Sorry if this is a repost...didnt see anything when I searched.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates:
Dealership Doesn't Like Deal, Takes Car Back
Posted: 7/17/2006 9:55:00 PM
Updated: 7/17/2006 11:23:17 PM

Earl Kieselhorst thought he owned a 2003 Chevy Silverado -- a truck that he bought from Bill Heard Chevrolet in Antioch.

Kieselhorst says he "paid cash for it. Made the deal. Sales manager signed off on it. Signed all the paperwork. And drove off."

He traded in his car and gave the dealer a check for $8,100.

"I have the keys," Kieselhorst tells NewsChannel 5 investigative reporter Jennifer Kraus.

But he doesn't have his truck.

Bill Heard does.

"I can't see any reason why this wouldn't be my car," he adds.

Just one day after he bought the truck, a salesman from Bill Heard called to say the dealership was having second thoughts about the deal.

He told Kieselhorst that if he wanted to keep his truck, he needed to fork over another $10,000 -- something he refused to do. After all, he says, they had a signed deal.

But the next morning, when Kieselhorst woke up, his truck was gone.

"And I was like I can't believe it," he recalls.

The dealership had come and taken it in the middle of the night.

"I've got a contract. This is a legal contract. I don't know what to say. I don't know what to say."

Metro police investigated and wanted to file charges against Bill Heard for stealing the truck.

Detective Ray Paris got a statement from Bill Heard, blaming a rookie salesman for what happened and calling it a mistake. (Read the statement given to police by Bill Heard.)

"They inadvertently sold the vehicle at a lower cost than what they should have," Paris says.

Kathleen Calligan says the Better Business Bureau has received literally hundreds and hundreds of similar complaints about the Bill Heard dealership -- more complaints by far than any other auto dealer in all of Middle Tennessee.

"Not only is this an unbelievable volume of complaints, most of them are unresolved," she adds.

Calligan says that, in this day and age, dealers know exactly how much a vehicle is worth.

And if a dealership truly does make a mistake, she says they'll take the loss -- rather than call the customer and demand he make up the difference.

"There is absolutely no reason for a sale not to be final when the customer walks out of the dealership," Calligan adds.

Yet even after Bill Heard had taken back the truck, the salesman called Kieselhorst again.

"He calls me back and offers to sell it to me for $11,000 more than I paid for it," Kieselhorst recalls.

Kieselhorst said no way.

And even though he still believes he is the rightful owner of the truck, when we went looking for it at Bill Heard, we found a customer checking it out. It was for sale, the customer and a saleswoman told us.

"The whole thing has just gotten more and more ridiculous," Kieselhorst says.

And now the self-proclaimed largest Chevrolet dealership in the world is accusing Kieselhorst of "trying to pull a fast one" on them.

"This is the way this company does business," Calligan says. "They really thought they would be able to pull a fast one on their customer."

After we tried to get their side for days, Bill Heard faxed us a statement just before air time, saying that Kieselhorst "should have known" that the deal he got was too good to be true.

The company says:

"It is not reasonable or fair to expect for Bill Heard Chevrolet ... to be bound by a sale where a clear and material mistake was made, and the customer was aware that it was a mistake."

(Read Bill Heard's statement provided to NewsChannel 5.)

Kieselhort says he just thought Bill Heard was giving him the type of good deal they advertise.

As for the police investigation, the DA says this is a civil case, not a criminal case. He says Kieselhorst is free to take the dealer to court -- something he's now seriously considering.

http://www.newschannel5.com/content/investigates/20762.asp?q=BILL+HEARD

7/28/2006 2:42:24 PM

heh i wonder how many times they've done this and it worked

7/28/2006 2:46:58 PM

I dunno, but I would be fuckin livid. I am just wondering why the guy didnt go "steal" the car back the next night.

7/28/2006 2:48:48 PM

brings new meaning to "stealership"

7/28/2006 2:49:16 PM

How is this not a criminal case?

If the paperwork was signed, it's legally binding, and Kieselhosrt is the legal owner of the vehicle. For the dealership to take the car from Kieselhorst after the fact is nothing short of theft.

7/28/2006 3:00:01 PM

he must not have proof that he owns the car

7/28/2006 3:00:44 PM

Take it to court.

7/28/2006 3:01:09 PM

If he's got a contract...

the dealer's fucked

7/28/2006 3:01:54 PM

Fire + Contract = No Contract ... I hope he kept copies of the contract.

7/28/2006 3:05:34 PM

if he has keys, and its sitting at the dealer...why not take it back?

