Quick Contact

News

• CONSUMER WATCH: The downside of voluntary repossession
• Misrepresentation costly for Norfolk dealership
• National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Releases Annual Crash Predictions
• LifeSmarts Competition
• Advocates, dealerships cheer car-inspection bill's demise
• USED-VEHICLE PURCHASE
• Inspection bill put on hold by Sen. Norment
• Car-Dealer Measure Is Pulled
• Virginia Independent Automobile Dealers Association Meeting
• J. Smith v. Casey Chevrolet, Circuit Court of Newport News, Virginia:

more >

Library

• Virginia Lemon Law
• Auto Fraud
• Credit Fraud & Identity Theft
• General

more >

Case Results

• Virginia Lemon Law
• Virginia Lemon Law - Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act
• Virginia Lemon Law Cases
• Lemon Law Case Results With Chrysler Vehicles
• Lemon Law Case Results With General Motors Corporation
• Lemon Law Case Results With Ford Motor Company
• Auto Fraud
• Richmond Dealer Guilty of Fraud, Punitive Damages Awarded
• Dealership Found Guilty of Fraud in Sale of BMW
• CAR DEALER ORDERED TO PAY $140,000 + FOR FRAUD, CLAIMS POVERTY
• Auto Fraud Case Results
• Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. Pays Judgments
• Settled Case - Auto Fraud
• Settled Case - Prior Wreck Auto Fraud
• Automobile Fraud
• Auto Fraud - Settled Case
• Car Dealership Pays Over $114,500 For Fraud In Selling Wrecked Vehicle
• Misrepresentation costly for Norfolk dealership

more >

The Consumer Law Group Case Result: Used Vehicle Sold As New

Case Result:

In October 2004, the plaintiffs went to purchase a new 2004 vehicle. During negotiations for the vehicle, Plaintiffs discussed the vehicle with their salesman and asked specifically about the 1063 miles that were on the odometer. The salesman told them that the vehicle was new, that the mileage came from its use by the sales staff and from the mileage accumulated when it was driven to and from another car dealership from which this dealership purchased the vehicle. The salesman deliberately concealed from the Plaintiffs that the vehicle was a used vehicle, something he knew or should have known.

The vehicle was not purchased from another dealer but sold directly to this dealership by Ford Motor Company and ownership transferred to this dealership, which was discovered on the Certificate Of Origin. The mileage put on the vehicle, after it received the vehicle from Ford Motor Company was from its use during test drives, use as a demonstrator, and the personal or business of employees of this dealership; and the Plaintiffs were never told that the vehicle was a "used" vehicle.

Based on the rear end problems noted when they first purchased the car, and the apparent out of alignment of the body or frame and resulting shimmying that cannot be fixed, it is believed that the vehicle sustained some kind of rear end damage prior to the Plaintiffs’ purchase of it, possibly during the thousand plus miles the vehicle was driven while owned by this dealership. In August 2006, the plaintiffs discovered that the vehicle they purchased was not new but used. The plaintiffs would not have purchased the vehicle if they had known they were buying a used car, or one that had damage in the rear end and possible frame defects.

In July 2007, this case settled for approximately $60,000.00.