Bill's & Son Auto/Truck, Inc.

I am rejecting this response because:  Mr.B[redacted] has created a response to my issues with Bill and Sons which appears to lay out all of the factual information concerning the purchase of the Hummer H2.  This is an account of the transaction .Upon initial inspection of the Hummer, it was undergoing a repair so we did not have a chance to drive it at that time.  We did, however, notice a problem with the mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle and were told by Chad, our sales rep, that there was indeed a problem with the mirrors with that vehicle, and that one was on order as a replacement.  That was part of the deal we made with Bills and Son and we asked repeatedly if the mirror was delivered to them.  We always asked Chad for an update on the mirror, and the answer was always it was not in yet.  We are talking several weeks worth of questioning him about the issue with no resolution.  I think I know the answer as to why the mirror never came in, and Mr. B[redacted] perhaps said it best when he said those mirrors cost $425. each.  This was an issue that was not covered in the as-is portion of the contract.  We expect to get a check from Mr. B[redacted] so we can get the mirror and have it installed professionally.Mr. B[redacted] and his attorney are correct in stating that this was an "AS IS" sale as he mentioned and highlighted in response as he seems to like to do.  The issue with the check engine light, which came on before we even reached home after the sale, was something we had checked out and reported the findings to Bill and Sons.  They had no legal obligation to repair the problem, but agreed to do so.  After one trip back to the dealership, where some cleaner was used to try and fix the problem, the problem remained unresolved.  At that point and time, we were told a catalytic converter was ordered and to come back to have it installed.  Again, after calling Chad repeatedly, it was always on order.  At that point I requested a routing number so I could see if it ever got ordered in the first place and then what happened next was amazing, it showed up.  By this time I was actually afraid to entrust the Hummer to Bills and Son with doing the repair based on the facts that I was dealing with.  Both my husband and I work, and finding the time to drive to their location is difficult.  We have seen confirmed appointments canceled on us on at the least two occasions, and felt the need to have it fixed  and fixed correctly.  What Mr. B[redacted] wants to do about that is his business, but I would be remiss to say

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/10/13) */
Hello, this is Jeff B., owner of Bill's & Son Auto. Sorry for the delay in responding. This matter was submitted to my attorney [redacted] and I was waiting on his response. The following is his findings based on the law.
I am writing on...

behalf of Bill's & Son Auto/Truck, Inc. ("Bill's") to the above-referenced Complaint.
Bill's respectfully submits that the consumer's complaint is not well-founded because:

