4 ms·

Sure.. but that didn't happen here. He paid off the car. And they still disabled it.

by adekok 9y ago

djmobley 9y ago
But 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 ago
  Which 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 ago
    It'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 ago
      It 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 ago
        Nonsense. The tracker is removable and remains the property of the dealer.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        Removability 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 ago
        It's not permanently affixed. It's removable.
        EpicEng 9y ago
        So are the bricks which hold up my home. Don't pretend you're a legal expert.
        theandrewbailey 9y ago
        Everything is removable with a sledgehammer. Many things are made of constituent parts that can be removed, but that doesn't mean that the original owner has rights to it.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        But it wasn't removed. Nor were arrangements made for it to be removed. So all parties involved should have been able to expect that it would remain affixed to the car for the foreseeable future--the future in which the entire car, and everything in it, changes ownership.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      There are two different legal regimes at play: property law and contract law. You can put whatever you want in a contract, and if the buyer breaches the contract you can sue them for breach. But as a general matter, there are no "self help" remedies for breach of contract. Remedies like repossession are the domain of property law. You can leverage property-law interests in a contract (e.g. providing in a contract that buyer retains title property until payment for goods), but as a general matter you can't mess with peoples' property to enforce a contract. I'm not sure how Canadian law works, but in most U.S. states, an auto lender holds a lien, which is an encumbrance on your car title. Liens cease to exist when the debt obligation they are tied to is repaid. (Your lender will send you a letter or notice of satisfaction, but that is merely evidence of the fact that the lien has been extinguished.) Because property law has its own mechanics, you can't just assume that the dealership can give itself arbitrary self-help rights in the contract. It's possible that the dealership has clever lawyers and set things up to allow it to lock out the car even after repayment. But it seems more likely that the dealership simply fucked up, and tried to collect a fee using a self-help remedy it was no longer entitled to use after repayment of the loan.
      - djmobley 9y ago
        Not an expert on Canadian law, but common sense suggests it's more complex than that. You cannot simply throw money at a lease provider and gain title of a vehicle. The lease provider can impose other conditions on title transfer (e.g. early repayment fees) If you're throwing large sums of money at them, they should probably perform some anti-money laundering checks before accepting the money. If you're paying cash, they may justifiably not want to handle large amounts of cash. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that return of the dealer's GPS tracker (and possible payment for removal) could also be conditions on them transferring the title. The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker.
        adekok 9y ago
        > The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker. Yes, the article is abundantly clear. You're getting downvoted because your position is counter to available facts, and your logic is faulty. He owned the car. They had no legal right to disable it. As the article says: Quebec's Consumer Protection Bureau said it is illegal to charge fees not included in a signed contract. The office also said a lender has to furnish a borrower with notice of 30 days before acting in such a way. Immobilizing a car could amount to a form of intimidation, which is also prohibited under consumer protection laws, they said. Your position is essentially that illegal behavior is fine, because, well, it's not "clear" that the behavior is illegal. Despite oodles of evidence that it is.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The article clearly states that the law prohibits that. The contractual rights don't supersede the law.

Sure.. but that didn't happen here. He paid off the car. And they still disabled it.

by adekok 9y ago

Sure.. but that didn't happen here. He paid off the car. And they still disabled it.

But 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 ago
Which 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    It 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 ago
      Nonsense. The tracker is removable and remains the property of the dealer.
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        Removability 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 ago
        It's not permanently affixed. It's removable.
        EpicEng 9y ago
        So are the bricks which hold up my home. Don't pretend you're a legal expert.
        theandrewbailey 9y ago
        Everything is removable with a sledgehammer. Many things are made of constituent parts that can be removed, but that doesn't mean that the original owner has rights to it.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        But it wasn't removed. Nor were arrangements made for it to be removed. So all parties involved should have been able to expect that it would remain affixed to the car for the foreseeable future--the future in which the entire car, and everything in it, changes ownership.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    There are two different legal regimes at play: property law and contract law. You can put whatever you want in a contract, and if the buyer breaches the contract you can sue them for breach. But as a general matter, there are no "self help" remedies for breach of contract. Remedies like repossession are the domain of property law. You can leverage property-law interests in a contract (e.g. providing in a contract that buyer retains title property until payment for goods), but as a general matter you can't mess with peoples' property to enforce a contract. I'm not sure how Canadian law works, but in most U.S. states, an auto lender holds a lien, which is an encumbrance on your car title. Liens cease to exist when the debt obligation they are tied to is repaid. (Your lender will send you a letter or notice of satisfaction, but that is merely evidence of the fact that the lien has been extinguished.) Because property law has its own mechanics, you can't just assume that the dealership can give itself arbitrary self-help rights in the contract. It's possible that the dealership has clever lawyers and set things up to allow it to lock out the car even after repayment. But it seems more likely that the dealership simply fucked up, and tried to collect a fee using a self-help remedy it was no longer entitled to use after repayment of the loan.
    - djmobley 9y ago
      Not an expert on Canadian law, but common sense suggests it's more complex than that. You cannot simply throw money at a lease provider and gain title of a vehicle. The lease provider can impose other conditions on title transfer (e.g. early repayment fees) If you're throwing large sums of money at them, they should probably perform some anti-money laundering checks before accepting the money. If you're paying cash, they may justifiably not want to handle large amounts of cash. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that return of the dealer's GPS tracker (and possible payment for removal) could also be conditions on them transferring the title. The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker.
      - adekok 9y ago
        > The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker. Yes, the article is abundantly clear. You're getting downvoted because your position is counter to available facts, and your logic is faulty. He owned the car. They had no legal right to disable it. As the article says: Quebec's Consumer Protection Bureau said it is illegal to charge fees not included in a signed contract. The office also said a lender has to furnish a borrower with notice of 30 days before acting in such a way. Immobilizing a car could amount to a form of intimidation, which is also prohibited under consumer protection laws, they said. Your position is essentially that illegal behavior is fine, because, well, it's not "clear" that the behavior is illegal. Despite oodles of evidence that it is.
icebraining 9y ago
The article clearly states that the law prohibits that. The contractual rights don't supersede the law.