Legal Files: Automaxx / Varsity Chrysler threatens to sue beyond.ca

[nonlinear]

the court documents show that automaxx sells salvaged cars. and, chances are that this vette isn't the only flood car that automaxx has had on their lot.

but i guess this is just what the used car business is like. personally, i don't think i'd ever buy a used car off a used car dealer lot. i bought my first car in 1996 from a used car lot, and realized later that it was a salvage car haha. won't make that mistake again.

[89s1]

Originally posted by automaxxgm
Game On

blah blah blah....

Gord Moors

Hey Cheif, try using a thesaurus next time. You'll sound a little more intelligent, and a little less redundant

If I had to read "disdain" one more time I would have gone outside and repeatedly slammed my car door on my head until I lost consciousness.

[cloud7]

Was the police ever contacted if Mr. Moors was genuinely concerned that Mr. Thin's safety was being threaten? For me, if I was aware of someone threatening me the first thing I would do is go to the police. Discussion of anything else by Mr. Moors such as the dealer's reputation is immaterial if he is genuinely only concerned about the safety of his employees.

[911fever]

I don't really care about the whole deal with the Corvette, Automaxx sounds shady enough as it is, (check the internet for other dissatisfied customers), but with their willingness to import cars that are salvage, Mr. Moor's arrogance, and the whole way in which this was dealt with, I've completely lost any and all interest in viewing Automaxx as a reputable dealer. Any potential business from me and all my friends and family has been lost, and I definitely do not see the attitude of Mr. Moor behind his post as beneficial whatsoever. I was going to wish them good luck selling their cars, but hey, I can't lie, so I hope a lawsuit sticks sometime and results in your local Automaxx dealership being closed. We can all dream right?

[rage2]

Originally posted by nonlinear
the court documents show that automaxx sells salvaged cars. and, chances are that this vette isn't the only flood car that automaxx has had on their lot.

A lot of dealers buy theft recovery cars, repair, and sell. It's not a big deal. Automaxx had no idea that it was a flood damaged cars according to the court docs.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by 911fever
I don't really care about the whole deal with the Corvette, Automaxx sounds shady enough as it is,

Cases like this will always happen when you buy/sell used cars. Being shady is prerequisite in selling used cars, people who do the right things probably won't be in the business for long. It's not like they are selling certified used car with tons of warranty. Buyers beware always applied or you should just buy new cars.

[method]

Originally posted by automaxxgm
the Brown Shirts (who became the SS btw)

The SA were the Brown Shirts, you dumbass. They were superceded by the SS.

If you're going to piss on Godwin, at least get your Nazi references right.

[G-Suede]

Originally posted by 89s1


Hey Cheif, try using a thesaurus next time. You'll sound a little more intelligent, and a little less redundant

If I had to read "disdain" one more time I would have gone outside and repeatedly slammed my car door on my head until I lost consciousness.

Hey CHEIF, likewise to you and a dictionary since you haven't yet figured out what the little red lines under misspelled words mean. You'll sound a little more intelligent, and a little less retarded.

[TomcoPDR]

NOT commenting on the dealership or thread at play here

However, so if I'm reading the court docuements correctly:
- THEMONK (hereafter: Mr. Vette) was already informed by Mr. Thin what he was getting himself into.
- Buyer's remorse from lack of performance based on his expectations (i.e. he found a receipt saying the vehicle had flood, so now Mr. Vette realized wasn't a great deal anymore)
- Misrepresents himself on Beyond
- Mr. Vette vows for revenge (we now discovered it meant "at whatever cost" such as his respect, integrity, honesty, etc...)
- In order to do this, Mr. Vette turned a used, fixed but driveable(not what his expected) vehicle, purposely dis-classifies or puts a "non-driveable" title trying to trick the court system and Beyond.ca into thinking the dealership fucked him over on purpose that he was 100% innocent.
- Truth comes out, Mr. Vette owes dealer $2,500 in court fees and a vehicle he can't drive in Alberta; all because of his anger and grief and vengeance got the best of him from his "accountability" as Mr. Moors puts it (buyer should had spend more time/money: better due dilgence, physical inspection and paper trailing), end of the day, Mr. Vette probably finds himself alone in the dark simply because he can't let go where his vendetta should had ended and self responsiblity begins; yea sounds like Batman.

