Used Car-Recourse on Contradicting Written and Verbal Contract

[ARav]

Please advise...

Purchased a 2004 certified used Toyota last week from a dealership. I noticed that the remote keyless entry key fobs were missing. The salesman could not locate them and the parts manager had left for the day so the salesman and the finance person provided me with a separate voucher that indicated that if I produced the voucher within 30 days to the parts department, with an appointment, that they would provide me "keyless entry fob".

When I returned to the dealership today, the parts manager started on the job and called me back in 15 minutes to inform me that he could not provide keyless entry fobs because the car did not have a keyless entry system installed which he determined by producing an equipment list off of the VIN# on the car.

The used car manager apologized for the misunderatanding but informed me that keyless entry system was not shown on the advertised equipment list for the car (which it wasn't)and offered to install the keyless entry system at his cost, $360 plus tax and provide a loaner car until ready.

I paid full asking price for the car under the understanding that the car did have keyless entry based on what the salesman told me as "verified" by the voucher and missed the fact that it was not on the equipment list.

So, what is my recourse here, if any??

Please let me know!

Thanks

A-Rav

 

[NYClex]

To make a specific evaluation of this one would have to know your state's laws and the sales contract.

But generally under the perfect tender rule of the Uniform Commercial Code a buyer basically has these options:

-refuse acceptance of a non-conforming good and sue for breach
-accept the good the way it is tendered and demand (or sue for) damages

A good is not yet "accepted" for purposes of contract law when the seller promised to make necessary improvements and buyer therefore took the item, and later seller states he cannot make the good conform.

Now, in case seller tendered a non-conforming good buyer does not need to accept it, but seller has a limited right to cure the defect. He can cure the defect if buyer would not be unduly inconvenienced by the delay and he does it within reasonable time.
In that case buyer has the duty to accept the cure. He can still demand damages caused by the delay.


What you write here seems to be fitting this situation: you received a non-conforming good, and now seller offers to cure the defect.

 

[ARav]

...to cure the non-conforming good at dealers expense?

NY CLEX, thanks for the fast response. I am a little confused though. I understand the logic. But to clarify...

The dealer offered to cure the defect at MY cost. The law would seem to indicate that the dealer should cure the defect at his cost, correct?

Further, I guess the issue of the equipment list vs. the verbal/written voucher would require some investigation of NJ law?

Thanks

A-Rav