'm not saying your method is wrong. Having trust and faith in business relations is important. But, if you've been around as long as I have, and have had 20+ year old friends screw you, you know that trust is a rare commodity, something you're never going to have speaking with some dealer or sales agent for a half hour. I don't leave business to trust anymore, and, that's how I operate.
Dan (doesn't bend over)
All Mooty is implying is that drafting all that on email, shouting and losing time to prove a loss of say 20k at most (some would say not even) is not really worth the time nor effort and I agree.
If a dealer proves to lack good judgement and sense in this day and age, name and shame him. That will do him worse than the private litigation (if it even comes down to that).
Remember, sometimes faster to swerve than building muscles in your butt.
#78
#79
Dan,
All Mooty is implying is that drafting all that on email, shouting and losing time to prove a loss of say 20k at most (some would say not even) is not really worth the time nor effort and I agree.
If a dealer proves to lack good judgement and sense in this day and age, name and shame him. That will do him worse than the private litigation (if it even comes down to that).
Remember, sometimes faster to swerve than building muscles in your butt.
All Mooty is implying is that drafting all that on email, shouting and losing time to prove a loss of say 20k at most (some would say not even) is not really worth the time nor effort and I agree.
If a dealer proves to lack good judgement and sense in this day and age, name and shame him. That will do him worse than the private litigation (if it even comes down to that).
Remember, sometimes faster to swerve than building muscles in your butt.
I'll fill you in on what happened after I took 20 minutes to draft the contract. My deposit was taken, the contract was in force, when I went into see the GM to go over my build options, the first thing he said was, "it's the lawyer." He had obviously read the email and had authorized the deposit effectively accepting the transaction at MSRP. I thanked him for agreeing to MSRP per my email and he confided in me that that the dealership was negotiating more than MSRP with other customers. My SA and GM were straight with me through-out the transaction. It definitely did not hurt to have MSRP clearly agreed upon, by contract, before taking delivery. We didn't talk about any numbers after that, I went straight to Porsche Finance to complete the purchase agreement at MSRP when I took delivery. I was well optioned, the dealership made good money off of me with over $20k in options plus some add-ons like wheel and tire insurance and other stuff that I did not try to negotiate down since the dealership was holding up their end of the bargain.
That's all I have to say about this and folks can handle their transactions anyway they care to.
Dan (goes back to work)
#80
I didn't pay over retail for it, I got in on sale by waiting at 12 am in line at kmart and on xmas noone cared for it, i was like, i waited in line for this everyone wants one, nobody at my house did
#81
i wonder if any lawyers know, that if you and a contract that wasn't honored, could you sue for breach and file an injunction against them to prevent them from selling/driving the car until your court case was settled?
#82
I am not a contract attorney though.
#83
I've been thinking that we might need to get a master dealer blacklist together...
I know not everyone will check it but we would, and if asking over gets a mark on the list, some might think twice before pulling this crap. And if it does snowball legit dealers should benefit...
I know not everyone will check it but we would, and if asking over gets a mark on the list, some might think twice before pulling this crap. And if it does snowball legit dealers should benefit...
#84
Buying my GT3 was the first time I drafted a pre-purchase agreement for a car pricing it at MSRP with deposit as consideration and dealer taking deposit as acceptance. I leave "trust" out of the equation by drafting an enforceable contract. The dealer gets MSRP and so do I, by contract, and there is no negotiation at time of delivery. If they don't agree to contract, they don't get my deposit and they likely never would have agreed to MSRP later so I don't waste my time or the use of my deposit.
Win win.
Dan (contacts all large transactions and, knows, that is very, very old school)
Win win.
Dan (contacts all large transactions and, knows, that is very, very old school)
California Civil Code Section 2982.7 Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act
2982.7. (a) Any payment made by a buyer to a seller pending execution of a conditional sale contract shall be refunded to the buyer in the event the conditional sale contract is not executed.
#85
GT3 player par excellence
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 43,564
Likes: 5,897
From: san francisco
Some times it's not cost-effective to litigate. That is a factor to consider along with costs and time. Attorney fees or liquidated damages for breach can also be contracted. Mine was a simple contract sent via email that I requested the SA read very carefully. I told him not to run my credit card for the deposit unless he read, understood and was authorized to do so after reading the terms because his doing so, per the email, constituted an acceptance.
Mooty, if I had to litigate, because I was being screwed, yes, I may have. Or, I may have let it slide at my option. If they breached, I had a legal recourse. I wouldn't have to just stew about it and just complain about it on a forum, although, I probably would have done that too. I could, if I wanted to, screw them back and, that is far more gratifying than taking it.
That said, I'm not saying your method is wrong. Having trust and faith in business relations is important. But, if you've been around as long as I have, and have had 20+ year old friends screw you, you know that trust is a rare commodity, something you're never going to have speaking with some dealer or sales agent for a half hour. I don't leave business to trust anymore, and, that's how I operate.
Dan (doesn't bend over)
Mooty, if I had to litigate, because I was being screwed, yes, I may have. Or, I may have let it slide at my option. If they breached, I had a legal recourse. I wouldn't have to just stew about it and just complain about it on a forum, although, I probably would have done that too. I could, if I wanted to, screw them back and, that is far more gratifying than taking it.
