Robert Mobasseri | Los Angeles Real Estate Lawyer | California

N/A

2009 Mercedes-Benz S550 Vehicle Repurchased Car buyer went into a dealership to purchase a new car and was asked to sign a blank credit application to have his "credit checked". The buyer purchased a 2008 Mercedes-Benz CLS63. Almost immediately after purchasing the vehicle, the buyer discovered that the vehicle had damage and that some of the items listed on the vehicle's window sticker as included were missing. The dealership told the buyer that he would need to purchase the missing items. The buyer expressed dissatisfaction and requested that the dealership take back the Mercedes CLS63. The dealership refused to take back the vehicle, but offered to sell the buyer a different vehicle instead. Reluctantly the buyer purchased a 2009 S550 and the dealer used the 2 day old CLS63 as a trade-in with negative equity against the new car. The buyer complained several times of the vehicle's cost as well as to the additional services that the finance manager insisted were required to make the exchange, but that were listed on the paperwork as an option. The buyer felt pressured into purchasing the $102,630.00 Mercedes-Benz S550. On both sales, the loan application for the cars were not filled out by the buyer, but instead were filled out by one or more employees of the dealership in different handwriting. In filling out the credit applications, the dealership misspelled the buyer's name and address; the dealership grossly inflated buyer's income much higher than what he informed the dealership that he made; the dealership fictitiously added rental income that the buyer did not have; the dealership fictitiously added a $400,000 investment portfolio to the credit application that did not exist; the dealership self-appraised and/or exaggerated the value of two properties owned by the buyer; the dealership grossly exaggerated the buyer's length of employment and fictitiously stated that the buyer was retired. The buyer tried several times to return vehicle to dealership and asked for copies of his loan and credit applications. The dealership refused to give the buyer copies of his credit applications and instead responded by the General Manager of the dealership calling to threaten the filing of a malicious lawsuit against the buyer. The buyer retained the Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri to request an immediate repurchase and/or rescission of his vehicle and be reimbursed for all related expenses to both vehicles. In return, the buyer would not pursue charges of fraud against the dealership in court. The dealership, without any admission of liability or conceding the merit of any of the consumer's claim, offered within 30 days of receiving the demand by the Law Offices of Robert. B Mobasseri, to rescind the buyer's vehicle contract and reimburse the buyer for all expenses related to the purchase of both vehicles. Date Settled: November, 2009 2008 Bentley Continental GTC Monetary Settlement Bentley does not have a dealership in Oregon, so the buyer purchased a Bentley Continental GTC from Rusnak in Pasadena, California and had the vehicle shipped to his address in Oregon. Shortly after receiving his Bentley, the buyer started experiencing problems with vehicle's airbags, seat belts and electrical system. As Bentley also did not have an authorized service center in the state of Oregon, the buyer was forced to bring the Bentley back to the Rusnak dealership in California for the warranty repairs. After many unsuccessful repairs, it became clear to the buyer that his Bentley was a Lemon. The buyer was told several times that because he had shipped his Bentley to Oregon, the vehicle would not qualify to be repurchased under California Lemon Law and that unfortunately, he had no choice but to accept his situation. After more than 8 repair attempts for the same defect resulting in more than 75 days in an authorized Bentley repair facility, the buyer was referred to the Law Offices of Robert Mobasseri. Through negotiations with Bentley, and without admission of liability or conceding any merit to the consumer's California lemon law claim, the manufacturer offered to reimburse the buyer for any inconvenience that he may have suffered with a good will payment of $95,000. The buyer accepted Bentley's goodwill offer and chose no to pursue the manufacture in court. Date Settled: May, 2010