Originally Posted by Fury1995

New to this forum but I am not new to this situation. Although I am not directly involved in this transaction I am very familiar and witness to the conversations this particular person had with the General Manager (I was present in the room when "Chuck" was on the telephone speaking on speakerphone multiple times).

I find it interesting when someone explains a story and neglects important information when it does not support their opinions..................

Now, with in mind I ask.. who seems less than truthful? In addition, for someone who does not have time to visit the dealer in person as the dealer suggested, he appears to have extra time to continue this rhetoric for more than two weeks.

Originally Posted by Norri

Thanks for the input Fury1995.

Maybe you can post an intro in the new members section and let us know who you are?

I assume you are associated with Rosenthal? The general consensus of feedback seems to be positive towards the dealer.

Let's not have this spiral into a slanging match.

Originally Posted by Lawins1

Actually, if they would have been honest I would not have bought it. I do not want a car that was previously involved in a wreck, even if it's half the price of the going rate. The vehicle was not certified but I wanted it certified as part of the deal. They agreed.
I have attached a copy of the inspection report. As you can see there was much more than over spray on the windows. Also, the car is not certifiable as there are several tears on the right rear tire.

Originally Posted by Fury1995

New to this forum but I am not new to this situation (I believe it). Although I am not directly involved in this transaction I am very familiar and witness to the conversations this particular person had with the General Manager (I was present in the room when "Chuck" was on the telephone speaking on speakerphone multiple times).

Incorrect. I spoke with Jeremy Lustman (you) one time. And he talked out of both sides of his mouth. I knew he was a dishonest person.

I find it interesting when someone explains a story and neglects important information when it does not support their opinions.

What Chuck has not brought to light are the following points which he had full knowledge of prior to this Inspection:

1. The dealership took a small refundable deposit from Chuck to hold the vehicle. -

Correct - a refundable deposit while we worked out the details and it was subject to a favorable inspection. What's your point?

2. Chuck requested we transport this vehicle from Virginia to Illinois for his viewing and Inspection and return it to Virginia at our expense if he was not satisfied (which the dealership stated was not an option).

False - Some dealers will give a period (typically 3 days) for a money back guarantee. If they are selling a quality vehicle with no known issues this shouldn't be a problem. I had more to lose than your dealership. It would have cost me $1400 to have the car shipped to me enclosed trailer and it would have cost a couple hundred to have the car inspected. It would have cost the dealership, what, $500-$600 to have the car transported back? But you knew the car would be going back to you, so there was no sense losing another $500+ on a vehicle that you've already lost on. I knew when my request was denied that something had to be wrong with the vehicle. Also, as you know, I was going to purchase the vehicle and have it transported at MY EXPENSE. Let's be clear here. You knew that the vehicle wouldn't come close to passing an inspection at my local Jaguar dealership. This had nothing to do with me being "satisfied" with the condition of the car. If it passed an inspection I was planning on keeping the vehicle. I certainly wouldn't spend close to $1600 (in addition to the price of the vehicle) if I wasn't serious about purchasing and keeping it.

3. The dealership suggested Chuck fly to Virginia and would be picked up by our dealership at Washington Dulles Airport (15 minutes away) which Chuck stated he did not have time for.

False - I stated that I wish I had time to make the trip out there. Good thing I didn't spend time and money to fly there only to find out that you're selling a POS that was involved in a wreck and not in condition to certify.

4. The Inspection was done by the Dealership's (specifically Jeremy, the GM) suggestion.

Incorrect - I always have vehicles inspected even if I purchase locally. I don't trust dealerships, car fax or auto check or my own eyes. I take them to a body shop and pay to have them thoroughly inspected.

5. The Inspection was performed by the body shop that this dealership reffered (corrected - referred) Chuck to.

Incorrect - I specifically called a few body shops to make certain that they do no work for your dealership. I wanted an unbiased inspection and opinion (I do have a functioning brain). I have an email from the owner of the body shop specifically stating that they do not perform any work for your dealership. Only an idiot would use the services of a body shop that was referred by the selling dealer.

