Here’s the thing - the OP says the dealership re-titled and registered the car. * In NY, ( where the OP lives ) that requires a bill of sale, which is functionally a receipt and which was most likely in the pile of paperwork related to the title and registration. I can’t see the court case going very far if the defendant has the bill of sale signed by someone at the dealership.
It would of course be different if the defendant did not have the bill of sale.
I watch those small claims court shows and just as people lose when they claim they paid and don’t have a receipt , people also lose when the claim they didn’t get paid and try to explain away the receipt the defendant has.
.
which as I’m writing this , I realize that’s where the mistake was. Dealers don’t typically re-title and register the car in your name until after they get paid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that one of the reasons this thread went longer than four responses is the feeling of “Damn, wouldn’t it be great if a car dealer made a mistake that allowed you to take home a car for free?”
I know that’s why I keep checking back… hoping someone has a “My cousin got a ___ for free because the company never noticed they didn’t get paid!” story.
It’s a receipt for the car, not a receipt for the dealership receiving a large sum of cash. People get title to cars without handing over cash all the time, the bill of sale doesn’t prove that any particular amount of money changed hands. If you turn up to court where the dealer has bunches of documents saying “Doreen owes me $30k for the car” and a lack of any documents showing payment for $25k of the $30k, showing the bill of sale isn’t going to have the judge say that you don’t owe the $25k.
You don’t have a receipt for giving $25k to the dealer in this case. You have a receipt for the car, but the dealer won’t be contesting that you have the car so it isn’t going to do you any good. The dealer will be arguing that you still owe them money for the car.
If the dealer hasn’t had you sign any contract and signs the title over to you then the problem is that they have nothing showing that you agreed to pay them ANYTHING. You could then simply state that they agreed to sell you the car for the $5k payment, and since they signed title over with nothing else going on, you’re free and clear now.
If you make the false claim that you paid them $25k in cash, you actually worsen your case, because you’re admitting that you owe them another $25k but can’t show that you paid it.
In my experience, they wait until you’ve got a signed contract to pay. They don’t wait for an actual check from the finance company if it’s one they work with, and include a clause to the effect ‘if this payment doesn’t happen like planned, then person will either arrange other payment within X days or is agreeing that they owe us the money under our worst financing plan’. That was very likely somewhere in the big stack of papers that you signed.
A receipt goes the opposite direction of the money. A receipt from the seller in the hands of the buyer says the money went from the buyer to the seller. A receipt is a powerful instrument that trumps all but the most compelling evidence to the contrary. And if cash is alleged, we have no such evidence.
Again, for those scenarios where you somehow end up with both the car and the cash, it requires perjury to get there. If you are willing to perjure yourself, there are many other, easier, frauds you could commit.
People get title to cars without handing over cash all the time - people don’t get title without paying unless the seller is at least careless.
I’ve never signed a contract to buy a car- and I’m looking at the paperwork from the last car I bought just to make sure. Since I did finance it, I signed the loan application and the agreement to pay the financing company- but I did not actually sign any contract with the dealership to buy the car. What I signed from the dealership was the invoice - which breaks down how much of a deposit I put down , how much I financed and would have mentioned how much I paid on delivery ( if I had). Right above my signature on that form is a block that says
Nothing about agreeing to pay anything. A dealership rep and I also signed the “Certificate of Retail Sale” , which gives the selling price and the date of sale. If neither of those is a receipt for my payment, then what is?
They may not wait for the check if it’s a finance company they work with - but they definitely waited until the loan was approved. Which was the same day I decided to buy the car since it was manufacturer financing. I then had to wait a day or two for them to register the car and transfer the title before I picked it up.
But if you go back to the OP, when ** robardin ** went to pick the car up, there was 45 minutes with the finance manager signing forms refusing the deals he was trying to sell. The salesman then gave robardin ** the keys and in response to a question, said the paperwork was all done. The OP says that after giving the salesman the check robardin left, not that additional forms were signed. Which means robardin **must have signed *all *the forms before the dealership got payment for the car - including whichever one said that the $25K was paid. Because I’m sure robardin did not walk out without any receipt for the $25K that was actually paid - and while the dealership could certainly note the form of the $25K payment, they aren’t required to do so. Going back to my invoice , it doesn’t state whether my deposit was cash, check or a credit card. No reason to think they would have done it differently if I had paid at the time of delivery rather than financing.
This is a bit off-topic - but what does that mean? It sounds to me like you agree to buy the car planning to finance the car in a particular way , the dealer turns it over to you without any assurance that the check will be forthcoming and you agree that if the check doesn’t come ( presumably because the loan isn’t approved) you’ll pay under their worst financing plan if you can’t find another source of payment within X days. I can’t see why the dealer would let the car go without any assurance of payment and I can’t see why the buyer would take the chance of being stuck with the worst financing - unless you’re talking about dealers that specifically advertise “Bad credit? No Credit? No problem”
Let’s reduce to simplicity. I pay a bill with a ten, and the cashier gives me change for a twenty. I say Thanks and I waltz. Now there is a shortfall. Who is legally (not morally) responsible? The person who made the mistake.
Curious US law says I must give back what I have no entitlement to, but law holds only what evidence supports. Due process has to prove that I have somebody’s ten, and there is a burden on someone who made a mistake – not me…
“Sir, did you hand over $10 to pay for the 4 dollar widget”
“No” or “I don’t recall“ -> perjury.
“Yes” -> “How much change did you receive?”
“$6” or “I don’t recall” -> perjury
$”14”. —> “in that case, can you please return the excess $10?”
“No, cause finders, keepers -hahahahaha!”
“That’s not how that works. Also, don’t be misled by us phrasing this in the form of a question. You are directed by the court…etc etc”
The idea that lying and perjury are ok as long as it happens after someone makes a mistake first is baffling to me. It is sorta in that “freeman of the land” territory
You just lied. Under oath. If you are willing to do that, there’s a vast array of crimes you might consider. Just because they can’t convict you doesn’t change that it is a crime.
All of which you would get away with, if the prosecution cannot prove, against your presumption of innocence. This thread is about the legal, not moral consequences of various options, and has been from the start, 127 posts ago…
Again, there is lots of stuff you can get away with. Just because a case can not be made, doesn’t make it not a crime. And again, all of these scenarios require you, after the mistake is made, to lie about it, under oath if in court, which is a crime even if it cannot be proven. If you hold a guy up at the ATM and leave no fingerprints and wear a mask and don’t get into your car in camera range, it probably cannot be proven it was you, either. Still a crime.
Perhaps that is the way it is done in the bond world, but we’re conversing with the general public here. $25k would be the customary abbreviation. Or $25G(s) if you’re being colloquial. $25m I understand as $25 million, as most others, if not all others, in this thread.
I have not doubt it’s used like that in industry speak, but outside that circle, it is not commonly used, in my experience. (This is the first I’ve ever seen it.)
Nobody ever said otherwise. Clearly, you are knowingly in possession of something of value, to which someone else has a natural entitlement. The question is, under the circumstances, does enough evidence exist to make it legally enforceable. The germane piece of evidence being, who’s got the $25k?