My opinion is that the lesson here is MONEY DON'T LIE my friends. A 5-6 year old Corvette for $34k??? It's like "what's the catch?" And according to court docuements, Mr. Thin already informed the buyer. On top of the freedom for Mr. Vette to bring said vehicle to his own mechanic(s), online searches, etc... (Mr. Vette was claiming dealership lied, but from court docuements, I believe Mr. Vette was just blinded by the great price and hoped for the best)

It's like Mr. Vette going to the Real Canuk Supermaket and buys a bag of those $2.99 dozen rotten apples, scouts around the garbage for receipt for proper apples (manipulating docuements, twisting truth), goes to service counter with known rotton apples but someone else's good apple receipt and ask for full refund.

Or it's like him complaining to his doctor saying a hooker gave him STD. Y'all know what you're getting yourself into before screwing a hooker, you all know there are risks, so why play the blame game? What? Just like a used vehicle they're both good bang-for-buck. Do your own research (don't take her (or salesperson) word "she's clean", bring ur own condoms (mechanic), do the smell test)

I'm not talking about any dealership in partcular, I'm talking about time after time there are posts people bitching about a used vehicle they purchased whether from: Dealership, Curber or Private transcations. There was a Beyond member who purchased a black Integra from another member based on "trust" without any sort of inspection/research, vehicle which is 1994, doesn't perform like a 2009 (or course there's going to be shit wrong with it, matter of time)

[automaxxgm]

Hello TomcoPDR. Thanks for taking the time to review the court documents in detail. You are bang on on most points . I just want to shed some more light on the reality of this transaction and MRMONK's behavior.

Automaxx bought the vette at a US auction knowing it had salvage title. We inspected the car extensively before purchase. We sell a considerable number of used vette's every year so have a pretty good skill set in buying right. Major frame damage or submersion are automatic deal enders as a matter of policy. Carfax'd the car which showed no flood or frame damage history. Car went thru full inspection in Automaxx shop after it arrived from the US. Needed about $700 in minor repairs.

Sold the vehicle to MRMONK who at the time was working as a Salesperson/Business Manager at a local large franchised car dealership. He had arranged to lease the vehicle thru a small lease company in Vancouver and we facilitated this for him.

6 months after delivery MRMONK appears and says he wants out of the lease because he wants to buy another later model vette or something to that effect. Leaves Automaxx very angry after we quote him the buy-out numbers. This is not Automaxx being greedy but unfortunately the way the math works on a lease when you want to exit early in the term.

Sometime over the next 2 months MRMONK contacts AMVIC and states he has evidence that he has been unknowingly sold a flood damaged vehicle out of the US by Automaxx. AMVIC is hyper sensitive to "flood" vehicles because of all the Katrina real flood damaged vehicles being rebuilt and perhaps overreacts and takes every representation by MRMONK as fact. His suit and our defence initiated.

After a week we rundown the probable history on the car. The damage and repair occured in the first year of ownership when the car had 2000 miles on the odometer (sold to MRMONK with odometer reading approx 32,000 miles) and was likely related to it rolling into a foot of water when the owner failed to set the emergency brake. Water damage in passenger area was up to the bottom of the driver seat.

This car was never "flood" damaged. Flood damage is defined by "Submersion of the vehicle to a point where it can be identified that the water reached the dash board." The reason for this is once water has reached the dashboard, modern cars are deemed unrepairable from salvage status as it is likely the entire electrical system in the car has been compromised.

Bottom line is this car was and is in good conditionand had been driven for 30,000 trouble free miles after repair and was a great deal at 34K.

MRMONK never made any monthly payments to the leasing company contrary to his sworn testimony in court.

Info

G

[canuckcarguy]

I read this thread when it was about half done, and thought Automaxx must be a brutal dealership. Now I think they may or may not be, but in this case, they acted reasonably. It's a reminder that it's super easy to present a sympathetic case anonymously online, and difficult for a business to defend themselves after the fact.

I don't think it's unreasonable that these guys threatened a lawsuit after being unable to contact Beyond through the WHOIS information - I would think a lot of people would rely on that information to contact the actual and appropriate representatives of a website.

Kudos to Rage2 for presenting Gord Moor's perspective when it was made available to him. And I'd have to say good luck to Automaxx.

