Auto Mart Inc, has *ell documented record of repairs for the [redacted] purchased by [redacted] on 2/27/2017. Before the sale, all documents and vehicle history *ere discussed and presented to Mr. [redacted]. Before Mr. [redacted] ever came to look at the vehicle, he requested all the car fax/...
maintenance records/service receipts from our dealership, to gauge his interest in our vehicle. Auto Mart Inc gladly provided all requested documents via text, and discussed the history of the car *ith Mr. [redacted] over the phone. During those conversations, Auto Mart Inc explained that the [redacted] had previous engine noise, and that a replacement engine (from another [redacted]) had been recommended by a certified mechanic to be installed into the [redacted], *hich *as done, and receipts *ere provided. Along *ith a replacement engine, brake pads and rotors, valve cover gaskets, head gasket, and the intake gasket *ere replace, and documented *ith receipts, for parts and labor. All this information *as provided to Mr. [redacted] in good faith prior to his visit and test drive of the [redacted] initially. After scheduling an appointment to come and take a look at the [redacted], Mr. [redacted] came and drove the vehicle and liked it. After negotiating with Mike * C[redacted], an agreement on price could not be reached by both parties on a sale price. Mr. [redacted] insisted on Auto Mart Inc to reduce the price from $[redacted] to $[redacted] and demanded the vehicle have a pre sale inspection performed before he bought it. Since he lives in [redacted], and the vehicle is in [redacted], terms could not be agreed to at that time. The following week, Mike * C[redacted] contacted [redacted] again to see if a deal could come to terms again. Mr. [redacted] agreed that he would buy the vehicle for $[redacted] "as is" if he could come up and take it to a local mechanic for a pre sale inspection. Auto Mart Inc gave him the phone number and address of a local mechanic who had performed the engine swap, and gasket replacements mentioned previously in this description. Mr. [redacted] set up and appointment and came up and took the vehicle to [redacted] to look over the vehicle in his presence to get a good look at the whole vehicle, independent from Auto Mart, Inc The vehicle was inspected by [redacted], and *as deemed to be in good condition. The suspension, frame, front end, steering were checked and deemed to be good with Mr. [redacted]. He returned with the [redacted] approximately an hour later and proceeded to buy the car, as agreed to. The terms were Auto Mart Inc, would agree to the $[redacted] price reduction and sell the car "as is" as a concession for the price reduction. Both parties agreed that was a fair deal, and Mr. [redacted] left *ith the car. Approximately 45 minutes later post sale, Mr. [redacted] called and said that the check engine light had come on and he was concerned. Mike * C[redacted] instructed him to either bring the vehicle back, stop at an auto parts store such as [redacted] and have the vehicle scanned, or if it felt ok, drive the vehicle home. Mr. [redacted] did not feel it *as anything major and agreed to take the drive the vehicle back home to [redacted] from [redacted], and have it checked out the following day. [redacted] then had the vehicle take to his local [redacted], and a code was scanned for P0420 was read. This code refers to the exhaust/emissions system. [redacted] gave him a print out of possible solutions that could be at fault, such as upstream/downstream oxygen sensors, or possibly a fault with the catalytic converter. Mr. [redacted] stated he would take the vehicle to his mechanic and have it l[redacted]d at and resolved about 4 days later *hen they had an opening to take on his [redacted].After taking the vehicle to his mechanic, Mr. [redacted] called Mike * C[redacted] back, and stated that after the tests were done, it was deemed to have a malfunctioning catalytic converter. He then accused Auto Mart Inc of knowingly selling it to him with condition. Mr. [redacted] accused Auto Mart Inc of intentionally selling him a car that need a new converter and that somehow Auto Mart Inc had prior knowledge to this issue. It offended Auto Mart Inc, that after providing records and receipts, of the previous repairs, providing extensive documentation of the history and work done to the [redacted] prior to sale, and providing the customer , Mr. [redacted] the opportunity to have a pre sale inspection done to the vehicle for his own satisfaction, that Auto Mart Inc would sell a vehicle that way. After taking the time an effort to send him all the information prior to his first arrival, and document every repair that was done, Having a pre sale inspection done by a certified mechanic, and 2 separate test drives pre sale, Auto mart Inc thought it went the extra mile to ensure customer satisfaction and confidence. Also, Auto Mart Inc agreed to the terms and agreed to $[redacted] concession on the sale price of the vehicle. Mr. [redacted] then stated to Mike * C[redacted] that he had been quoted $[redacted] cost to have the catalytic converter replace. Mike * C[redacted] stated that, the quote *as on the high side and he should shop around to see *hat