Dutch Miller Chevrolet Inc

In response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted], of [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] indicates deceptive sales practices performed by Dutch Miller Chevrolet Inc. It is in no way Dutch Miller's intention to defraud or mislead customers based on selling practice. In this case Mr....

[redacted] found a Chevrolet Cruze (vin# [redacted]) priced on our website [redacted] at $[redacted] This is an accurate claim. However, this is a mistake, and we instructed Mr. [redacted] as for the reasoning. After explanation, we offered a fair market price to Mr. [redacted]. To merchandise our inventories to consumers Dutch Miller must rely on several software/data companies to "push" and "price" our vehicles to the public. These software companies are not perfect. In this case, it is an example of that. Knowing that mistakes can be made, we disclose on all our webpages that this can happen. The disclosure reads as: "While we make every effort to ensure the data listed here is correct, there may be instances where some of the factory rebates, incentives, options or vehicle features may be listed incorrectly as we get data from multiple data sources. PLEASE MAKE SURE to confirm the details of this vehicle (such as what factory rebates you may or may not qualify for) with the dealer to ensure its accuracy. Dealer cannot be held liable for data that is listed incorrectly." We apologize for any miscommunication and inconvenience this may have caused Mr. [redacted].

To Whom This May Concern, In response to the complaint filed by [redacted]l. [redacted] agreed to purchase a Chevrolet Corvette stingray (vin#1G1CVG2D75G51 19301) and signed all documents dating 3/29/16 pertaining to the sale. However, [redacted]'s purchasing process started back in December of 2016. [redacted] wanted a specific corvette with very precise options. So outside of our normal operating procedure we agreed to allow [redacted] access to our General Motors ordering work bench. [redacted] ordered, with a member of our management staff, a custom built corvette to his liking. He chose each option, trim level, color, and accessories very specific to the car he desired to purchase. This is a special order car unlike any that we would have ordered for retail stock. [redacted] used our capital to order a car to his liking. Once the Corvette was delivered [redacted] inspected the vehicle and was unhappy with the paint. The car was not damaged in our pre-delivery inspection process or at clean up. This is the way the vehicle was built and delivered from the manufacturer and much like the rest of the General Motors vehicles that are delivered to us. But customer satisfaction is our main goal. So we incurred the additional expenses associated with buffing and re-cleaning the vehicle to suit [redacted]'s perceived needs. The car is in and has always been in good standing condition cosmetically and mechanically in line with manufacturer specs. Even after our attempt to buff and re clean the vehicle [redacted] was apparently still not satisfied. At this point [redacted], claiming the vehicle was in unsatisfactory condition, he chose not to purchase the corvette. [redacted] special ordered this corvette, and used our capital and resources to do so. This car was far from the normal order for our stock. We attempted to satisfy [redacted] and would still be happy to do so. We acted in good faith. Allowing [redacted] access to our capital and ordered a special order $64,380 car. He did not fulfill his end of the agreement and cancelled his purchase. We now have the cost of stocking a $64,380 unit outside of our typical ordering specs. Therefore, we made the decision to withhold $3038.92 of due back to [redacted]. The sum of the money withheld is a combination of a restocking fee of 2.5% of msrp and the cost of one year's interest to stock this unit. The only circumstance that we would consider reimbursing the fees charged would be for [redacted] to uphold his end of our purchase agreement by purchasing the car that he chose and special ordered.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I can only state that their response is a lie and do not address the facts at hand. And what they describe is in fact fraud as outlined at the [redacted] where an offer is made to get a customer in the door and then attempt to make the pay more for the vehicle or try to get them to buy another vehicle at a higher price. Both of which happened.If you notice they did not address the fact that a direct offer was made to me to purchase that car for the advertised price, provided that I came in that night. I was told specifically that it would be the “deal of year” provided I bought he car that night. They would not let me come down the next day or on the weekend to see the car in the daylight since it was already after six. They insisted I had to be there that night to get the car for that price. Multiple people were involved to get me in the door including the salesman, Robert. As soon as I got there I was told I would have to pay more for the car if I wanted it. That is fraud.In their own response they admit to trying to get me to pay more for the vehicle. Robert knew why I was there, what car was involved and the price. The fact that he immediately started doing paperwork for my credit and trade in without so much as even asking me to see the car shows. When I objected and insisted to see the car is when he refused to sell the car for the price I was already offered the car directly by their sales manager over the phone through Corey.As their own disclaimer states “please make sure to confirm the details of this vehicle” and this is exactly what I did when I called to ask why the car was discounted so much. Was it a demo, one of the red tag sales, etc. And at that time I was instructed by this dealership to come down and the car was mine for the advertised price of 14986 and the 500 rebate. There was no miscommunication. They clearly articulated the offer to me to get in the door and then refused to honor that agreement or sell me the car unless I paid more for it. This is nearly word for word how the Federal Trade Commission describes fraud.
Regards,
[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates that the business has not responded to you directly.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
At this time, I have not been contacted by Dutch Miller Chevrolet Geo regarding complaint **...

[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]