Okay, I wasn't impressed with the whole "Nazi" argument, but if it was my business being attacked so vociferously on a public forum, I'd be a bit emotionally charged in my response as well.

[dezmarez]

Originally posted by automaxxgm
Hello TomcoPDR. Thanks for taking the time to review the court documents in detail. You are bang on on most points . I just want to shed some more light on the reality of this transaction and MRMONK's behavior.

Automaxx bought the vette at a US auction knowing it had salvage title. We inspected the car extensively before purchase. We sell a considerable number of used vette's every year so have a pretty good skill set in buying right. Major frame damage or submersion are automatic deal enders as a matter of policy. Carfax'd the car which showed no flood or frame damage history. Car went thru full inspection in Automaxx shop after it arrived from the US. Needed about $700 in minor repairs.

Sold the vehicle to MRMONK who at the time was working as a Salesperson/Business Manager at a local large franchised car dealership. He had arranged to lease the vehicle thru a small lease company in Vancouver and we facilitated this for him.

6 months after delivery MRMONK appears and says he wants out of the lease because he wants to buy another later model vette or something to that effect. Leaves Automaxx very angry after we quote him the buy-out numbers. This is not Automaxx being greedy but unfortunately the way the math works on a lease when you want to exit early in the term.

Sometime over the next 2 months MRMONK contacts AMVIC and states he has evidence that he has been unknowingly sold a flood damaged vehicle out of the US by Automaxx. AMVIC is hyper sensitive to "flood" vehicles because of all the Katrina real flood damaged vehicles being rebuilt and perhaps overreacts and takes every representation by MRMONK as fact. His suit and our defence initiated.

After a week we rundown the probable history on the car. The damage and repair occured in the first year of ownership when the car had 2000 miles on the odometer (sold to MRMONK with odometer reading approx 32,000 miles) and was likely related to it rolling into a foot of water when the owner failed to set the emergency brake. Water damage in passenger area was up to the bottom of the driver seat.

This car was never "flood" damaged. Flood damage is defined by "Submersion of the vehicle to a point where it can be identified that the water reached the dash board." The reason for this is once water has reached the dashboard, modern cars are deemed unrepairable from salvage status as it is likely the entire electrical system in the car has been compromised.

Bottom line is this car was and is in good conditionand had been driven for 30,000 trouble free miles after repair and was a great deal at 34K.

MRMONK never made any monthly payments to the leasing company contrary to his sworn testimony in court.

Info

G

well then!!
all of beyond got taken by MRMONK...

i apologize to automaxx for passing judgement based on the previous thread...

[szw]

Originally posted by canuckcarguy
I read this thread when it was about half done, and thought Automaxx must be a brutal dealership. Now I think they may or may not be, but in this case, they acted reasonably. It's a reminder that it's super easy to present a sympathetic case anonymously online, and difficult for a business to defend themselves after the fact.

Most of the people here just want to jump on the bandwagon and fight for the sake of fighting.

[w_man]

I fucking hate Automaxx ...


























nnnaaaa ... I dont really care ... just felt like adding it to the thread .. have been following it for so long with a full bag of popcorn .. sad to see it end

[qcp1]

im curious as to why a dealer ship at all would want to resell a salvaged car?

Do you not have to disclose this to a buyer or is this one of those "only if they ask" bullshit deals?

As a consumer i wouldnt want a previously salvaged vehicle regardless of the technicalities of "whether it was submerged up to the dashboard"

water in the car at all is a bad thing and a dealer that thinks otherwise only perpetuates the stereotype of used car dealers being shifty!

Thanks Automaxx for being honest but if this is 'standard procedure' for the cars you have on your lot i still wont be shopping there.

Perhaps mrmonk exaggerated, embellished or even lied and he no longer has my sympathy for his result but nor do you for your standard procedures, simply because you advertise having only the best used vehicles for sale and well from what youve just said thats just a pile of shit designed to bring in the suckers.

Common practice does not give anyone including you, a free pass for their shady dealings. If everyone stole gas from gas stations it doesnt mean its free.

So while you advertise good condition used cars to the public your really speaking out of both sides of your mouth by just going by the letter of the law not the intent of it.

as for me... im still shopping.

