Buick GMC of Vacaville

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/10/01) */ Mr [redacted] is correct in that he did trade in vehicles and there was $1,down pymt requiredHe did have equity in one of his trade-ins, but the other trade also had a payoff, which was not noted in the complaintWe paid off both vehicles timely We did contact Mr [redacted] and took back the Tahoe he was unsatisfied with and sold him a different vehicleTo our knowledge, Mr [redacted] was satisfied with the resolution

Revdex.com:At this time, I have not been contacted by Liman Video Rental Co Incregarding complaint ID [redacted] .I would like to add that I have tracked down the original listserv ad that led to the purchaseThis ad was placed on the [redacted] of March when LVR still "owned" the cameraSo it is clearly the case that Lori C [redacted] of [redacted] , who placed the ad, was acting as an agent/broker of LVRThe claim that the camera had hours on it was made by both parties who I contend are equally responsible for what I allege to be fraudThat is, LVR, without knowing who I was, was indeed doing business with me at the timeI would also like to say that in a separate Revdex.com complaint against Lori C***/ [redacted] in California, no response whatsoever was receivedThe complaint was completely ignoredI am unsure what the statuses of separate complaints made to the NY and California state Attorney General's offices areI have been told I will receive no communication from themI feel I now have no other recourse than to proceed with a lawsuitSincerely, [redacted]

I have filed a complaint (via California Revdex.com and the California AG) against Lori C***/*** *** *** as wellItis true that the camera was purchased from *** *** *** (***) but it is my understanding that *** acted as a broker/agent only and the camera was never in ***/Lori C***s possession but, rather, came directly from Liman Video Rental (LVR) that, in Lori C***s words, the camera "was in full rental right up to the point we sold it..." (see attached screenshot of email)The "date" LVR says the camera was "sold" to Lori C*** (3/**/15) is exactly the same date as the camera was sold to me, so it is, in fact, impossible that Lori C*** ever had possession of the camera and it was, indeed, shipped to me from NYC, not California where *** is locatedSo if there really was a "sale" from LVR to *** it was a paper sale onlyDuring the day or two prior to the sale to me, when the photographs (taken, undoubtedly, by LVR) and the description, most importantly, of the hours was sent out, the camera was still owned by LVR, not ***Therefore I believe it is accurate to say that LVR was participating in the sale directly and that what I believe was a representation of the hours on the camera was principally their responsibilityMoreover, I believe that LVR has records of the rental history of the camera that will, I am very confident, show that the camera was rented out enough times to make it abundantly clear that the camera had many more than hours of use on it. That doesn't take responsibility away from *** and Lori C*** but it does make LVR at least an equal party to the sale and the fraud I allege took place. I also need to clarify another point which is that negotiation and payment for the camera was done by a person named Snorre W**, a friend, who was acting as an agent on my behalf at the time, something that was made very clear during the negotiation and purchasing processhence why Lori C*** refers to him in the email belowIn other words, ***, Lori C***, was well aware at the time of the sale that I was the one actually purchasing the cameraLVR would not have known this, of course, and may not have known about Snorre W** either and so can claim, in this sense, to never have done business with medirectlyI do not believe that acquits them of responsibility in the matter of knowingly misrepresenting the product

[redacted] is not a customer and has never done business with Liman Video rental Co., Inc or any employee of Liman Video rental Co., Inc.. The camera in question, Liman Video Rental Co., Inc sold to Lori C[redacted] of [redacted] (used equipment dealer) on 3/**/2015 in perfect...

working condition.

Revdex.com:At this time, I have not been contacted by Liman Video Rental Co Inc. regarding complaint ID [redacted].I would like to add that I have tracked down the original listserv ad that led to the purchase. This ad was placed on the [redacted] of March when LVR still "owned" the camera. So it is clearly the case that Lori C[redacted] of [redacted], who placed the ad, was acting as an agent/broker of LVR. The claim that the camera had 148 hours on it was made by both parties who I contend are equally responsible for what I allege to be fraud. That is, LVR, without knowing who I was, was indeed doing business with me at the time. I would also like to say that in a separate Revdex.com complaint against Lori C[redacted] in California, no response whatsoever was received. The complaint was completely ignored. I am unsure what the statuses of separate complaints made to the NY and California state Attorney General's offices are. I have been told I will receive no communication from them. I feel I now have no other recourse than to proceed with a lawsuit. Sincerely,[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/01) */
Mr. [redacted] is correct in that he did trade in 2 vehicles and there was $1,000 down pymt required. He did have equity in one of his trade-ins, but the other trade also had a payoff, which was not noted in the complaint. We paid off both...

vehicles timely.
We did contact Mr. [redacted] and took back the Tahoe he was unsatisfied with and sold him a different vehicle. To our knowledge, Mr. [redacted] was satisfied with the resolution.