an average cost of repair would be. Since the car *as sold "as is" due to the price concession and pre sale inspected demanded by [redacted], Auto Mart Inc was under no obligation to help compensate with the converter repair. However in good faith, because Auto Mart Inc thought Mr. [redacted] was being over charged for such repair, stated they would call around to get quotes on what a reasonable repair cost would be. Upon 2 estimates, it was deemed to be $[redacted] - $[redacted] in Parts and Labor, for the needed repairs to the converter. Both [redacted] and [redacted] were shocked at the hefty cost of over $[redacted] to replace the catalytic converter. Auto Mart Inc tried to let Mr. [redacted] know that, the estimate he received was on the high side, but he wanted his local shop to do the repair since he had a previous relationship with his own mechanic, and said he would have it done at his expense. Mike * C[redacted] again tried to tell Mr. [redacted] that he could help him, by referring him to another mechanic to get the needed converter done at a much cheaper cost to him, but Mr. [redacted] again refused. Mr. [redacted] said he would take care of it, through his mechanic and there was no further communication about the car from either party involved. In conclusion, Auto Mart Inc made every necessary attempt to please the customer [redacted] prior to looking at the vehicle, during the process of selling the vehicle, and after the sale of the vehicle. Mr. [redacted] was given all documentation on the car, had a mechanic go through the vehicle with him on a pre sale inspection, was given a large concession of $[redacted] off the sale price, agreed to the "as is" terms of the sale based on the requirements to buy the car, and was offered assistance in getting a better price for the converter repair after the sale, of which he declined. There is no basis to accuse Auto Mart Inc of knowingly selling him a vehicle with a converter issue, as we did all we could to provide the customer with all the tools necessary to meet his demands, so that he could make an educated buying decision. To defame and slander our business, by the accusation that this was premeditated issue, and accusing us of being non forthcoming based on the evidence prior, during, and after the sale, is laughable, and criminal. Documentation has been provided to show the truth. Auto Mart Inc is asking the [redacted] to cancel the claim, and keep our A+ rating that we have worked hard for over 22 years to establish. we ask that the defaming comments be removed immediately and not reflect our good business practices online.
Auto Mart Inc, has *ell documented record of repairs for the [redacted] purchased by [redacted] on 2/27/2017. Before the sale, all documents and vehicle history *ere discussed and presented to Mr. [redacted]. Before Mr. [redacted] ever came to look at the vehicle, he requested all the car fax/...
maintenance records/service receipts from our dealership, to gauge his interest in our vehicle. Auto Mart Inc gladly provided all requested documents via text, and discussed the history of the car *ith Mr. [redacted] over the phone. During those conversations, Auto Mart Inc explained that the [redacted] had previous engine noise, and that a replacement engine (from another [redacted]) had been recommended by a certified mechanic to be installed into the [redacted], *hich *as done, and receipts *ere provided. Along *ith a replacement engine, brake pads and rotors, valve cover gaskets, head gasket, and the intake gasket *ere replace, and documented *ith receipts, for parts and labor. All this information *as provided to Mr. [redacted] in good faith prior to his visit and test drive of the [redacted] initially. After scheduling an appointment to come and take a look at the [redacted], Mr. [redacted] came and drove the vehicle and liked it. After negotiating with Mike * C[redacted], an agreement on price could not be reached by both parties on a sale price. Mr. [redacted] insisted on Auto Mart Inc to reduce the price from $[redacted] to $[redacted] and demanded the vehicle have a pre sale inspection performed before he bought it. Since he lives in [redacted], and the vehicle is in [redacted], terms could not be agreed to at that time. The following week, Mike * C[redacted] contacted [redacted] again to see if a deal could come to terms again. Mr. [redacted] agreed that he would buy the vehicle for $[redacted] "as is" if he could come up and take it to a local mechanic for a pre sale inspection. Auto Mart Inc gave him the phone number and address of a local mechanic who had performed the engine swap, and gasket replacements mentioned previously in this description. Mr. [redacted] set up and appointment and came up and took the vehicle to [redacted] to look over the vehicle in his presence to get a good look at the whole vehicle, independent from Auto Mart, Inc The vehicle was inspected by [redacted], and *as deemed to be in good condition. The suspension, frame, front end, steering were checked and deemed to be good with Mr. [redacted]. He returned with the [redacted] approximately an hour later and proceeded to buy the car, as agreed to. The terms were Auto Mart Inc, would agree to the $[redacted] price