7/28/2006 3:32:35 PM

One I went to had a gate you had to go through to get out.

7/28/2006 3:45:07 PM

Yeah, if I had the keys and the truck was out on the lot you better believe that truck would be in my possession.

Also, nowhere does it say anything about his truck or the $8100 he spent. Have they been returned? I bet he has already signed his title over to the dealer.

7/28/2006 3:55:10 PM

yeah that is bullshit

i would get the truck back

or there would be no driveable vehicles left in the lot

7/28/2006 4:29:15 PM

The dealer probably still has the title, so he is shit outta luck.

7/28/2006 4:31:08 PM

doesnt matter if the dealer has the title if he has a copy of a signed contract/bill of sale.

7/28/2006 4:52:24 PM

Quote :

"How is this not a criminal case? If the paperwork was signed, it's legally binding, and Kieselhosrt is the legal owner of the vehicle. For the dealership to take the car from Kieselhorst after the fact is nothing short of theft."

my thought's exactly

7/28/2006 5:11:31 PM

Quote :

""They inadvertently sold the vehicle at a lower cost than what they should have," Paris says."

too fucking bad...you hire somebody who is incompetent thats what happens

7/28/2006 5:14:43 PM

Summary........STEALERships.. I would be out for blood

7/28/2006 5:15:39 PM

Quote :

"Detective Ray Paris got a statement from Bill Heard, blaming a rookie salesman for what happened and calling it a mistake."

but the sales manager signed off on it.


I'd be slashing some tires, keying some cars, all kinds of shit. all i can say is WTF

[Edited on July 28, 2006 at 5:34 PM. Reason : maybe bring some wire cutters and start clipping random wires under as many cars as i could]

7/28/2006 5:18:54 PM

Quote :

"One I went to had a gate you had to go through to get out."

yeah but he could stroll up in the middle of the day and drive it off.

7/28/2006 5:22:52 PM

^ exactly........If the rookie salesman fucked up fire his ass. It doesnt sound like the buyer did anything wrong except haggle an exceptional deal.

7/28/2006 5:34:02 PM

I wouldnt dare steal the car back, but i would be all over the newsmedia. Let it go to civil court, where you can get a judgement for well more than a used truck is worth.

7/28/2006 6:15:21 PM

if he went to the sheriff with the contract, a deputy would probably escort him to the dealership to retrieve the truck

7/28/2006 6:15:52 PM

milking this for all its worth is the guy's best bet. im surprised noone else sees this.

7/28/2006 6:17:18 PM

this is like first day of contract law. it doesnt mention if the customer is suing.

7/28/2006 6:24:44 PM

yeah, i would get it all over the news and ruin that dealer's reputation (making sure to quote the lady from the BBB if I got the chance to be interviewed).

Then, if the cops refused to make it a criminal case (which I don't understand, but whatever), I'd either offer to settle before going to civil court for the truck plus a couple thousand dollars for my trouble, or I would sue them for, say, $30,000 plus lawyer fees.

7/28/2006 7:15:08 PM

there must be a missing piece of the story here

7/28/2006 7:37:28 PM

i got lucky with one of my car purchases once, because the dealership mispriced the window on the car. i got the car for $1,000 cheaper. the guy didn't even give me a hard time, and he caught the mistake before i even signed anything.

me: "yeah, i'm interested in that car over there."
him: "alright, blah blah.... $6,500"
me: "it says $5,500 on the car"
we go outside, and i show him.
him: "well, shit. that's not right, but that is what it says."

he sold it to me for $5,500.

of course, $1,000 is very different from $10,000. however, that dealership in tenn is the self-proclaimed "largest in the world". $10,000 loss shouldn't be anything for them. the place i got my car at was a small, used lot. a $1,000 loss for them is actually painful.

7/28/2006 7:38:06 PM

he would have offered you the $1,000 off anyway.

That's the way car dealerships work.

7/28/2006 7:39:47 PM

Earl Kieselhorst is doing the right thing by getting it all over the internet. Think about how much car dealerships spend on advertising. Instead of their fuckup costing them $10,000 for the truck, it's will cost them at least ten times that much in a ruined reputation. If it were me, I would be on a blitz to drag their name through the mud: post on the internet and give interviews to local media. Write a polite letter to GM explaining how the dealership is giving Chevrolet a bad reputuation and cite the BBB complaints. If that doesn't resolve it, try to take the story national. Write to Oprah and Leno and Letterman and...

7/28/2006 8:02:19 PM

Quote :

"How is this not a criminal case?"

