Arctic Motors Inc

Complainant, [redacted] purchased a 2004 Ford Pick-up truck., VIN [redacted] as an online/internet purchase via internet auction site, [redacted] on or about August 17, 2016. See copy of Retail Buyer Order, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and copy of confirmation of sale through [redacted] attached...

hereto as Exhibit B. Complainant purchased the vehicle in "AS IS" condition. See attached Buyers Guide, attached hereto as Exhibit C; and AS IS disclosure form, attached hereto as Exhibit D, both of which complainant signed. Complainant purchased a 12 year old vehicle with 158,959 miles, as shown in Exhibit E entitled ODOMETER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, which complainant also signed. Approximately 3 or 4 weeks after his purchase of the vehicle, complainant contacted Arctic Motors ("AMC") by telephone with the complaint that he believed the vehicle had a defective transmission. He also threatened to complaint to the Mercer County Division of Consumer affairs. AMC does not know whether [redacted] ever carried through with his threat. See copy of complaint's letter attached hereto as Exhibit F At that point AMC advised [redacted] that he purchased a 12 year old vehicle with 158,959 miles in AS IS condition. AMC also reminded [redacted] that he had the opportunity to personally examine the vehicle or for an independent third party inspection company to examine and inspect the vehicle at any time before it left AMC's premises. [redacted] acknowledged that the declined such opportunity. Regardless, in good faith and in order to create good customer relations, AMC provided a one-year extended service contract covering the vehicle's power train. AMC provided the extended service contract at no charge to [redacted] AMC bore the entire cost of the said contract. See copy of GWC extended service contract, attached hereto as Exhibit F. AMC provided the complainant with the title to the vehicle on or about September 30, 2016. Complainant acknowledged his receipt of the title. Complainant commented that he believed that the title was a fraudulent title. He objected to title because the vehicle's prior owner appeared thereupon. See exhibit G, attached hereto. He refused to accept the procedures of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, in which a licensed dealer may endorse the back of title as purchaser from the party on the front of the title; and simultaneously issue a Reassignment of Title to the ultimate purchaser. It is based upon this procedure that Mr. Motter, erroneously claims that title to the vehicle is defective.