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by dezmarez




well then!!
all of beyond got taken by MRMONK...

i apologize to automaxx for passing judgement based on the previous thread...

+2 me as well

[G-Suede]

Originally posted by qcp1
im curious as to why a dealer ship at all would want to resell a salvaged car?

Large profit margins.

1. Buy written off vehicles for pennies on the dollar from dealer only auctions.
2. Access to cheap internal repair labor and parts.
3. ....
4. Profit.

Simple. Yes. Shady? Decide for yourself.

[msommers]

Thank you for posting your side of the Corvette story, and backing up your claim with documentation. I think it's fair to say we were all taken and were prejudice coming into this thread. For that, I am sorry.

I'd be interested to hear about these other lawsuits filed against Automaxx however. Hearing what the customers' problems were and if they have been resolved. 20 lawsuits a year (10 real, 10 not real, I'm not sure how one is and the other is not) seems pretty substantial.

Originally posted by G-Suede


Large profit margins.

1. Buy written off vehicles for pennies on the dollar from dealer only auctions.
2. Access to cheap internal repair labor and parts.
3. ....
4. Profit.

Simple. Yes. Shady? Decide for yourself.

I'm not sure I find it a problem, especially if the vehicle has been restored to a safety requirement that is NOT verified by their own mechanics. That being said, I think it is only fair to be completely honest with the customer and mention that the vehicle has been written off, restored to specified requirements and is roadworthy. I really don't believe in the "if they don't ask, don't tell" mantra.

I can understand how some buyers would be turn up their nose to a vehicle that has been written off, even though it is completely safe to drive. It's a piece of mind knowing the vehicle you want for your daughter, for instance, hasn't been T-boned. Is this what is holding a salesman back from telling someone if they don't ask? I can only assume a definite yes. Personally, I think that is dishonest; the car should be presented, in its entirety.

[Mitsu3000gt]

^^ I also would be very interested to hear about these 20 law suits a year Automaxx gets. I'd be surprised if it was common for every dealership to be getting 20 or more law suits a year.

[automaxxgm]

In response to qcp1 question.

Firstly, if a Dealer sells a salvage title car without disclosure even if they have no knowledge of the salvage title, it is an automatic buyback from the customer when this fact is disclosed or discovered. 10 years ago this happened to Varsity on a customer trade-in who had moved recently from BC and omitted to tell us the car was a repaired write-off. Salvage title in BC did not show with Alberta Registries at that time. The vehicle (Grand Cherokee) passed the inspection with no problems. 2 years after delivery the customer was getting her oil changed while on vacation in Vernon and the Dealership saw the salvage title record come up in the BC system and informed our customer. Vehicle had been properly repaired and had run for 2 years without any problems. We bought the car back at full price without auguement. I am not trying to make us look like saints here. Every Dealer in town would likely do the same thing immediately if they are experienced or do it after 6 months via court order. You have no legal position. A fundemental relevant fact regarding the cars history was not disclosed therefore the purchase price was not "fair trade" no matter what the vehicle sold for. Even if you were desperate for money, the risk is not worth the return.

There were a couple used operations in Calgary dealing write-offs with limited disclosure up to a few years ago but AMVIC scared them out of the business or scared them straight.

To properly discuss this topic you need to bring "frame damage"into the equation as well. This is a problem in the industry. Frame damage must be disclosed to the customer. What consitutes frame damage is a grey area. We stay away from any vehicles with major repaired frame damage. Even tho the vehicle may check out fine you can get into a nightmare with alignment, drive shaft problems etc. over the long term.

The problem with frame damage guidelines is a problem for the consumer as well as the dealer. Too overly aggressive and you get slammed 6K on resale or trade-in because you had a 3K front end collision with just a small easily repairable amount of damage to the frame.

Round about anwser but the bottom line is that there is the odd "salvage" car that is a good deal (the MRMONK vette being an example) but with the increasing complexity of modern cars this number will fade to zero very soon with the exception of collecter cars that are rebuilt from the ground up.

Believe me when I tell you that when you are selling a hundred cars a month (Automaxx) and dealing with all the customer, mechanical and warranty issues that come with selling a very complex product that goes down the road at 100 km's an hour, there is no time or inclination to sell shitty cars under shady pretense.