7 ms·

Same thing here in Norway. When I bought my last car, I negotiated the price down quite a bit and got upgrades/winter tires etc for the same price. When all wa

by tyfon 9y ago

Same thing here in Norway. When I bought my last car, I negotiated the price down quite a bit and got upgrades/winter tires etc for the same price. When all was said and done and he asked how I wanted to finance it, I pulled out my direct debit and he went pale. I had to argue for another half an hour to keep all the negotiated stuff while paying for it outright, it was silly.

skookumchuck 9y ago
I doubt it was silly. He likely offered you a deal that would have lost money if not for the financing.
- eugeniub 9y ago
  That's exactly why it was silly.
- losteric 9y ago
  Call me old fashion, but I think car salesmen ought to make their money off of selling cars instead of exploiting consumer's ignorance of financial tools and more complex math. This is so much more nefarious.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    When I've bought mortgages, I was required by law to sign a document that says "I have read and understood these loan documents." I've seen many people in the newspaper complaining that they neither read nor understood the terms. At what point do you expect legally competent adults to pay attention to and take responsibility for what they're doing?
    - cmurf 9y ago
      No non-lawyer is competent to understand all real estate transaction documents. But they might be competent enough to acquiesce to the grand stupidity of our culture [1] and hire a real estate attorney. Mine reviewed all the relevant documents and come to the closing, for a flat fee that I thought was rather reasonable, in particular compared to the hand cramp I got from all the ridiculous paper work I had to hand sign. [1] Consider: the banks, the title company, the county, all want hand signed documents. But we accept computerized voting machines to manage elections.
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
        > No non-lawyer is competent to understand all real estate transaction documents. I understood them well enough. It isn't that hard. The misunderstandings people would complain about were not about subtleties or legal hare-splitting. It's also established legal doctrine that a contract written in ambiguous, confusing, or tricky language isn't going to hold up in court. Judges take a dim view of that. I also actually read them. Amazing. Although this would visibly annoy the escrow officer. You did the right thing by having a lawyer review it if you didn't feel confident about it. There's no excuse not to if it is a large transaction.
        cmurf 9y ago
        A house is, for most people, a very large transaction. Saying "it isn't that hard" considering attorney's specialize in real estate is like saying "reading x-rays isn't that hard". Had I not had an attorney present, it would have taken me all day, instead of 4 hours of reading stuff. It wasn't a matter of confidence in myself, it was a matter of having less than 100% trust in everyone else present.
        DannyBee 9y ago
        " Saying "it isn't that hard" considering attorney's specialize in real estate" Attorneys specialize in everything, the fact that attorneys specialize in real estate does not make every real estate transaction difficult, or require an attorney. There are attorneys who specialize in speeding tickets. That does not make understanding the laws around speed limits difficult. If just means it's an area where attorneys believe they can make money by building a niche. That is not a measure of the complexity of that area, but of a large number of factors. (same with DUI) In fact, attorneys specialize in real estate to handle the complicated things, which are not closings. So your point kind of goes against this argument you keep trying to make. I'm also not at all sure what your analogy to x-rays is supposed to be proving. It seems very strange x-rays have no context and to people not familiar with at least anatomy and a number of other things, and are subject to different opinions. On the contrary, real estate contracts, which are usually boilerplate plain english, only require understanding english. They may take a while to read, but they don't require specialized training. They are generally not subject to different interpretations, that's precisely why they are written the way they are! There is no equivalent for x-rays that could make laypeople competent.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >At what point do you expect legally competent adults to pay attention to and take responsibility for what they're doing? At no point. I don't even consider it a matter of "responsibility". You can only take responsibility when things are clearly laid out. But what about the even more important responsibility to CLEARLY lay things out that should fall into businesses? What I do expect and find important, and should be legally binding, is that no business should be allowed to hide the actual impact of purchases behind legalese and long-winded "financial product" descriptions, and then put the blame on the customer for not "reading through it". At the very least, they should be explicitly, and in common, everyday language, give something like: "The average buyer that used this financing option ended up paying X% above the base price".
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
        > What I do expect and find important, and should be legally binding, is that no business should be allowed to hide the actual impact of purchases behind legalese and long-winded "financial product" descriptions, and then put the blame on the customer for not "reading through it". And in general, as I pointed out here, such contracts tend to be invalid in court. However, signing a piece of paper in plain english certifying saying "I read it" when one did not ought to mean something. A legal doctrine where one can not bother reading contracts and yet get them decided in favor of ones imaginary terms doesn't sound like a workable system. The whole point of written contracts is so there's a record of what the terms were and what was agreed upon.
        badestrand 9y ago
        > A legal doctrine where one can not bother reading contracts and yet get them decided in favor of ones imaginary terms doesn't sound like a workable system. Having to agree to dozens of pages of contract every day just to do seemingly ordinary things like using websites or ordering stuff online doesn't sound like a workable system either.
        coldtea 9y ago
        >However, signing a piece of paper in plain english certifying saying "I read it" when one did not ought to mean something. If that was the case, EULA also should "mean something".
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      Do you read the terms and conditions pop up that every bit of software seems to contain?
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
        If they cost $50,000, you bet I do. Lesser ones, if I sign my name, I do. Click thru ones on fairly worthless software aren't binding.
        ccrush 9y ago
