6 ms·

Ultimately it's a question of whether the contract allowed them to demand the fee, and disable the vehicle for non payment. Nobody involved in writing this art

Ultimately it's a question of whether the contract allowed them to demand the fee, and disable the vehicle for non payment. Nobody involved in writing this article seems to have consulted this particular contract, but I wouldn't find the existence of such a contract unbelievable, nor the terms particularly unreasonable.

moioci 9y ago
He said there was no mention of it in the contract, and no one from the dealership has disputed that.
- djmobley 9y ago
  The borrower claims the contract made no mention of the fee, and the dealer did not provide any comment for the article. The dealer backed down quickly over the fee, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a right to request the sum.
  - admax88q 9y ago
    > they didn't have a right to request the sum. Why do all discussions like this on hacker news come down to debating what they legally do and do not have the right to do. Wouldn't it be more productive to talk about whether they _should_ or _shouldn't_ have the right to do something?
    - tene 9y ago
      Moral and ethical questions can be rather contentious and people often come to different conclusions, and there's nontrivial moral weight to due process and the rule of law. Many people are better off operating in a consistent and predictable legal framework, so if someone is violating current law, that's relevant to a moral evaluation of a situation. Further, establishing what current law has to say about a situation, and what actually happened in the situation, is a required prerequisite to a discussion about proposed policy changes. Trying to propose changes to the law to change people's rights in situations like this without knowing what the actual details are or whether those details are already in violation or compliance with current law isn't exactly productive, especially given the base rate of inaccurate and incomplete reporting. Phrased a bit differently, "should" and "shouldn't" aren't completely independent from a given regulatory environment, in that there's nontrivial societal benefit from people knowing what to expect. In cases where some people have decided that certain clauses in a contract are unacceptable (noncompete employment agreements in some states, for example) we've explicitly documented that. If you have opinions on regulation of contracts for auto purchases relevant to this situation, it's absolutely worth first establishing when the contract specified transfer of title, whether or not the contract mentioned the $200 removal fee, and what current law has to say about that.
icebraining 9y ago
Nope, if the law says they can't disable the car for such a debt - as the article states - then the contract is irrelevant.
- djmobley 9y ago
  That's not what the article states.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Association, said Quebec has strict rules on how GPS immobilizers can be used. In this case, he said, the dealership's actions were against the law because it no longer owned the car. Seems clear to me. What am I missing?
    - djmobley 9y ago
      One of the points requiring clarification here is whether the dealer did in fact cede title of the car before the disagreement over the GPS tracker. If they retained ownership (which is quite plausible, given the disagreement over the fees), Iny's interpretation of the law is irrelevant.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Why are you assuming that the law lets them decide at all whether to cede the title? His statement is unambiguous: "To turn off somebody's vehicle after he had already paid off the loan is clearly illegal."
        kobeya 9y ago
        The question is whether the fee is considered part of the loan.
        icebraining 9y ago

moioci 9y ago

He said there was no mention of it in the contract, and no one from the dealership has disputed that.

djmobley 9y ago
The borrower claims the contract made no mention of the fee, and the dealer did not provide any comment for the article. The dealer backed down quickly over the fee, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a right to request the sum.
- admax88q 9y ago
  > they didn't have a right to request the sum. Why do all discussions like this on hacker news come down to debating what they legally do and do not have the right to do. Wouldn't it be more productive to talk about whether they _should_ or _shouldn't_ have the right to do something?
  - tene 9y ago
    Moral and ethical questions can be rather contentious and people often come to different conclusions, and there's nontrivial moral weight to due process and the rule of law. Many people are better off operating in a consistent and predictable legal framework, so if someone is violating current law, that's relevant to a moral evaluation of a situation. Further, establishing what current law has to say about a situation, and what actually happened in the situation, is a required prerequisite to a discussion about proposed policy changes. Trying to propose changes to the law to change people's rights in situations like this without knowing what the actual details are or whether those details are already in violation or compliance with current law isn't exactly productive, especially given the base rate of inaccurate and incomplete reporting. Phrased a bit differently, "should" and "shouldn't" aren't completely independent from a given regulatory environment, in that there's nontrivial societal benefit from people knowing what to expect. In cases where some people have decided that certain clauses in a contract are unacceptable (noncompete employment agreements in some states, for example) we've explicitly documented that. If you have opinions on regulation of contracts for auto purchases relevant to this situation, it's absolutely worth first establishing when the contract specified transfer of title, whether or not the contract mentioned the $200 removal fee, and what current law has to say about that.

icebraining 9y ago

Nope, if the law says they can't disable the car for such a debt - as the article states - then the contract is irrelevant.

djmobley 9y ago
That's not what the article states.
- icebraining 9y ago
  George Iny, president of the Automobile Protection Association, said Quebec has strict rules on how GPS immobilizers can be used. In this case, he said, the dealership's actions were against the law because it no longer owned the car. Seems clear to me. What am I missing?
  - djmobley 9y ago
    One of the points requiring clarification here is whether the dealer did in fact cede title of the car before the disagreement over the GPS tracker. If they retained ownership (which is quite plausible, given the disagreement over the fees), Iny's interpretation of the law is irrelevant.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Why are you assuming that the law lets them decide at all whether to cede the title? His statement is unambiguous: "To turn off somebody's vehicle after he had already paid off the loan is clearly illegal."
      - kobeya 9y ago
        The question is whether the fee is considered part of the loan.
        icebraining 9y ago