4 ms·
That's not what the article states.
by djmobley 9y ago
That's not what the article states.
- icebraining 9y agoGeorge 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 agoOne 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 agoWhy 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 agoThe question is whether the fee is considered part of the loan.
- icebraining 9y agoWell, the guy said in this case it's illegal. We can suppose the president of the Automobile Protection Association hasn't thought about an obvious question that occurs to any of us, of course, but still, right or not the article answers the question.
- djmobley 9y agoYou can't just throw money at a lease provider and automatically gain ownership of an asset. Lease providers can and will impose conditions. Like early repayment fees. Or fees for the return of GPS trackers...
- icebraining 9y agoHow long have you been versed in Québécois law?
- maxerickson 9y agoThis back and forth isn't accomplishing anything. More info needed to decide who has a better hand wavy interpretation of the information that is available.