        Look up the names Schwartz and Aurenheimer. They either ignored the click through EULA or deliberately broke it. Charged with CFAA felonies over it. One got prison for many years. The other killed himself to avoid it as well as to protest the insanity of having criminal charges brought against them because they broke the EULA terms on a web site. Both used scripts to cycle through ID numbers in a web page. This is what happens when you don't read. The system is fucked. Better make sure you aren't violating the TOS on any of the web sites you visit.
        skookumchuck 9y ago
        Aurenheimer knew what he was doing was legally wrong: https://www.wired.com/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty/ https://www.wired.com/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty/ although the charges were grossly excessive. Schwartz knew he was doing something legally wrong, because he hid in a closet to do it. (The charges against him were also grossly excessive.) I don't think these cases support your notion that EULAs were the issue. Nor do I think these extreme cases are cause for EULA concern for someone using software as it was obviously and reasonably intended to be used. Disclaimer: IANAL, and if you want real legal advice, go ask a real lawyer. Taking legal advice from the internet is foolish.
    - jfoutz 9y ago
      When they pass the bar exam. It's easy to think you understand a contract, but you don't. Unfortunately clear language isn't litigated. The vague and obtuse language has a legal meaning, because it has gone to court. So that's what contracts are forced to use.
    - losteric 9y ago
      Exploiting ignorance is legally fair game, that doesn't make it ethical. At this point dealers are basically just selling consumers to banks. I would blame the consumers if they could take their contracts home, consult with family, financial experts, etc. But, have you ever been in a sales room? Most people are pressured to sign ASAP and dealers generally refuse to print out contracts until after they're signed.
      - ownagefool 9y ago
        Not in the UK. A contract has to both be fair and understood in order for it to be valid. The thing is, given all the finance agreements I've had in the UK tell me what the total cost will be ( generally over double the cost of the product ) I'm not really sure these products aren't to be reasonbly understood and it woukd seem like laziness or greed eould be the biggest driver. The exception to the rule here would be payday loans which have some horrible outcomes shouls you fail to pay them back on the agreed date. These were being legislated for the last I heard, so I'm not sure if they still exist. The other game in the UK is targeting the poor with silly rates of interest in the knowledge that many of them simply won't pay. Technically they're high risk loans and thus somewhat valid but there is an argument that the likes of brighthouse shouldn't exist and that people without jobs shouldn't really be given finance to buy a tv at over double the retail cost.
      - skookumchuck 9y ago
        > But, have you ever been in a sales room? Yup. > Most people are pressured to sign ASAP and dealers generally refuse to print out contracts until after they're signed. I refuse to sign until I see a printed copy. Just remember that the dealers want that sale a lot more than you do. If they aren't being reasonable, get up and walk away. They'll change their tune very quickly.
  - agentdrtran 9y ago
    car dealers are like the most common example of this since forever...
    - losteric 9y ago
      Car dealers used to profit from people's emotions and ignorance about the product. That's a reasonable exploitation of ignorance because car buyers should know about the car they're buying. Today, car dealers sell consumers to banks using cars as bait people. Exploiting people's ignorance of dense financial/legal contracts seems extremely abusive to me.
      - laythea 9y ago
        Off course you are right, but welcome to the real world. The only reason it was not done before, was that it was not feasible.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    Guy walks into a car dealership. He's dressed well. But the salesman is bored, he doesn't care. Idly, the salesman asks, "Hello there. So, what kind of car have you been thinking about." He doesn't care. "Oh no, I'm not here for a car. I was wondering if you had any derivative contracts that bundled those sweet financing contracts you've been floating." Salesman bolts upright, and goes shifty eyed - looks around to see if anyone heard. He goes to the front of the office and locks the door. Now he's all ears. "Come with me to the back. You're in luck today."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ganoushoreilly 9y ago
That's because their deal was hedging on the additional commission they'd gain from financing. It's rather screwy. Whenever I trade in a car I always negotiate price on the car alone first, then get a trade appraisal (usually have one in hand from Carmax prior) and if they start playing games I walk out. Past two cars, I walked out and got a call within an hour saying come back we'll do the deal.
- wingspar 9y ago
  I did similar with our last Honda. Came to the end and I asked if they would want me to sign an arbitration agreement. Told them I would, but not for free. A lot of people died for my right to sue them in court. I asked for and received an accessory they sell for $180... They were confused...
  - dwyerm 9y ago
    Thank you for that... but I think you sold your rights too cheaply. I walked away for the right to cross out the entire arbitration clause. They were mystified that I would even read the stuff on the back of the contract, let alone have a concern with it. They were offering me thousands of dollars off, but wouldn't budge on the clause. I went to another dealer the next week that hadn't yet added that toxic language to their contracts. I just consider myself fortunate that I still had the option of going with another dealer. I don't think it is possible to find a bank, phone, or internet provider without an MBA clause.
    - viridian 9y ago
      Credit unions on the other hand, you'd have a much better time with.
smnscu 9y ago
Here's a good summary of the best way to approach this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Q5ReCw5Gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Q5ReCw5Gs Basically know precisely what you want and do your homework to find what the common discount is, and push it just a little bit. The main point is to be an easy customer.
digi_owl 9y ago
Either that was a cheap car or you have some serious income...
- gambiting 9y ago
  Is buying a new car with cash really that weird? Not to mention that he could have obtained the money elsewhere at a lower rate(say a 5% loan from a bank vs 8% on dealer organised finance) - in which case as far as the dealer is concerned,he's paying in cash from his own account.
aianus 9y ago
It wasn't anything like this when I went shopping for a car at Audi and MB last year. I was expecting some discount for paying cash since the interest rates were all less than 2% (which barely covers inflation). However they were completely indifferent to whether I paid cash or financed so I financed.