Very very simple.

The dealership is paying the cops.

7/28/2006 8:57:22 PM

HI FOLKS

7/28/2006 11:49:31 PM

This is some jacked up shit. GM will probably end up giving him a new ride in the end.

7/28/2006 11:55:36 PM

probably not as clear cut as it sounds, if he has a title and bill of sale, then there would be no problem, guy is probably a moron and was asking to get fucked over, i know that check didnt clear overnight i woulda put a stop payment on that bitch

7/28/2006 11:57:20 PM

Hey superchevy, did you ever think that the car was originally supposed to be the 5 g's and the salesman told you 6 g's and admit to making a mistake to make you feel like you got a thousand bucks off? Makes you wonder if you got fucked now doesn't it?

7/29/2006 1:15:56 AM

that jew nigga bitch never gets fucked, sum bitch probably got it that cheap because the guy wanted him off the lot, scarin away customers

7/29/2006 1:21:15 AM

this is going to cost them a hundred grand in business

[Edited on July 29, 2006 at 3:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/29/2006 3:08:19 AM

1. Create Media Circus (check)

2. Sue for specific performance (the truck for the price agreed) and compensatory damages.

Profit

7/29/2006 12:17:51 PM

Quote :

"Hey superchevy, did you ever think that the car was originally supposed to be the 5 g's and the salesman told you 6 g's and admit to making a mistake to make you feel like you got a thousand bucks off? Makes you wonder if you got fucked now doesn't it?"

maybe, but he seemed really suprised. either way, i don't see how i got fucked. i would've bought the car even if it was $6,500.

7/29/2006 12:27:24 PM

i got my cherokee on a dealer fuckup for 6k back when they were selling for 11k

7/29/2006 12:38:07 PM

Quote :

" 2. Sue for specific performance (the truck for the price agreed) and compensatory damages. "

2. Get in touch with the other complaintants and get a class action suit.

7/29/2006 5:24:36 PM

He would probably net more suing them personally. Once it gets to the class action level the judgmente could get so big the dealership most likely would not be able to pay it.

7/29/2006 5:28:49 PM

this is total bullsh!t. i'd SUE.

7/29/2006 5:30:04 PM

The dealership's side of the story is very compelling, http://www.newschannel5.com/content/investigates/BHstatement.pdf. If what they say is all true, then as bad as it looks, they are in the right.

On the other hand, it sounds like this happens a lot there:

http://www.newschannel5.com/content/investigates/20957.asp

[Edited on July 29, 2006 at 7:19 PM. Reason : ?]

7/29/2006 7:07:54 PM

First link wont work

7/29/2006 8:33:10 PM

Delete the period.

http://www.newschannel5.com/content/investigates/BHstatement.pdf

7/29/2006 8:37:29 PM

Thanks. It is interesting but sounds like this is a standard practice for them. I could understand one every so often but its almost sounds common place around there.

7/29/2006 8:48:19 PM

Quote :

"If what they say is all true, then as bad as it looks, they are in the right."

how does that sound like they were in the right? everything they said hinges on the guy knowing that a mistake was being made. maybe he is just a jew mother fucker that thought that's how much it was worth.

by the same token, if they were to charge the guy in a manner that would have been substantially more that what it should have been . . . then the deal would be invalid since they would know that the guy was making a mistake. but you can bet your ass they wouldn't refund his money. they would say that all sales are final.

[Edited on July 29, 2006 at 8:54 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2006 8:52:04 PM

^^^ Their argument is complete and total bullshit.

EVEN IF they got the stock numbers mixed up, how can they think that a 2003 Silverado was $3,000? The letter alleges that the customer knew that there was a mistake - if the customer knew there was a mistake then why didn't the saleman, manger and anyone else in the dealership not know about it?

EVEN IF this was a pure mistake as they allege, they should have eaten the cost instead of repo. By this logic the dealership would never have to pay for a mistake ever. They would simply screw-over the customer in every event.

Just complete bullshit. I hope they drown in this.

[Edited on July 29, 2006 at 8:53 PM. Reason : to link]

7/29/2006 8:53:31 PM

Under Tennesse law, a sale is not valid if one party makes a mistake, and the other party knew or should have known that a mistake had been made.

They say it was a mistake on their part.

They say that he should have known that the price was a mistake.

Quote :

"If what they say is all true, then as bad as it looks, they are in the right."

It's bullshit from a customer service/public relations standpoint. But legally, if their factual assertions are true, they are in the right.

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ?]

7/30/2006 10:28:26 AM