Originally Posted by Evitzee

That's all well and good. But the dealer has the money, so you'll have to either persuade him to credit your card, or initiate a chargeback through your CC company yourself. Either way, it will cost you some time and effort. For $500 it is probably worth it, but in the big scheme it is about 1.5% of the original pruchase price. You'll have to weigh how much effort is warranted in pursuing this in case they don't see it your way. In the worst case you forfeit $500, but far better to lose that than to have purchased the car and been immediately unhappy with it. Then we would really be talking money in depreciation.

I'd start by giving the dealer the statute as stated above and telling him you want the money back. It may well be resolved on the spot, or not. Keep us posted.

Originally Posted by tex2670

There is no need to "pursuade" the dealer of anything. There's a law on the books, which is black and white. Cite this law, and tell them you want the money by the end of the day, or you are filing a complaint with the state attorney general.

See how fast they change their tune.

Originally Posted by tex2670

Not sure how you see 2 distinct obligations here.

If the "contract" to buy the car is not enforceable, NO PART OF IT IS ENFORCABLE. That includes the deposit. There is no signed agreement whereby the dealer can keep the deposit. The deposit was made, one may argue, under an "oral contract". That contract cannot be enforced. The dealer cannot keep the money. There is not a "deposit contract". That doesn't make any sense.

Botom line: THERE IS NO CONTRACT.

Originally Posted by Evitzee

Whatever the law says, the OP has to pursuade the dealer to cough up the money. People and organizations don't automatically react to what the law may be if their interpretation is different, or if they have different motives. That's why there are lawyers and courts ..... to sort out these differences. It is naive to think the dealer will automatically snap to attention by quoting a particular law. That's where the pursuasion comes in, you have to convince him it is in his best interest to give the money back. We are all on board here ..... tell the dealer what the law says. He may or may not react to that, if he balks then ratchet up the action.

Originally Posted by kensteele

well, we know 2 things.

first, he has found a law which apparently the dealer has violated so it looks like he is going to get his money back. of course the dealer can say they gave him a receipt so this may end up in court where they will have to produce one and it can go from them. it's not a slam dunk (no small claims ever is) but the court usually sides with the consumer of the "bigger" dealership

second, tex you are wrong. plain and simple, you are wrong. are you just not reading what anyone has written here? or are you totally against dealerships and feel they are a ripoff anyway? lol you are missing the point.

again, the op is write, the dealership is wrong (based on what we read here) and the op should get his deposit back. but NOT because of the "rationale" above....lol.

Originally Posted by Foodplz

Glad you got your money back. It shouldn't ever have been a problem anyway.

Haha it looks like we have either a bunch of law school students or lawyer wannabes up in here.

again... all i'm going to say is... Statute of frauds. Put it in writing for me... or give me my money back.

Originally Posted by kensteele

anyway, statute of frauds? talk about lawyer wannabe. lol if you want to really brush up on law, pay more attention and give more credibility to oral contracts. they are more powerful than you think, especially in small claims court. and i'm speaking from experience having been in conciliation court a couple of times.

Originally Posted by Evitzee

Whatever the law says, the OP has to pursuade the dealer to cough up the money. People and organizations don't automatically react to what the law may be if their interpretation is different, or if they have different motives. That's why there are lawyers and courts ..... to sort out these differences. It is naive to think the dealer will automatically snap to attention by quoting a particular law. That's where the pursuasion comes in, you have to convince him it is in his best interest to give the money back. We are all on board here ..... tell the dealer what the law says. He may or may not react to that, if he balks then ratchet up the action.

Originally Posted by kensteele

well, look at it this way.

let's say you, the single guy, walk in and see the car, agree to buy it for $30k, tell the dealer i will go to my bank and bring you $29k, here's $1k now, see you tomorrow. no contract was signed yet.

later that evening, a couple walks in, falls in love with "your" car, says they will pay $32k to take it home tonight, here's my money.

what happens?

dealer sells the car to the couple, calls you in the morning and says sorry about that, but we have another car over here for you else i guess you can have your $1k back.

dealer has every right to sell that car. he has the title and he can transfer it to anyone who pays. there's no guarantee that you will come back tomorrow with the cash, you might not even have it, or the bank might deny you a loan, you might get hit by a bus. there is no contract signed so you don't own anything yet.

how can you obligate the single guy if the dealer is not obligated as well? that's the argument for consideration that you need to present should this incident end up in small claims or conciliation court.

so, if the dealer says sorry to the couple, i can't sell you that car, it's taken already. that would mean the deposit should be considered non-refundable. doesn't mean the single guy is obligated to buy the car but he would lose his deposit should the dealer decide not to refund. you have to work it out.

doesn't mean you can't sue. but so can the dealership. and they will.

some states have a law that says car deposits are refundable. always. case closed. they don't want to deal with this crap.

other states, your deposit depends on the transaction. is it a new/used car? will the deal finance it or you? where there modification or customization done? how much was the "deposit"? was the car taken off the market? how was the deposit paid? who changed their mind? how long? what was said orally? did you sign a little piece of paper? can the car be [re]sold to anyone else? etc.

in this particular scenario, i believe the op is entitled to a refund of his deposit. not because he ultimately didn't buy the car, that's irrelevant in determining if a "deposit" is refundable. but because there was no understanding that the deposit was non-refundable. combine that with the fact that he used a credit card makes it that much easier (i.e. the normal course of business is to use a credit card to hold a small amount as a deposit).

if he had charged $3,000 to his card or if he paid $3,000 in cash, that shows intent....check your state law. you may already be protected. and ask your bank for a chargeback, not a dispute. keep in mind tho, if you force your money back, you may be sued by the dealer. all it costs is $25 and a couple of hours to try to convince a referee. they might even send one of the finance mgrs, no problem.

forget about all that contract stuff, for a car you have to have a written contract; no written contract no deal. the discussion is about the deposit and a judge/referee may split it 50/50 if the dealer has a good argument. he'll just weight both sides and whoever presents the most evidence....lol.

Originally Posted by termigator

GOT MY MONEY BACK!!!!!

I called my CC co. to find out where we were at and they told me they already took the money back from the dealership and credited my account. Looks like I don't have to deal with them after all.

Originally Posted by Evitzee

That's good news. Now what kind of car are you really going to actually BUY?

Originally Posted by Foodplz

haha wouldn't be in law school if i didn't want to be a lawyer.

oral agreements are great and all... but in this case it carries very little weight. way too much common law precedent out there regarding deposits.