by tyfon 9y ago

skookumchuck 9y ago

I doubt it was silly. He likely offered you a deal that would have lost money if not for the financing.

eugeniub 9y ago
That's exactly why it was silly.
losteric 9y ago
Call me old fashion, but I think car salesmen ought to make their money off of selling cars instead of exploiting consumer's ignorance of financial tools and more complex math. This is so much more nefarious.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  When I've bought mortgages, I was required by law to sign a document that says "I have read and understood these loan documents." I've seen many people in the newspaper complaining that they neither read nor understood the terms. At what point do you expect legally competent adults to pay attention to and take responsibility for what they're doing?
  - cmurf 9y ago
    No non-lawyer is competent to understand all real estate transaction documents. But they might be competent enough to acquiesce to the grand stupidity of our culture [1] and hire a real estate attorney. Mine reviewed all the relevant documents and come to the closing, for a flat fee that I thought was rather reasonable, in particular compared to the hand cramp I got from all the ridiculous paper work I had to hand sign. [1] Consider: the banks, the title company, the county, all want hand signed documents. But we accept computerized voting machines to manage elections.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      > No non-lawyer is competent to understand all real estate transaction documents. I understood them well enough. It isn't that hard. The misunderstandings people would complain about were not about subtleties or legal hare-splitting. It's also established legal doctrine that a contract written in ambiguous, confusing, or tricky language isn't going to hold up in court. Judges take a dim view of that. I also actually read them. Amazing. Although this would visibly annoy the escrow officer. You did the right thing by having a lawyer review it if you didn't feel confident about it. There's no excuse not to if it is a large transaction.
      - cmurf 9y ago
        A house is, for most people, a very large transaction. Saying "it isn't that hard" considering attorney's specialize in real estate is like saying "reading x-rays isn't that hard". Had I not had an attorney present, it would have taken me all day, instead of 4 hours of reading stuff. It wasn't a matter of confidence in myself, it was a matter of having less than 100% trust in everyone else present.
        DannyBee 9y ago
        " Saying "it isn't that hard" considering attorney's specialize in real estate" Attorneys specialize in everything, the fact that attorneys specialize in real estate does not make every real estate transaction difficult, or require an attorney. There are attorneys who specialize in speeding tickets. That does not make understanding the laws around speed limits difficult. If just means it's an area where attorneys believe they can make money by building a niche. That is not a measure of the complexity of that area, but of a large number of factors. (same with DUI) In fact, attorneys specialize in real estate to handle the complicated things, which are not closings. So your point kind of goes against this argument you keep trying to make. I'm also not at all sure what your analogy to x-rays is supposed to be proving. It seems very strange x-rays have no context and to people not familiar with at least anatomy and a number of other things, and are subject to different opinions. On the contrary, real estate contracts, which are usually boilerplate plain english, only require understanding english. They may take a while to read, but they don't require specialized training. They are generally not subject to different interpretations, that's precisely why they are written the way they are! There is no equivalent for x-rays that could make laypeople competent.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >At what point do you expect legally competent adults to pay attention to and take responsibility for what they're doing? At no point. I don't even consider it a matter of "responsibility". You can only take responsibility when things are clearly laid out. But what about the even more important responsibility to CLEARLY lay things out that should fall into businesses? What I do expect and find important, and should be legally binding, is that no business should be allowed to hide the actual impact of purchases behind legalese and long-winded "financial product" descriptions, and then put the blame on the customer for not "reading through it". At the very least, they should be explicitly, and in common, everyday language, give something like: "The average buyer that used this financing option ended up paying X% above the base price".
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      > What I do expect and find important, and should be legally binding, is that no business should be allowed to hide the actual impact of purchases behind legalese and long-winded "financial product" descriptions, and then put the blame on the customer for not "reading through it". And in general, as I pointed out here, such contracts tend to be invalid in court. However, signing a piece of paper in plain english certifying saying "I read it" when one did not ought to mean something. A legal doctrine where one can not bother reading contracts and yet get them decided in favor of ones imaginary terms doesn't sound like a workable system. The whole point of written contracts is so there's a record of what the terms were and what was agreed upon.
      - badestrand 9y ago