The complaint was resolved when the consumer agreed to accept the sum of $1,000 to resolve his complaint and he, thereafter, accepted an endorsed a check in the amount of $1,250.00 with the following release provided on the back of the check "by endorsing this check [redacted] releases Bill's & Son Auto of any and all liabilities.
Even if the complaint had not been resolved, the statements that the consumer complains of are either true or "puffing" that cannot form the basis of a complaint.
Even if the complaint had not been resolved, the consumer can pursue no claim because he purchased the car "as is" pursuant to an executed warranty disclaimer, the consumer decided to purchase the Vehicle site un-seen with no inspection, and the consumer did not purchase a warranty for the Vehicle even though he was offered the opportunity to purchase one.
1. Bill's believes that this matter has been resolved.
While Bill's believes that none of [redacted]' ("Mr. [redacted]") complaints have any merit, and Bill's has absolutely no further legal responsibilities to Mr. [redacted] in connection with his purchase of the used 2001 Ford Excursion, VIN [redacted], (the "Vehicle") on May 6, 2015 following that sale, Bill's believes that it has already resolved this matter with Mr. [redacted].
Jeff B., President of Bill's, spoke with Mr. [redacted] on June 23, 2015 concerning Mr. [redacted]' complaints. Mr. B. confirmed to Mr. [redacted] that that no misrepresentations had been made with regard to the Vehicle and in fact Mr. B. personally drove this vehicle over 200 miles . Mr. B. also reminded Mr. [redacted] that he had purchased the Vehicle "as is" without any warranties. Nevertheless, Bill's offered to resolve the matter by either paying Mr. [redacted] the sum of $1,000.00 or taking the Vehicle back and refunding to Mr. [redacted] the sum of $18,200. However, Mr. B. told Mr. [redacted] that if he chose the option of returning the vehicle to Bill's the Vehicle must be returned by July 4, 2015. Mr. [redacted] had 11 days to return the vehicle and he was urged by Bill's to call the original transporter so that deadline could be made. Mr [redacted] made no effort to return the Vehicle by July 4, 2015. As a result, Bill's rescinded its offer to take the Vehicle back by July 4, 2015, and informed Mr. [redacted] that it was still willing to send him $1,000 to resolve the matter. As the emails to Mr. [redacted] complaint confirm, Mr. [redacted] agreed that if Bill's would not take the Vehicle back, he would accept $1,000 to resolve the matter. Mr. [redacted] stated in his July 9, 2015 email, "On the truck, I wish you would reconsider. ... If not please send $1,000. If you are going to send a check, I would appreciate knowing when it is in the mail so I can be on the lookout." (Emphasis added.)
Thereafter, Bill's sent Mr [redacted] a check in the amount of $1,250 in full and final settlement of this matter with a release written on the back of the check as follows: "by endorsing this check [redacted] releases Bill's & Son of any and all liabilities." (A copy of the check is attached.) Mr. [redacted] accepted, endorsed and cashed the check. Under Ohio law, acceptance of a check with a statement printed thereon that by endorsing the check payee releases all liabilities is enforceable as an accord and satisfaction against of the payee barring any further or future claim. See Platt v. Penetryn System, Inc. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 451, 39 O.O. 273, 86 N.E.2d 600, at the syllabus; First Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v. Fireproof Warehouse & Storage (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 253, 8 OBR 326, 456 N.E.2d 1336; Morris Skilken & Co. v. Watkins Furniture Co. (App.1961), 87 Ohio Law Abs. 208, 18 O.O.2d 374, 176 N.E.2d 256; Hudak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (1960), 112 Ohio App. 306, 84 Ohio Law Abs. 176, 13 O.O.2d 434, 167 N.E.2d 666; Kiser, supra; Indianapolis v. Domhoff & Joyce Co. (1941), 69 Ohio App. 109, 35 Ohio Law Abs. 232, 23 O.O. 547, 36 N.E.2d 153, affirmed (1942), 140 Ohio St. 64, 23 O.O. 571, 42 N.E.2d 445. Accordingly, under Ohio law, this claim has been resolved.
