Submission Number: 563688-00011
Received: 1/10/2013 8:21:01 PM
Commenter: Robert Padrick
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Initiative: 16 CFR Part 455 Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule; Project No. P087604
Attachments: No Attachments
Neither the present nor proposed language really hit the bullseye. It's not that the consumer WILL pay for repairs or that the dealer WON'T pay for repairs. Truth is, the dealer might agree to pay in some circumstances. The precise concept is that the dealer is not OBLIGATED to pay. Just say that. And change the part about what other people say. The way it's worded it implies that the dealer won't pay even if the other person is a judge. What you are referencing is the enforceablility of oral, non-written statements and representations by the car dealer. Just say that.
Also, and this is REALLY important, the entire form should make it very clear that the ONLY subject being addressed by the form is responsibility for repairs. Many consumers are misled into believing that an AS-IS designation means they have no recourse for dealer misconduct ... even those NOT involving repairs. Some of those consumers fail to bring claims. Others become jurors in cases with dealer attorneys appealing to this misconception. Even some judges (amazingly) take the position that an AS-IS designation absolves from fraud a dealer who lies about whether the vehicle is a salvage or has sustained flood damages, absolves from rescission a dealer who makes false disclosures regarding finance charges, absolves from restitution a dealer who fails to disclose known issues which are required to be disclosed. In short, the form should clearly state that an AS-IS designation refers only to the legal obligation for repairs and is not a defense to misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure of vehicle defects/history, or, violation of other statutory requirements.