Max Madsen Mitsubishi

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted]

This matter became known to our business as a problem after installation of ordered accessory on Wedafternoon 4/20; we were in contact with and working out options to resolve with the complainant immediately , thus I am surprised this file was created; the matter has been settled as of
4/23/- the complainant accepted a refund check for ~150% the amount he paid for the accessory, signed a General Release indicating he will close this Revdex.com complaint and we returned the vehicle to it's specification at purchase - per complainant's request. Respectfully, *** *** **Max Madsen Group

I have retrieved the deal file from ‘[redacted]’, our referenced manager, who indicated he has tried to call Mr. [redacted] back more than once and left a message approx. 10 day ago. That said, our dealership (and many others) subscribed to 'Auto Check' for our vehicle history reports during this ...

sale's time period - because that source was used by all auctions and lease companies for evidence of any non-conformities affecting retail worthiness; this is the report the buyer reviewed at sale. [redacted] did and does make their reports available to the public for a small fee. I ran a current [redacted] – it even states certain memos had notably delayed posting dates, based on when [redacted] began reporting certain type occurances. The 6/17/2011 ‘Accident Reported’ memo with no additional details and 11/21/2012 ‘Damage reported’ memo with no specific details do not give rise to significant current valuation alterations based on these normal use contemplated occurrences on a 3-owner used car – only ‘major, severe, title branding’ memos affect valuations significantly. On this traded-in vehicle, Our internal service inspection for retail sale worthiness shows no major needs or non-conformities and because it's not stated in the complaint, we assume Mr. [redacted] 2+ years of use indicates that assessment was accurate Our sale disclosures and documentation offers prospective buyers the chance to have a vehicle privately inspected 'pre-purchase', states we do not have access to all details of a vehicle's history of prior use and requires aspects of sale terms to be relied upon be in writing; this vehicle was sold ‘As-Is’ (no warranty) from selling dealer; no written terms to the contrary Our market value reports in the file show $12,200 as the NADA fair retail value at time of sale and Mr. [redacted] in fact paid $11,350 + tax. In our sale of a vehicle, we cannot predict future markets and attempted re-sale conditions incurred by our customers in them, nor the accuracy in reports issued by [redacted] and the effect of those reports on values - we also do not know the mileage or type use of the vehicle by the complainant for over 2 years since, as it relates to current valuations being offered.------------------------------------------------------------------------...⇄ If Mr. [redacted] would go to a [redacted] and obtain a written offer and report – we would be glad to then inspect and appraise his vehicle, review the [redacted] report obtained and do our very best, as a gesture of goodwill, to offer him more than that and buy this vehicle from him.--------------------------------------- Respectfully, [redacted], VP Max Madsen Mitsubishi 630-[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]