        > A legal doctrine where one can not bother reading contracts and yet get them decided in favor of ones imaginary terms doesn't sound like a workable system. Having to agree to dozens of pages of contract every day just to do seemingly ordinary things like using websites or ordering stuff online doesn't sound like a workable system either.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >However, signing a piece of paper in plain english certifying saying "I read it" when one did not ought to mean something. If that was the case, EULA also should "mean something".
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    Do you read the terms and conditions pop up that every bit of software seems to contain?
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      If they cost $50,000, you bet I do. Lesser ones, if I sign my name, I do. Click thru ones on fairly worthless software aren't binding.
      - ccrush 9y ago
        Look up the names Schwartz and Aurenheimer. They either ignored the click through EULA or deliberately broke it. Charged with CFAA felonies over it. One got prison for many years. The other killed himself to avoid it as well as to protest the insanity of having criminal charges brought against them because they broke the EULA terms on a web site. Both used scripts to cycle through ID numbers in a web page. This is what happens when you don't read. The system is fucked. Better make sure you aren't violating the TOS on any of the web sites you visit.
        skookumchuck 9y ago
        Aurenheimer knew what he was doing was legally wrong: https://www.wired.com/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty/ https://www.wired.com/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty/ although the charges were grossly excessive. Schwartz knew he was doing something legally wrong, because he hid in a closet to do it. (The charges against him were also grossly excessive.) I don't think these cases support your notion that EULAs were the issue. Nor do I think these extreme cases are cause for EULA concern for someone using software as it was obviously and reasonably intended to be used. Disclaimer: IANAL, and if you want real legal advice, go ask a real lawyer. Taking legal advice from the internet is foolish.
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    When they pass the bar exam. It's easy to think you understand a contract, but you don't. Unfortunately clear language isn't litigated. The vague and obtuse language has a legal meaning, because it has gone to court. So that's what contracts are forced to use.
  - losteric 9y ago
    Exploiting ignorance is legally fair game, that doesn't make it ethical. At this point dealers are basically just selling consumers to banks. I would blame the consumers if they could take their contracts home, consult with family, financial experts, etc. But, have you ever been in a sales room? Most people are pressured to sign ASAP and dealers generally refuse to print out contracts until after they're signed.
    - ownagefool 9y ago
      Not in the UK. A contract has to both be fair and understood in order for it to be valid. The thing is, given all the finance agreements I've had in the UK tell me what the total cost will be ( generally over double the cost of the product ) I'm not really sure these products aren't to be reasonbly understood and it woukd seem like laziness or greed eould be the biggest driver. The exception to the rule here would be payday loans which have some horrible outcomes shouls you fail to pay them back on the agreed date. These were being legislated for the last I heard, so I'm not sure if they still exist. The other game in the UK is targeting the poor with silly rates of interest in the knowledge that many of them simply won't pay. Technically they're high risk loans and thus somewhat valid but there is an argument that the likes of brighthouse shouldn't exist and that people without jobs shouldn't really be given finance to buy a tv at over double the retail cost.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      > But, have you ever been in a sales room? Yup. > Most people are pressured to sign ASAP and dealers generally refuse to print out contracts until after they're signed. I refuse to sign until I see a printed copy. Just remember that the dealers want that sale a lot more than you do. If they aren't being reasonable, get up and walk away. They'll change their tune very quickly.
- agentdrtran 9y ago
  car dealers are like the most common example of this since forever...
  - losteric 9y ago
    Car dealers used to profit from people's emotions and ignorance about the product. That's a reasonable exploitation of ignorance because car buyers should know about the car they're buying. Today, car dealers sell consumers to banks using cars as bait people. Exploiting people's ignorance of dense financial/legal contracts seems extremely abusive to me.
    - laythea 9y ago
      Off course you are right, but welcome to the real world. The only reason it was not done before, was that it was not feasible.
- logicallee 9y ago
  Guy walks into a car dealership. He's dressed well. But the salesman is bored, he doesn't care. Idly, the salesman asks, "Hello there. So, what kind of car have you been thinking about." He doesn't care. "Oh no, I'm not here for a car. I was wondering if you had any derivative contracts that bundled those sweet financing contracts you've been floating." Salesman bolts upright, and goes shifty eyed - looks around to see if anyone heard. He goes to the front of the office and locks the door. Now he's all ears. "Come with me to the back. You're in luck today."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