2. Even if the claim had not been resolved, the statements that Mr. [redacted] complains of are either true or are not actionable under the CSPA because they are merely considered puffing.
Mr. [redacted] complains about the statements contained in Bill's internet advertisement for the Vehicle. The statements identified in Mr. [redacted]' complaint are not actionable as they are merely statements of opinion and are considered "puffing". See Howard v. Norman's Auto Sales, Franklin App. No. 02AP-1001, 2003-Ohio-2834, ¶ 34. Accordingly, many of the statements complained of such as "virtually showroom condition" and "Holy Grail" of diesels are puffery that is not actionable.
Further, statements that the Vehicle was "fully serviced", "100% ready to go", inspected by Bill's mechanic and was not presenting any codes when Bill's mechanic serviced the Vehicle were true statements. And the transporter that Mr. [redacted] hired to drive the vehicle 1300 miles from Ohio to [redacted] also confirms that the vehicle drove perfectly fine, with no problems and with no warning lights on whatsoever. Bill's also informed Mr. [redacted] prior to purchasing the vehicle, that this vehicle was in fact purchased new in Ohio and that Bill's bought the vehicle directly from the original "Ohio" owner who bought it new. Bill's also provided Mr. [redacted] a COMPLETE copy of the Autocheck vehicle history report PRIOR to Mr. [redacted] purchasing the vehicle form Bill's , proving that it was always an Ohio vehicle. Therefore , Bill's believes the "rust" that Mr. [redacted] is referring to is in fact simply typical Ohio undercarriage corrosion and in fact is not uncharacteristic of a 14 year old Ohio vehicle. Furthermore, Mr [redacted] had this vehicle inspected first by [redacted] in June and there was no mention of "rust" whatsoever in any of the [redacted] paperwork. It is therefore Bill's opinion that Mr. [redacted] knew that he was purchasing a 14 year old Ohio vehicle and he was fully aware that he should not expect the vehicles undercarriage to be as corrosion free as a Colorado vehicle . Mr [redacted] also made the comment to the transporter as soon as he saw the vehicle as well as Bill's in a later conversation that the body and interior of the vehicle in fact was very nice . In fact , there was NEVER any mention of "rust" ever until this September complaint .
3. Even if the claim had not been resolved, Mr. [redacted] could assert no claim because the Vehicle was purchased "as is".
As evidenced by the disclosure statement attached hereto, Mr. [redacted] purchased the Vehicle as-is. A Warranty Disclaimer Statement in which the Buyer agrees that he is buying the car as-is constitutes part of the final written agreement between the parties and the seller, as a matter of law, cannot be held liable under R.C. 1345.02 and R.C. 1345.03 for failing to disclose or repair any alleged defects in the Vehicle. Tisdale v. Direct Detail, 2012WL2930803.
Further, Mr. [redacted] was given every opportunity have an outside inspection company inspect this vehicle at a cost to him and was also given the opportunity to purchase a warranty for the Vehicle, but he declined.
This is Jeff from Bill's & Son, I appreciate your patience in this matter and hope you understand I was waiting on my attorneys findings. I would like to add that we have been in business for 43 years and in no way do we EVER misrepresent our vehicles . I really thought [redacted] was a nice person when we spoke on the phone numerous times proir to him buying this Excursion. Furthermore, I really wanna believe that Mr. [redacted] is still a decent guy. Therefore , I think this is just a situation where he had unreasonable expectations of the undercarriage of a 14 year old Ohio vehicle? Thank you.

