Revocation of Acceptance - Part 3

After calling, mailing, and faxing, I finally got a response from Chris Buben of Auto King of Grand Rapids. His response came in the form of an email from cbuben@sbcglobal.net. He basically said, "nuh-uh, you can't do that." He must have completely ignored the letter itself as well as the supporting documentation.

Let's go over some of the funnier parts of the email (his portion in green):

We need to get the car to our mechanics and go from there.

Would this be the same mechanics whose shop at your dealership didn't even have a common car fuse?

You can't simply decide you don't want the car any more because it has a couple mechanical issues.

Actually, if you had bothered to read the letters and fax I sent then you would be aware that the consumer is allowed to do just that if the defects substantially impair the value and also fulfill one of the following conditions:

• Defects were supposed to be fixed and have not been.
• The buyer's initial acceptance was caused by difficulty of discovery.
• The buyer's initial acceptance was influenced by the seller's assurances.
• The product sold is not fit for ordinary purposes (e.g. a car should start and run).
• The seller used "unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices"(as set forth in the Michigan Consumer Protection Act).

I can meet all five instead of just one, so this will be a slam dunk if it goes to court.

I wonder if he thinks I'm not serious. The longer this goes on, the more it seems like he's just hoping I'll give up. Well I've got news for him, I'm not a big fan of being screwed over and I'll gladly spend a day in court to get things right. He's just making things harder on himself because he'll end up having to pay the fees and costs is this goes to trial. On top of that he'd probably drag his feet on paying the judgment and I'd end up having to go through a seizure of property.

Part 1
Part 2