motor vehicle retail installment sales contract

[msorrells10]

Jurisdiction

Texas

My wife purchased a vehicle 2 days ago on a Saturday, my wife works at a bank in the IT department but the sales agent kept telling people she was a loan officer which my wife corrected her and even wrote on the application she was an IT supervisor. The sales agent asked what it would take for us to drive away with the car and my wife told her 1.9% interest rate for 84 months the sales agent said they got the deal and and drew up a motor vehicle retail installment sales contract stating my wife's employer would finance the vehicle at 1.9% for 84 months. We signed the agreement only to find out when my wife got to work on Monday that the bank she works at did not agree to those terms and never authorized the dealership to arrange that agreement. Part of the sales agreement was a, "We Owe" form that stated the dealership needed to put new tires on the vehicle and turn the rotors, when my wife dropped off the vehicle to have this done the dealership stated that they had found a different lender that would do the same loan term for 3.99% since her bank would not approve the loan term and interest rate. We were told by the loan officer at her bank and the bank attorney that we signed a binding contract with the car dealership stating we agreed to purchase the vehicle at 1.9% for 84 months and that they are required to sell the vehicle to us for that amount and term by the contract agreement which also stated in the Integration and Severability clause, "This contract contains the entire agreement between you and us relating to the sale and financing of the vehicle. If any part of this contract is not valid, all other parts stay valid". Since we refused to use the lender they arranged after the one they told us was good fell through the dealership will not give us the car back. Neither my wife nor I provided any false information to the dealership but were told, "They assumed" since my wife worked at the bank she was acting as if she had approval for that loan term from her employer and told us we were acting in fraud because they assumed this. We corrected the financial manager and the sales rep that she was not a loan officer but that she wanted the above mentioned deal. We even asked the finance manager who the loan was through and he told us that her bank was the lender. Since we did not provide any false information, paid the down payment on the vehicle in cash and have the, "Integration and Severability" clause on the contract, should we be able to take ownership of the vehicle and the dealership be responsible for providing the financing they agreed they found in the first place per the contract?

 

[army judge]

Your deal, as are ALL deals are contingent on getting you approved financing; unless you pay in cash.

Your wife can seek approved financing, but if the dealer can't get her approved, you'll have to return the car and get ready to PAY the dealership for USE of the car.

The inability to get her approved has nothing to do with her title or duties at the bank. Its if anyone (a lender that is) wants to finance her at less than 2%. That tends to be rare, even these days.

 

[msorrells10]

That is not the language specified in the sales contract.

 

[msorrells10]

How can a dealership be allowed to tell us we were approved by a financial institution on an, "assumption", draw up the sales contract with the name of the financial institution that was unknowingly put down as the financier and take my down payment. Basically sale me the car with information they assumed plus on the contract it states, "This contract contains the entire agreement between you and us relating to the sale and financing of the vehicle. If any part of this contract is not valid, all other parts stay valid" and not be held accountable for the rest of the contract when the language in the contract clearly states all other parts of the contract are valid?

 

[army judge]

How can a dealership be allowed to tell us we were approved by a financial institution on an, "assumption", draw up the sales contract with the name of the financial institution that was unknowingly put down as the financier and take my down payment. Basically sale me the car with information they assumed plus on the contract it states, "This contract contains the entire agreement between you and us relating to the sale and financing of the vehicle. If any part of this contract is not valid, all other parts stay valid" and not be held accountable for the rest of the contract when the language in the contract clearly states all other parts of the contract are valid?

I refuse to debate the point here.
You came seeking information, I provided same.
You are free to litigate the matter, but i assure you, your opinion of things won't matter.
I suggest you read the ENTIRE contract.
What you're enduring is discovered anew daily by the unknowing and uninitiated.
You took the car contingent upon being financed.
No one is going to approve that 1.9% rate on a used car.
Its rare on a new car these days, unless the lender is a subsidiary of the manufacturer.

 

[txls]

Vehicles are often delivered after banking hours and the sale is contingent upon obtaining financing. No financing, no sale.

 

[msorrells10]

That is crazy....because after contacting an attorney who contacted the owner of the dealership....mysteriously....the dealership found financing for us @ 1.90% for 84 months just like the contract we signed to begin with....and they apologized and threw in some free services. I guess army judge & txls were wrong....man.....army judge was completely wrong with every post he made in regard to my situation.....vindication feels good....feels real good.....but I'm not here to debate the issue....just to give information

 

[txls]

I can see where a phone call from a lawyer to the owner would get results. Several things may have happened. 1. The owner may not have wanted the time, hassle and expense of a lawsuit. Even if you win it's expensive and time-consuming. 2. The owner wanted to resolve the situation as a matter of goodwill. It's almost a sure thing that it cost them money to obtain financing at 1.9%. I've worked in the car business for 36 years and all sales are conditional on approved financing. Happy for you that you got the results you desired.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

It's really impossible to effectively provide solid insight or advice without seeing the actual agreement. If you uploaded the document or copied and pasted just the text of the relevant clauses, more legal insight and interpretation could be provided. Without it, there is just speculation.

I'm shocked that anyone could just drive off the lot with the car without having some type of written responsibility as @txls and @army judge describe. Problems usually arise due to the difference between what a salesperson may represent and what the contract actually says. Some may say it's a matter of semantics and a salesperson may be crafty and mislead although technically tell you the truth. If you think about it, what has been represented to you makes a whole lot more sense than the alternative. The bottom line is that whatever hocus pocus was going on, you got the deal that you thought you were getting. Glad to hear it.