22' Tacoma missing parts from factory

Yes, but only if it gets 30mpg and can fit 35s without rubbing.

 

Oops you just failed law school. Incorrect. No malicious intent required.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

 

haha now that’s a worthy reply.

 

Lacking malicious intent doesn’t absolve the offending party from liability, lmao, and false advertising does not require malicious intent.

 

Eh, I would have gotten partial credit on that exam. Plus, states have their own laws regulating false advertising and other deceptive trade practices.

 

It’s been a while since I’ve been part of a more… mass market… community, and it’s really a bit much sometimes.

 

The vast majority of people aren’t scouring the internet memorizing every single option of every trim level of each model (which also can vary from region to region). The whole point of the window sticker is to understand exactly what that particular vehicle you are looking at comes with. If the sticker lists things that aren’t actually on the vehicle, that’s a problem that needs to be rectified. If the mistake is caught before the paperwork is signed and deposit taken, that’s one thing. But after the deal is done? Different story.

Actually that’s exactly what a window sticker is - a final list of everything the vehicle has installed (some by the factory, some by the dealership), with the prices of each next to it, making up the total price of the vehicle. Mistakes happen, but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t any liability for the mistake. If a restaurant forgets to list an ingredient on their menu and someone who is allergic to it dies, someones getting sued for that error.

 

Honestly before I buy anything I do research and try to learn as much as possible. Buying a new type of fish, going to research how to cook it. New hiking boots, research. Expensive stuff should involve correspondingly more in depth work ahead of time.

I don’t think I’d go so far to compare a mislabeled option charged at the correct price with someone dying though. Maybe similarly honest mistakes but one has drastically more serious consequences. We certainly wouldn’t be having a fun debate about poor consumer education versus advertising accuracy in that case.

 

Researching is good and you’re much better off for it. But most people just go to a car lot and buy a car, and sound systems are a lot more important to some people than others. My wife would care way more about a good stereo than horsepower, gear ratios, tire size, etc… She’s a smart lady, but I don’t see her getting on the internet before she goes to a dealership to find out (let alone remember) an obscure thing like a manual transmission = no subwoofer. She would just read the sticker and get excited that it says it comes with a better sound system and a sub, and then be pissed when she found out it didn’t - regardless of whether or not she paid the same price as if it didn’t have the error on the sticker. She’d want that damn sound system because that’s one of the more important things to her. And if some slimeball salesguy told her, “Welp, sorry lady ya shoulda done more research”, he’d remember that day forever once I got there.

The restaurant analogy is extreme, but I wanted to make the point that an honest mistake can still carries responsibility. A decent business wouldn’t blow the OP off, they would apologize for their mistake, install a damn sub and some JBLs in there (because it’s possible - it’s just not a factory option), and hope it’s enough to make him happy enough to buy his next car from them and recommend the place to his friends. None of that is probably going to happen now, and they’ll end up losing a lot more money in the long run and hurt their reputation because bad word of mouth spreads about 100xs faster than good word of mouth, especially with social media… “Don’t go to that dealership, they lie on their window stickers and screw people over when they get caught”.

 

I don't understand why so many people throw out lawyers, you've got them by the balls, etc. People don't consider the practical side. First, to the OP's mention of a class action, unless you can find 39 other people beside you that had the same issue, you won't get a class certified. Second, let's assume for the sake of argument that the entire $3,375 cost of the premium package is the question here rather than trying to separate out the cost of the JBL system itself. Assuming you found an attorney willing to take this on, this is by no means a case someone would take on contingency. This means just to get things started you will be writing a check for a retainer that far exceeds the $3,375 cost of the premium package. And even if you went ahead and did that, Toyota has corporate attorneys on staff who are very adept at throwing enough paper at your attorney to run you out of money in no time. You could try and take them to your state small claims court on your own assuming there was something at the state level you could hang our hat on, but it would still be a pain in the ass you would spend a lot of time on. One thing you may want to look at is the sales order you and the dealer signed. If the sales order specifies a JBL system with a subwoofer and they didn't deliver that, then you could involve dealership management. This would be much easier and more likely to get you a quick resolution that trying to beat up on Toyota corporate.

Your best bet is to rely on that fact that Toyota and your dealer as a businesses wanting satisfied customers will want to make it right, admit the error, and do something to offset it and try and make you happy. Unless you have very deep pockets and are willing to spend money out of principle, playing hard ball and threatening legal action is not the way to go.

 

Agreed. I assume people that bring up a lawsuit as an option are just venting their frustration. No one ever follows through with one, but it’s a euphemism for “I’m upset.”

I am also surprised at how many folks say “customer should have known it’s not included”. Now that is some fantasy, to borrow a phrase from earlier in the thread. On the one hand you have a printed documented produced by the vendor, on the other you have an unprovable assertion that every car buyer is a gear head. No contest, even as the company representative I would have a hard time making that argument with a straight face. Of course car dealers are a special breed of people, unbound by reason. Surprised to see similar opinions here in the general population. If Toyota was involved in the original discussions with OP and chose to stonewall, it doesn’t make one confident that other small errors would be addressed by them with the aim of keeping customers satisfied. We all accept that making and apparently selling cars is hard, and we all accept some non-zero error rate. But we expect the company to fix them. Pile up enough examples where they’d rather try and deny restitution, you might drive away some customers and your position in the market might change over time.

 

Simply put they owe him some kind of compensation, not everyone knows what package comes with what.

 

IF the Dealer is part of the Toyota network, it represents Toyota and Toyota is culpable and in a court of law, the Toyota Dealer and Toyota will likely be co-defendants. IF it ever goes there. Which it likely won't ever go to trial.

You may be right, but it does not matter as the buyer is not responsible for reading up on the history of what taco comes with what.

I have been on this forum and have owned toyotas for 30 years and I did not know that you cannot have the jbl stereo with manual trans. Really, that is pretty ridiculous of toyota.

Correct. Intent or lack thereof does not matter.

Intent, malicious or not is not a requirement in civil suits. Intent is a requirement in criminal suits that a state brings up against perpetrator. I should correct this last statement. It is likely that if you can't prove intent, a states attorney will dismiss the criminal case.

 

Ah you sound like a man of experience there. Did they find you innocent?

 

I plead the 5th

 

Wow, what a thread.. Is it already Friday, or was the big sportsball game last night that bad?

 

That is not correct sir. The fact that a dealer or distributor is authorized to market a manufacturer's product does not, on it's face, establish an agency relationship. An element of control must be established. In other words, a plaintiff would have to prove that the manufacturer has the right to control the conduct of the agent. There is ample case law to support this: http://digitaleditions.walsworthpri...icle_id=3812855&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5
In Bushendorf v. Freightliner (1993), the 7th Circuit ruled "an automobile dealer or similar type of dealer, who merely buys goods from the manufacturers or other suppliers for resale to the consuming public, is not his suppliers' agent".

 

If no money lost, no fault on either side.

 

If I were you OP, I'd have an issue with the misrepresentation. From a purely customer service standpoint, the dealership was erroneously selling you on features that you didn't get. Bad business practice and if the sales manager give a shit about their "reputation", they should at least try to make it right. Up to you to decide what you settle for and how hard you push them.

I'll admit I didn't read the entire thread here... but if OP feels like the issue is worth pursuing then call around and consult with an actual lawyer. I'd take all advice/claims in this thread with a grain of salt.

 

Best advice here so far. A forum is no substitute for professional legal advice. As you say, hopefully it will never get to that point.