My name is Jeff B[redacted], I am the president of Bill's & Son Auto/ Truck, Inc.  I'm sorry it has taken so long to respond to Mrs. [redacted]'s complaint but we were waiting on Mrs. [redacted] to fax us a copy of the repair order that she paid to have the Hummer serviced, plus I was recently out of...

town. I am back in town now but as of this writing Mrs. [redacted] still has not faxed us the repair order. I am going to be as thorough as I can to each and every concern of Mrs. [redacted]. I would first like to include in this response that I personally bought this H2 Hummer over 1 year ago as a personal demo for me to drive. I put over 5,000 miles on this H2 Hummer myself and I know for certain that Mrs. [redacted] bought a GREAT driving vehicle. PLUS, I have receipts that I can prove my dealership spent over $3,500 servicing this vehicle prior to Mrs. [redacted] purchasing it.  Now on to Mrs. [redacted]'s complaints. First, I'm not sure what "tape" on the mirror Mrs. [redacted] is referring to because there was no tape on it. There was however a black epoxy at the joint near the base. The reason for the epoxy is because these H2 Hummer door mirrors have a power fold in option that was a flawed design from GM and they always broke, especially in cold climate states, and epoxy is commonly used by everyone as a remedy. The mirrors appear just fine with no cracks in the housing or mirror glass. I believe Mrs. [redacted] misunderstood something because we never said a mirror was on order because they cost over $425 each and even if we were to buy just one side it would not have fixed the problem because the "power fold" on the driver side was broke as well. Second, I am also not sure about the "white specs" she is referring to on this H2 or any other vehicles on my lot for that matter, but I assume it wasn't a big concern because she stated in her own complaint that she decided she would like to purchase the H2. Third, Mrs. [redacted] is absolutely correct when she stated the Chad worked VERY HARD to obtain financing for her. It was not easy at all but she did come up with the necessary down payment the bank required. Fourth on her complaint pertains to detailing the vehicle, this H2 was professionally detailed by Diamond Pearlz within 3 weeks of her purchase and I paid Earl the owner of the company with a business check# [redacted].  Five, is the engine light, even thought the vehicle was legally sold "AS IS" we did agree to take care of this issue and ordered a part that required shipping from an online vendor. She is correct that they did call two seperate times wanting a tracking # confirmation. The first call Chad did not have it because he did not order the part, I did ! The second call the next day  I answered  the phone and I immediately gave the tracking # to Mr. [redacted]. When the part arrived we made an appointment for them to bring the H2 in for repair. Mrs. [redacted] is correct when she said we called to cancel the night before BUT she is 100% wrong when she said "we had another vehicle that had to go ahead of her". The fact is we had a 2006 Ram 3500 that was in our inventory that was ALREADY on the rack for servicing the day before they were to come in, it turned out the Ram needed unexpected more work than we thought after we took it apart for servicing.  Well, the truck was already apart and required parts that needed to be ordered by an online vendor that required shipping just like the part for their H2. So obviously we had to reschedule with the [redacted]'s because the Ram was in pieces and we had to wait on the ordered parts required to put it back together before it could be moved. Six, is the Temp tag, Mrs. [redacted] is 100% correct that there was a $18.50 charge. There was originally to be a Temp Tag issued on this deal but then we decided we could use her trade in license plates and my computer automatically adds the Temp tag. However, I am confused as to why the [redacted]'s would call 2 days in a row about a simple tracking # BUT wait until this Revdex.com complaint to inform us of this Temp tag charge? Anyways, I am sending check#[redacted] for $18.50 to Mrs. [redacted] TODAY.  Now, as far as trust in concerned on this deal.  The [redacted]'s traded in a 2004 Saturn Vue that they owned for along time . So I believe they knew their car well, however they were TOTALLY misleading about the condition of the vehicle and its needs, because it had MANY, MANY more issues than they disclosed.  In closing,  I'm just not sure why they would call us numerous times about a tracking # , then they get the tracking # and confirm that we did in fact get the part needed for them BUT then not call again to have the vehicle repaired for free by us as agreed AND then go spend $400 elsewhere to repair it? The very day we received this Revdex.com complaint we called Marcia [redacted] and offered to 100% unwind the deal and gladly take back this H2, she declined. This 2005 H2 has an NADA value of over $21,000 , the [redacted]'s bought it way below book value.  I feel that we have been VERY fair with the [redacted]'s on this deal and I think they are slightly unreasonable in this matter.  I have shown the paperwork to my attorney [redacted] and after speaking with him I have decided that it is Bill's & Son's position that the deal was legally sold AS-IS and the proper federal FTC Guide and state AS-IS paperwork was signed. Therefore , we are still willing to unwind the deal and take back this H2 , otherwise Bill's & Son considers this a completed done deal. Thank you for your time in this matter.

Hello, my name is Jeff B[redacted], I own Bill's & Son Auto. I feel the [redacted]'s are not being completely honest or reasonable concerning this Revdex.com complaint. The reason I question their honesty is because if you read their initial Revdex.com complaint they stated, and I quote " The very next day as I was driving the vehicle to work the Check Engine light came on, now I didn't call them right away it was when Chad called me for insurance information that I told him about the light that came on, it was 5 days later." And now in this follow up, the story seems to have changed and that the light came on before they even reached home after the sale. It honestly doesn't matter what the truth is because even though the vehicle was legally sold 100% AS-IS , we still agreed to fix it :However this inconsistency does prove either confusion or dishonesty.  It is apparent that the [redacted]'s are satisfied with the H2 because we offered to completely unwind the deal and they declined BUT is is also apparent that they will never be satisfied with anything Bill's & Son does or offers. As far as the mirror is concerned , we never agreed to furnish a new mirror, because only 1 new mirror would not have fixed the power fold feature that was inoperable on the H2 anyways. We did however agree to redo the previous sloppy epoxy repair so it would look better and that is what we did and the mirror looked just fine. Common sense tells us all this.......  Why would we agree to fix the H2 catylitic converter AFTER it was sold AS-IS when we did not have to BUT not fix the H2 mirror BEFORE the sale if it needed it? I'm sorry the [redacted]'s are upset and feel the way they do BUT I also feel Bill's & Son has been WAY more honest and fair with them on the H2 they received from us than they were on the VERY troubled 2004 Saturn Vue we took in trade from them !! In closing, I would like to restate that it is our position that this deal is a legally binding AS-IS transaction and as far as we are concerned it is a completed sale. Thank you.