6. The dealership made the vehicle available for Inpsection (corrected - Inspection) with no resistance.

Correct - As it should of. I guess you were hoping that someone that sees as well as Stevie Wonder would have inspected the vehicle. You had absolutely nothing to lose. You rolled the dice and lost.

7. The Inspection report provided by Chuck does not indicate the reason for previous paint. The inspection report would indicate anything more than cosmetic repair.

Again, close to half the car was repaired and repainted. I don't care about the reason it was repaired. I have an email from Sunny stating "no paint work". I can post it if you would like. Read the report again. You will see that some damage still exists. Cosmetic?? The car was in a terrible wreck obviously.

8. This vehicle was not painted in our possession.

Doesn't matter - Your dealership knew the car had extensive body and paint work. It should have been disclosed. Now that I have emailed you the inspection report you need to disclose this information to all prospective buyers (my ads on CL have worked very well by the way!) You wouldn't confirm in writing that the car, to the best of your knowledge, has had no body and paint work. Another cause for my skepticism. Any reputable dealership would have no problem providing this unless they knew there was previous damage. When I purchased my CTS-V from a dealership in CT it was sight unseen. But I had the GM, the salesman, the body shop manager all confirm in writing and sign that there was no body or paint work done. This is the difference between a reputable dealership and yours.

9. This vehicle was purchased by our dealership directly from Jaguar's finance company off lease.

I seriously doubt it. Off lease vehicles are carefully inspected and a detailed report is provided including pictures, etc. If it was done properly there is no way you would have purchased the vehicle. And by chance it was an off lease, it's irrelevant.

10. The vehicle was offered to Chuck for $35K ($37K was to include the CPO Warranty at his request).

False - $35k wasn't in the cards. Never was. I said I would pay asking price if dealership included CPO (I have email confirming this) I wouldn't have paid $30k for the car since it's been wrecked!! I have the CPO warranty paperwork you sent me. I contacted Jaguar USA and was told that the vehicle more than likely cannot be certified in the condition that it's in. Especially due to the damaged tire that makes it unsafe.

11. The reason Chuck knows the length of time this dealership has owned this vehicle is because Chuck has been making offers to the dealership from Iliinois (corrected - Illinois) for several months which have been refused which indicates Chuck has had more than enough time to make arrangements to see this vehicle.

Incorrect - I worked with the sales guy for about a month total, off and on (want me to attach the emails from Sunny) Check out cargurus.com. It's a great site that states the length of time a vehicle has been on the lot. Your car has been there since April or May of this year.

12. Chuck informed us he had made several demands from a dealer in North Carolina on a similar Jaguar as well and backed away from a deal with them prior to commiting (correction - committing) to this vehicle.

Incorrect - the dealership is in Greenville, SC was just as unprofessional as you and your sales guy, Sunny. The GM of the dealership in Greenville signed off on a deal which included certification of the vehicle. When I called to put down a deposit on it I was told that they couldn't honor the deal and reneged. I was told that after it was ran through service they found it needed new tires, sensors and another key. I didn't back away from the deal. The GM pulled the plug. I reluctantly offered to pay an additional $1000 to cover some of the additional cost in order to certify it. Read my reviews on cars.com of that dealership and yours. I have emails, documentation to back up all that I state.

13. Chuck's deposit was immediately refunded without hesitation when requested.

You had no choice. All dealerships take refundable deposits. What were you going to do? Hold my money hostage because I called off the deal due to your dishonesty? That wouldn't have been smart. Maybe you should reimburse me the $175 for the inspection.

14. Chuck has been using multiple aliases to post this half story on numerous websites since this occurred.

Incorrect - Just me. I have nothing to hide. I tell the full story and the truth (something you need to practice). I've only posted on a few sites and have received many "thanks" emails for the warning. Others have emailed me about similar experiences with the dealership.

Now, with in mind I ask.. who seems less than truthful? In addition, for someone who does not have time to visit the dealer in person as the dealer suggested, he appears to have extra time to continue this rhetoric for more than two weeks.

Originally Posted by Norri

Lawins, I've removed the attachment, as it included personal details.

I'm not seeing much future in this thread, you have made your point, time to move on.