ganoushoreilly 9y ago

That's because their deal was hedging on the additional commission they'd gain from financing. It's rather screwy. Whenever I trade in a car I always negotiate price on the car alone first, then get a trade appraisal (usually have one in hand from Carmax prior) and if they start playing games I walk out. Past two cars, I walked out and got a call within an hour saying come back we'll do the deal.

wingspar 9y ago
I did similar with our last Honda. Came to the end and I asked if they would want me to sign an arbitration agreement. Told them I would, but not for free. A lot of people died for my right to sue them in court. I asked for and received an accessory they sell for $180... They were confused...
- dwyerm 9y ago
  Thank you for that... but I think you sold your rights too cheaply. I walked away for the right to cross out the entire arbitration clause. They were mystified that I would even read the stuff on the back of the contract, let alone have a concern with it. They were offering me thousands of dollars off, but wouldn't budge on the clause. I went to another dealer the next week that hadn't yet added that toxic language to their contracts. I just consider myself fortunate that I still had the option of going with another dealer. I don't think it is possible to find a bank, phone, or internet provider without an MBA clause.
  - viridian 9y ago
    Credit unions on the other hand, you'd have a much better time with.

smnscu 9y ago

Here's a good summary of the best way to approach this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Q5ReCw5Gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Q5ReCw5Gs Basically know precisely what you want and do your homework to find what the common discount is, and push it just a little bit. The main point is to be an easy customer.

digi_owl 9y ago

Either that was a cheap car or you have some serious income...

gambiting 9y ago
Is buying a new car with cash really that weird? Not to mention that he could have obtained the money elsewhere at a lower rate(say a 5% loan from a bank vs 8% on dealer organised finance) - in which case as far as the dealer is concerned,he's paying in cash from his own account.

aianus 9y ago

It wasn't anything like this when I went shopping for a car at Audi and MB last year. I was expecting some discount for paying cash since the interest rates were all less than 2% (which barely covers inflation). However they were completely indifferent to whether I paid cash or financed so I financed.