8 ms·
While I'm no legal expert, I believe the crux of the issue is in this case the dealership had already signed over the title, meaning the had no legal right over
by RijilV 9y ago
While I'm no legal expert, I believe the crux of the issue is in this case the dealership had already signed over the title, meaning the had no legal right over the car. Bad on them for demanding a $200 fee to remove it which wasn't clear upfront (though the dealership never responded to the reporters so all we have is the one sided story)
That being said, I think you're referencing the more common cases where these devices are used to disable vehicles on lease to customers. In that case the lease holder is not the owner, so yeah tampering with someone else's car is probably not legal. atleast on the surface that seems reasonable, I wouldn't want someone messing with my vehicle.
I'll agree that leasing agreements are often predatory and there is confusion over who's vehicle it is, but if you want ownership you really need to have purchased the title.
- gozur88 9y agoI'd be very surprised if the buyer didn't sign something upon purchase that gives the dealer the right to disable the car on lack of payment.
- adekok 9y agoSure.. but that didn't happen here. He paid off the car. And they still disabled it.
- djmobley 9y agoBut he didn't pay all the fees they requested of him. Whether they had a contractual right to request the fee for removal of the tracker is a different matter.
- EpicEng 9y agoWhich is completely irrelevant if the buyer owns the car outright? Want your fees? Take it up in small claims. They have no rights over your property.
- djmobley 9y agoIt's quite plausible that payment of this fee was a condition of title being transferred. Also, even once the title for the car is transferred, the tracker remains the property of the dealer and they will have some rights to recover it.
- theandrewbailey 9y agoIt was mentioned that the fee was not part of the contract. I'm inclined say the tracker is part of the car, and the dealer has no rights over it (unless mentioned in the contract), similar to how a furnace, thermostat, or water heater is part of a house (because its nailed/bolted to the house). (IANAL)
- djmobley 9y agoNonsense. The tracker is removable and remains the property of the dealer.
- logfromblammo 9y agoRemovability is not the applicable criterion. It is whether the device is permanently affixed or not. If the dealer left a ballpoint pen in the glove box, sure, you could make an argument that they retain ownership of it. But the lockout device is exactly as removable and as permanently affixed as the car stereo, or the headlights, or the transmission. If you replaced the original manufacturer's car stereo with an aftermarket model, and wanted to keep it and swap it back out for the original stereo, you would have to mention that in the purchase agreement. The same goes for any other fixture or appurtenance on the vehicle. If it isn't removed before the papers are signed, or mentioned in those papers, ownership goes with the title to the vehicle.
- djmobley 9y agoIt's not permanently affixed. It's removable.
- icebraining 9y agoThe article clearly states that the law prohibits that. The contractual rights don't supersede the law.
- houseofzeus 9y agoYeah, but he paid off the car and now they want their immobilizer back and to charge him for them to remove it.
- gozur88 9y ago$200 to remove a tracker seems a bit steep, and were I him I'd be inclined to either remove it myself or tell them they were welcome to remove it on their dime. Assuming, of course, he's correct in his assertion the fee wasn't in the contract.