That said, I'm not saying your method is wrong. Having trust and faith in business relations is important. But, if you've been around as long as I have, and have had 20+ year old friends screw you, you know that trust is a rare commodity, something you're never going to have speaking with some dealer or sales agent for a half hour. I don't leave business to trust anymore, and, that's how I operate.
Dan (doesn't bend over)
I had bought a car from Carlsen in the past and decided to give them a call when I was shopping around recently for a GT3. They were so matter of fact that there were no cars available, but if I payed 20K over they might be able to find something. That was the end of my dealings with Carlsen. I am getting my car for MSRP from SoCal.
you can retire legitimately or retire in moral fear.
i like to sleep well at night.
#86
Straight-road, I contacted one other, Beverly Hills Porsche. No I didn't speak with GF. I got an offer for a 2014 for MSRP with replaced motor, all the baggage that goes along with having to explain that, it effectively being one year old, none of the consideration Porsche paid 2014 owners for their patience/loss of use, use of a loaner, memory seats refund and with who knows what options when 2015s that I could spec were available for MSRP. I didn't bother with Auto-Gallery knowing they mark up $25k plus. I stuck with Rusnak Pasadena when I got an email from my SA for the GT3 at MSRP. I'd do business with them again and will do my service there. They were really terrific through-out the process.
Rwcsn1, yes, I was aware and in fact, the email contract referenced an ability to demand refund of deposit and my concern, since we're talking 1L, was whether the consideration was "illusory." We could spend a page discussing that, I think we'd both rather not. I concluded it was not illusory due to my loss of use of the deposit for the period in wait regardless of my ability to demand refund.
Mooty, we're all good. By the way, I love the picture where your kids are rolling around in tires, that's awesome! Let me know if you would like to coordinate a track day in the summer with So. Cal. guys planning to come up to No. Cal. It might make it easier for a head count on one of your private track days and I bet there are many down here who'd love to do that and meet up with you guys.
Rwcsn1, yes, I was aware and in fact, the email contract referenced an ability to demand refund of deposit and my concern, since we're talking 1L, was whether the consideration was "illusory." We could spend a page discussing that, I think we'd both rather not. I concluded it was not illusory due to my loss of use of the deposit for the period in wait regardless of my ability to demand refund.
Mooty, we're all good. By the way, I love the picture where your kids are rolling around in tires, that's awesome! Let me know if you would like to coordinate a track day in the summer with So. Cal. guys planning to come up to No. Cal. It might make it easier for a head count on one of your private track days and I bet there are many down here who'd love to do that and meet up with you guys.
#87
If only we could take emotion out of the transaction ... some random topical thoughts below ...
IMHO there are a couple key issues at work in this thread - 1) value and 2) fairness.
On value - for any transaction to take place, both parties need to seek an agreement on value. You decide your value and the dealer decides their value. If they match, then there is a deal. If not, move on. Rather emotionless and simple.
Fairness on the other hand often has a more subjective, maybe even an emotional, aspect. Clearly if both parties agree on value, they'd view it as a fair deal and perhaps establish a durable relationship (i.e. future deals). If, however, one party views it as unfair, but decides to compromise on value to get the deal done, then the compromising party may view it as unfair and certainly question whether they've created a durable relationship. Likewise they may be offended that the value proposition from the other party is so much different than theirs, and hence choose not to enter into the transaction at all.
Fairness has gradations too. Some of us may consider MSRP for a Porsche borderline fair depending on certain criteria - since most dealers do not pay MSRP to purchase the car from the factory, MSRP has a built in profit for them. But MSRP + some added % simply defined as extra dealer profit (aka market adjustment) is typically viewed as unfair to us, the buyer.
As others have already stated, I don't begrudge a dealer their point of view on value, but I do believe it should be within reasonable limits of fairness as I perceive it. As a dealer friend of mine once said, "I don't need to hit a home run on every sale, just a few of them once in a while". Of course I prefer them to hit a single when I'm pitching.
(ok poor metaphor but I think it makes the point)
IMHO there are a couple key issues at work in this thread - 1) value and 2) fairness.
On value - for any transaction to take place, both parties need to seek an agreement on value. You decide your value and the dealer decides their value. If they match, then there is a deal. If not, move on. Rather emotionless and simple.
Fairness on the other hand often has a more subjective, maybe even an emotional, aspect. Clearly if both parties agree on value, they'd view it as a fair deal and perhaps establish a durable relationship (i.e. future deals). If, however, one party views it as unfair, but decides to compromise on value to get the deal done, then the compromising party may view it as unfair and certainly question whether they've created a durable relationship. Likewise they may be offended that the value proposition from the other party is so much different than theirs, and hence choose not to enter into the transaction at all.
Fairness has gradations too. Some of us may consider MSRP for a Porsche borderline fair depending on certain criteria - since most dealers do not pay MSRP to purchase the car from the factory, MSRP has a built in profit for them. But MSRP + some added % simply defined as extra dealer profit (aka market adjustment) is typically viewed as unfair to us, the buyer.
As others have already stated, I don't begrudge a dealer their point of view on value, but I do believe it should be within reasonable limits of fairness as I perceive it. As a dealer friend of mine once said, "I don't need to hit a home run on every sale, just a few of them once in a while". Of course I prefer them to hit a single when I'm pitching.
(ok poor metaphor but I think it makes the point)