Breach of contract

[Gregor]

Jurisdiction

South Carolina

Hilton Head Automotive, LLC, also known as Hilton Head Buick GMC Cadillac, sold me a truck over the phone and I gave them a $1000 deposit via credit card to hold it until I could get to the dealership, at their request to mark the truck as sold.
We traveled nearly 8 hours to get to the dealership. The morning we left to go to the dealership, I got a phone call saying the truck was sold despite the salesman putting a sold sign on the truck.
The week before we had numerous conversations about the truck and as far as both parties were concerned the truck was sold to me.
What actions can I take for breach of contract for selling my truck to somebody else? I believe it was because I use a GM discount program, which they had previously complained about losing money when they utilize it.

 

[Zigner]

I'd suggest getting your money back and taking your business elsewhere.

 

[adjusterjack]

I agree with Zigner. Get your money back and move on.

Next time you want to buy a vehicle, go to a dealer and buy it from the lot, or buy one from a private party.

Car dealers are liars and thieves. They are experts at deceiving customers with impunity.

PS: Your IP is Tyler TX where there are two GMC dealers and your a little over an hour from Dallas where there are likely a few more.

 

[zddoodah]

What actions can I take for breach of contract for selling my truck to somebody else?

Assuming you had an enforceable written contract, the buyer's remedy for breach is found in either section 2-712 or 2-713 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Essentially, what you do is go out and find a comparable vehicle from somewhere else and, if you can't find one for the same or better price, you can seek the difference from the breaching dealer. What I've just described is "cover" damages under section 2-712. The remedy under section 2-713 is slightly different and also largely impractical. Note that the links I provided are to the UCC itself. South Carolina has adopted its own version of the UCC that may have some slight differences from the base UCC, but I suspect any differences in this area are non-substantive. Keep in mind that litigating this may cost you more in legal fees than the damages you might recover. That being the case, I'm inclined to agree that, if the dealer will refund your $1k, you'd be best off just moving on.

PS: Your IP is Tyler TX where there are two GMC dealers and your a little over an hour from Dallas where there are likely a few more.

The OP mentioned that he/she is an 8-hour drive to Hilton Head, SC. It is, at best, a nearly 15-hour drive from Tyler, TX to Hilton Head, so I doubt the OP actually is in Tyler. After all, you probably show me being either in the Houston, TX area or somewhere in Georgia, and I'm nowhere near either.

 

[adjusterjack]

After all, you probably show me being either in the Houston, TX area or somewhere in Georgia, and I'm nowhere near either.

Your IP is Atlanta.

My point was that, wherever the OP lived there were probably GMC dealers a lot closer than 8 hours.

 

[welkin]

Hilton Head Automotive, LLC, also known as Hilton Head Buick GMC Cadillac, sold me a truck over the phone and I gave them a $1000 deposit via credit card to hold it until I could get to the dealership, at their request to mark the truck as sold.

The truck would not be sold until it was paid for in full and you signed the contract for sale.
What you did was put a deposit on the truck as you point out. That is not selling you the truck.

When the dealer gets a better offer it's bye bye truck.

 

[Zigner]

The truck would not be sold until it was paid for in full and you signed the contract for sale.
What you did was put a deposit on the truck as you point out. That is not selling you the truck.

When the dealer gets a better offer it's bye bye truck.

But that's not how it works according to the UCC.
Based on what the OP has told us, there's really no question that he has remedies available under the UCC, but the practicality of the matter makes those remedies not easily or economically available.

 

[welkin]

But that's not how it works according to the UCC.
Based on what the OP has told us, there's really no question that he has remedies available under the UCC, but the practicality of the matter makes those remedies not easily or economically available.

What OP has told us is that he placed a deposit on the truck over the phone. I don't think that in any way does that produce a signed enforceable written contract for damages to be recovered under the UCC.

 

[Zigner]

What OP has told us is that he placed a deposit on the truck over the phone. I don't think that in any way does that produce a signed enforceable written contract for damages to be recovered under the UCC.

That's a fair enough position.

 

[SewardsSteward]

So, from what I know about contracts, in this example, this would qualify as a traditional enforceable contract, only because the plaintiff in the case paid a 1,000 deposit and, as such, would be entitled to a remedy of at least that amount. The part of this contract that was not performed by the other part would be to hold the truck until the plaintiff could at least get there, so a failure to do so opens them up for a lawsuit.

The deposit could either be returned or the defendants would owe an equitable relief in that amount. This seems like a clear cut case of breach to me, which is weird because surely they would know that.