Fitz,Fitz wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:59 am While I'm on board with the initial rage of it. I think it's getting greedy trying to push for the helmet etc. Take the 600 mile, or just return the bike flat out and buy elsewhere. Arguably since you inspected/had chance to inspect the bike, you also failed to cycle thru the menu's and notice that it was just left on trip b or whatever vs the actual odometer reading which is going to be the true accurate thing.
Please note, I am not a lawyer. I may use words or phrases not exacting or specifically 'correct' for attorney folks, but the thrust of these words is to convey consumer expectations, my expectations, and what a court would do. Can I say what a court would do in this case, well, perhaps with 98% certainty, based on my experience from the past, and the basic issues at hand in this dealership-customer example. I always like to be educated, and hope I can remember the new information, later today, or tomorrow.
Here's the deal. This company knowingly, or should have (reasonably) known that the bike sitting their floor, for over a year, and used for demo rides, had more than 1 mile. It should have been reasonably known from the floor reps, to the sales manager, who along with the dealership manager, 'adjusted' the bikes price (lowering it) as time went along.
To advertise the bike as having one mile, fraudulently as functionally 'new', well, is fraud.
Then knowing I was going to buy this bike several weeks in advance, and had plenty of time to cough up the true miles, rather than waiting for me to discover and or hoping I'd not find the true miles.
To me I find, as would a court, that the dealership did not perform any sense of reasonable diligence in not only posting the factual miles on this bike with their advertising, in their paperwork, with their sales reps, but also in their (lack of) reasonable diligence to tell the customer the truth. I don't base knowing what a court would find on fantasy, but on the practical boundaries a court would filter this type of case, if it were taken to court. I also base my sense on over 30 years working for courts in Calif, and the many outcomes I am familiar.
Were I litigious or greedy by nature, it'd be easy to apply some 'force' in this thing. Were I 'greedy', Oregon has a 'punitive' damage amount of $5,000.00 (small claims), just to have the court use the case to 'set an example' to the business not to do this again in the future. The court applying the extra punitive damage is a separate amount from other, normal claim 'damages', which would be the main case. I always look for solution/resolution, hopefully both sides 'winning'.
The point of the 'inconvenience', if that word is even adequate, to me and or my spouse with needing to deal with the dealerships maleficence, and spend our time walking through a 'fact finding' about the bike, deal with going to their dealership, more than 2 hours away, purchasing another bike as a replacement, and still were are not talking about '(emotional) damages' per se . . .
Your " I think it's getting greedy", as you wrote, the initial offering by them of $300 for the first service, was a pittance of the inconvenience, PITA and fretful nature when trying to figure out we're they trying to fleece me in some manner, and the helmet was my addition to $300 (penalty) for the dealership treating a client, me, so poorly. Add the two together, and it is a fraction of what a court action would have cost them. Heck, they'd spend considerably more than that sum just having their attorney call me a time or two, let alone respond to a comprehensive subpoena duces tecum. With the various forms of 'evidence' already shared with them about the vehicle, and other data, they had a loosing case, and they knew that.
In the end, though I liked the straight-forward manner they communicated to me when I went into their dealership on Friday, up to the point of that meeting, having been told several different stories about the bike's history, I was considering potential actions that I might have to take for any form of resolution, from simple to complex and or legal.
Your "Arguably since you inspected/had chance to inspect the bike, you also failed to cycle thru the menu's and notice that it..." You are correct I did not cycle through the bikes computer system, though I did see the 1 mile on the bikes screen several times.
I sat on the bike, and at that point knew it would physically 'fit' me with a few basic accommodations. That I did not check the bikes computer, and roll through it to check the veracity of the milage is not 'arguably' a failure on my part, is not a part of my 'assumption of risk'. As a dealership, they hold all legal liability of the bikes warrantability, by virtue of having the legal responsibility of providing true, factual data about the bike. I suspect that is the same legal requirement for car/bike dealerships in your state, as well. It is a federal offense to mess with or inaccurately report the odometer 'miles'.
It's important to note that way back in the mid 1900's, car dealerships, particularly used car dealerships, had folks who would roll back odometers. It became such a PITA for customers, that the Fed codified odometer 'truth'/safeguards, and subsequently odometers verification (wrong word) milage 'truth', which is why today the courts would find that a customer's 'expectation' that they are receiving a vehicle with a specific odometer reading, is 'reasonable'. That odometer law has been a very good consumer law.
With this dealership, in this example, both sides came out winning, and as I understand the dealership folks, they are going to review improved oversight and follow through.
I could go on with more examples, but this conversation is aired enough.
Jeff