reduction and sell the car "as is" as a concession for the price reduction. Both parties agreed that was a fair deal, and Mr. [redacted] left *ith the car. Approximately 45 minutes later post sale, Mr. [redacted] called and said that the check engine light had come on and he was concerned. Mike * C[redacted] instructed him to either bring the vehicle back, stop at an auto parts store such as [redacted] and have the vehicle scanned, or if it felt ok, drive the vehicle home. Mr. [redacted] did not feel it *as anything major and agreed to take the drive the vehicle back home to [redacted] from [redacted], and have it checked out the following day. [redacted] then had the vehicle take to his local [redacted], and a code was scanned for P0420 was read. This code refers to the exhaust/emissions system. [redacted] gave him a print out of possible solutions that could be at fault, such as upstream/downstream oxygen sensors, or possibly a fault with the catalytic converter. Mr. [redacted] stated he would take the vehicle to his mechanic and have it l[redacted]d at and resolved about 4 days later *hen they had an opening to take on his [redacted].After taking the vehicle to his mechanic, Mr. [redacted] called Mike * C[redacted] back, and stated that after the tests were done, it was deemed to have a malfunctioning catalytic converter. He then accused Auto Mart Inc of knowingly selling it to him with condition. Mr. [redacted] accused Auto Mart Inc of intentionally selling him a car that need a new converter and that somehow Auto Mart Inc had prior knowledge to this issue. It offended Auto Mart Inc, that after providing records and receipts, of the previous repairs, providing extensive documentation of the history and work done to the [redacted] prior to sale, and providing the customer , Mr. [redacted] the opportunity to have a pre sale inspection done to the vehicle for his own satisfaction, that Auto Mart Inc would sell a vehicle that way. After taking the time an effort to send him all the information prior to his first arrival, and document every repair that was done, Having a pre sale inspection done by a certified mechanic, and 2 separate test drives pre sale, Auto mart Inc thought it went the extra mile to ensure customer satisfaction and confidence. Also, Auto Mart Inc agreed to the terms and agreed to $[redacted] concession on the sale price of the vehicle. Mr. [redacted] then stated to Mike * C[redacted] that he had been quoted $[redacted] cost to have the catalytic converter replace. Mike * C[redacted] stated that, the quote *as on the high side and he should shop around to see *hat an average cost of repair would be. Since the car *as sold "as is" due to the price concession and pre sale inspected demanded by [redacted], Auto Mart Inc was under no obligation to help compensate with the converter repair. However in good faith, because Auto Mart Inc thought Mr. [redacted] was being over charged for such repair, stated they would call around to get quotes on what a reasonable repair cost would be. Upon 2 estimates, it was deemed to be $[redacted] - $[redacted] in Parts and Labor, for the needed repairs to the converter. Both [redacted] and [redacted] were shocked at the hefty cost of over $[redacted] to replace the catalytic converter. Auto Mart Inc tried to let Mr. [redacted] know that, the estimate he received was on the high side, but he wanted his local shop to do the repair since he had a previous relationship with his own mechanic, and said he would have it done at his expense. Mike * C[redacted] again tried to tell Mr. [redacted] that he could help him, by referring him to another mechanic to get the needed converter done at a much cheaper cost to him, but Mr. [redacted] again refused. Mr. [redacted] said he would take care of it, through his mechanic and there was no further communication about the car from either party involved. In conclusion, Auto Mart Inc made every necessary attempt to please the customer [redacted] prior to looking at the vehicle, during the process of selling the vehicle, and after the sale of the vehicle. Mr. [redacted] was given all documentation on the car, had a mechanic go through the vehicle with him on a pre sale inspection, was given a large concession of $[redacted] off the sale price, agreed to the "as is" terms of the sale based on the requirements to buy the car, and was offered assistance in getting a better price for the converter repair after the sale, of which he declined. There is no basis to accuse Auto Mart Inc of knowingly selling him a vehicle with a converter issue, as we did all we could to provide the customer with all the tools necessary to meet his demands, so that he could make an educated buying decision. To defame and slander our business, by the accusation that this was premeditated issue, and accusing us of being non forthcoming based on the evidence prior, during, and after the sale, is laughable, and criminal. Documentation has been provided to show the truth. Auto Mart Inc is asking the [redacted] to cancel the claim, and keep our A+ rating that we have worked hard for over 22 years to establish. we ask that the defaming comments be removed immediately and not reflect our good business practices online.