Complaint Review: Autoexpo

Because of the complexity of automobile contracts, the contracts (and state) require specialized writing.  A simple offer and bid, does not create a contract for an automobile; the offer and bid only create the initial agreement for which a contract can be formed.  Your internet communications also do not create a contract for an automobile.  In other words, you won...nothing.  After the bid and acceptance, if the remaining T&C's cannot be agreed upon, both parties individually, or jointly, can walk away.  What you are trying to do is bind the seller to a contract based on your internet communications and your bid and acceptance.  In most other cases, you have the basic requirements for a contract.  However, you don't have those elements for an automobile (the same can be said for Real Estate, but I digress).

I doubt seriously the AG is going to step in on this because you have not proven the elements of a fraud case based on what you wrote so far.  However, if all your going to sue for is your money back, your attorney may be able to get that for you, less any sort of fees the other party may tack on for participating in the auction.  Unless you sue for money paid plus attorney fees, my guess is that this process may put you out a lot more than the what you paid - in which case a small claims suit may be a more appropriate forum, but less likely to be successful for you.  Now, all of this is based on your version of the events as you presented - in case you left something out.....you may wish to add something that might make your case more compelling to the rest of us.  Best of luck to you...

Jim, those vehicles were purchased on an auction site, it is customary for people acquiring cars for the purpose of resale (if this is the case) to buy them sight unseen if the price is low enough that the risk is minimal. Often the purchaser is in a position to fix potential mechanical problems.

Regarding auctions in general, I have never seen one where the stated price was that of monthly payments, buyers don't bet on financing terms. That said I don't really see a ripoff here since no money was taken from the buyer, but I don't understand the seller's motive. What sort of an idiot is ever going to agree to pay X times what he bet if he was mislead in such a manner? 

I'd like to see it. You claim you have "copies of ALL the listings and communications from them"; post them then. I have a hard time believing you will get anywhere with this. If they did not cash your checks, you are out of luck. How would they gain by trying to con people into sending checks they would not cash? They would be just wasting their time. 

Then you tell me your "wisdom" behind sending off your money to somebody you don't know to buy a used car you've never seen, never heard, never test driven or never had your own mechanic check over. Where and how do you people come up with such dumb, stupid, idiotic ideas?

Thanks for your comments,
 
Actually proving the facts of a binding legal agreement may be the easiest thing for me... Posting the listings created an offer to sell (which I know does not constitute a contract). At that point I made an offer to buy their vehicles at a certain price. They could have simply ignored my offer, accepted my offer or made counteroffers. This is where the "binding" part of the contract begins: They decided to counteroffer, which mean that they agreed to sell the vehicle at their counteroffer price, provided the rest of the provisions where met. They made me the counteroffers and I then had the option to: accept, reject or counteroffer. I chose to ACCEPT their counteroffer and followed through with the terms, as they were set at the end of the auction.

The 4 main parts of a legally binding contract are: 
1) An agreement: offer and acceptance ---- counteroffer accepted (covered).
2) Consideration: Both parties are giving something in return ---- Money vs. Vehicles (covered).
3) Contractual Capacity ---- They are an actual dealership and I am of legal consent (covered).
4) Legality ---- Performance of this contract does not break any laws (covered).

Their main stipulations for the sale were: that they would not accept bids from buyers with negative
feedback and zero feedback buyers needed to contact them first. I have a 100% feedback score and they responded to my offers. I contacted them in the prescribed time frame and sent payments directly to them. The reason we do not yet have an otherwise signed "sales agreement" is due to the fact that they refuse to honor the sale and provide me with the paperwork needed to perform the registration of the vehicles. I have asked repeatedly for invoices, for any outstanding amounts due (documentation fees), total refusal. They want to apply terms and conditions to the sale, that were not present at the time of my acceptance. As I stated before, they went in after and changed the listings to include new terms that were not part of the original agreement.

Yes, I PAID them for the vehicles. I sent them the counteroffer and agreed upon amounts and I have conformation that they do indeed have my payments. No, they have not cashed the checks as of today. But they have also not returned the checks to me, although doing so would not release them from the contractual obligations. I have fulfilled my portion of the contract, as to concideration and they have not. This is not actually a case where there is a need for an otherwise written contract. As perscribed by law, a written contract must be presented in the case of land transfer or where the contract cannot be preformed within a one year period.

INTERESTING NOTE: Internet transactions are considered legal and binding contracts in most states.

"  I will update here as the story proceeds. "

  I'd be very interested in hearing how this turns out.

"  They entered into the contracts willingly and they received payment. "

   You describe emails about negotiations going back and forth, but was there ever an actual sales contract signed by both parties?  What you described does not seem to meet the requirements of a written contract. 

"  I PAID FOR THEM "

   Did they cash your checks?  If so, that would go a long way towards furthering your argument that they willingly accepted the deal (in lieu of a signed sales contract).   If not, you could have a rough road ahead.

"  They entered into the contracts willingly and they received payment. "

   This is the key point.  You're going to have to prove that the emails you described meet the criteria for a legally binding contract.   I think you may have some trouble with that, but I wish you good luck.   Let us know how this turns out.