Sign In Join 



Stories from the Sales Frontlines

47862 messages,  Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 7:49 PM

You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester

What is this discussion about? Car Buying


Messages Page 260 of 4787
1
...
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
...
4787
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#2588 of 47862
Re: This is [dglozman] by snakeweasel
Jul 31, 2006 (6:19 am)
Reply

Replying to: dglozman (Jul 31, 2006 5:45 am)

In a case like this its not what everyone knows, but what a reasonable person would suspect. So saying not everyone may know what is a reasonable price doesn't work. Reasonably someone should have a decent ideal what a price is (not the exact price but an ideal of what it is). That is why they use the term "obvious mistake".
 
So if someone who has no ideal what a Land Rover costs goes into a Land Rover dealership and buys a Land Rover for $27K and it was a mistake and it should have been $72K then the contract is void because of an obvious mistake. It doesn't matter if the buyer knew it was a mistake, what matters is if a reasonable person would know. In this case a reasonable person should know that it is a mistake.
#2589 of 47862
Re: This is [snakeweasel] by dglozman
Jul 31, 2006 (6:47 am)
Reply

Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 31, 2006 6:19 am)

I still disagree with you. I consider myself a reasonable person, but I do not know prices for everything, and I do not research prices for everything I buy. And if I walk into the dealership and agree on the asking price that was singed and approved by the manager, I expect this contract to be honored.
To be honest with you, when I look at Range Rover cars on the street they do not look like $72,000 cars to me.. They look like a fancy Ford Explorers... So if one would be offered to me at $27,000 I would not be shocked or exited thinking I'm getting a greatest deal in the world...
#2590 of 47862
Re: This is [dglozman] by british_rover
Jul 31, 2006 (6:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: dglozman (Jul 31, 2006 6:47 am)

You must have never seen a 2003-2006 Range Rover up close in personal then or you would realize how uninformed that statement is.
#2591 of 47862
Re: This is [dglozman] by jmonroe
Jul 31, 2006 (6:56 am)
Reply

Replying to: dglozman (Jul 31, 2006 5:45 am)

...not every person may know what is the reasonable price for a Range Rover (or for any car). If you do not read any websites or do not do any research what so ever...
 
This is like saying 'ignorance of the law IS an excuse' but we all know and more importantly the courts rule that it isn't.
 
jmonroe
#2592 of 47862
Re: This is [british_rover] by dglozman
Jul 31, 2006 (7:00 am)
Reply

Replying to: british_rover (Jul 31, 2006 6:51 am)

No I saw them, in fact my next door neighbor has one. But what I'm trying to say that different things have different value to different people. So they might look nice, but to me they not worth $72,000...
 
I live outside of New York city were apartment prices (in Manhattan) are around 1 mil. But for me - they have to pay me 1 mil for me to even consider to live in Manhattan.. Like I said - different value to different people.
#2593 of 47862
Re: This is [jmonroe] by dglozman
Jul 31, 2006 (7:04 am)
Reply

Replying to: jmonroe (Jul 31, 2006 6:56 am)

the contract was signed and approved by both parties. Delivery was taken. THIS should be matter to the law , and not what other might think what is the reasonable price should be.
 
Have you ever heard stories about people buying priceless stuff at flea markets and garage sales?
#2594 of 47862
Re: This is [dglozman] by snakeweasel
Jul 31, 2006 (7:06 am)
Reply

Replying to: dglozman (Jul 31, 2006 6:47 am)

You are free to disagree with me all you want, but the facts still remain the same. The courts will use the reasonable person test. This day and age it is reasonable to expect that you would know the approximate value of a big ticket item.
 
If you took this to court the court will try to determine what a reasonable person would believe and act accordingly. It wouldn't matter one bit to what you thought of the deal. In the example given the courts would have said "you should have known you couldn't get that brand new Rover for $27K".
#2595 of 47862
Re: This is [snakeweasel] by dglozman
Jul 31, 2006 (7:22 am)
Reply

Replying to: snakeweasel (Jul 31, 2006 7:06 am)

The courts will use the reasonable person test.
 
Really? Have you heard of those crazy lawsuits that was won? (like famous McDonald coffee?)
#2596 of 47862
Re: This is [british_rover] by louiswei
Jul 31, 2006 (7:29 am)
Reply

Replying to: british_rover (Jul 31, 2006 6:51 am)

I gotta agree with dglozman that a Land Rover (or Range Rover) doesn't look $72,000 to me (maybe $40k) from the outside. However, once one sees the interior, that's another story.
#2597 of 47862
Re: This is [dglozman] by snakeweasel
Jul 31, 2006 (7:36 am)
Reply

Replying to: dglozman (Jul 31, 2006 7:22 am)

Really? Have you heard of those crazy lawsuits that was won? (like famous McDonald coffee?)
 
We are talking contract law that is covered under the UCC (or like code adopted by state statues) not Tort law. The two are completely different animals.

Messages Page 260 of 4787
1
...
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
...
4787
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement