K & R Auto Salvage, Inc.

On October 26, 2015, Mr*** purchased a used *** Sienna Automatic Transmission, It came with a day limited parts replacement warrantyThe sales invoice ( and the warranty card) contained all of the terms of the Sales AgreementSee copy of invoice and a sample copy of yellow
warranty card that was attached to the transmission at the time of saleA photo of the transmission is attached and the warranty card is clearly visibleAt the time of the sale he was offered the opportunity to buy an extended warranty which he refusedThe price of the transmission was The core charge was the sales tax was for a total of The transmission had a small crack on it which Mr*** was aware of the day he came to purchase itWith his knowledge and consent we sent the transmission out to have the crack weldedIt came back within a dayHe picked the transmission upHad he not wanted the transmission then he could have told us and we could have cancelled the sale immediatelyOn November 18, Mr*** returned the core transmission and received a refund of the core chargeAt the time he returned for a refund of the core charge, he never mentioned any problem with the transmissionMr*** stated in his complaint that he first contacted K&R about a problem on February 7, because that date was a Sunday and the Company is not open for business on a SundayOn February 22, Mr*** did speak to the Company Salesman who sold him the transmissionThe salesman's name was *** advised Mr*** to take the vehicle to a nearby transmission shop to have it inspectedPlease note that at this time the 90th day parts replacement warranty was already over the warranty period by Approximately twenty six daysUnfortunately, *** did not advise Mr*** of this during the initial phone call because *** had not checked the invoice dateMr*** did call several times thereafter about taking the car to the transmission shop and K &R has to assume that at some point Mr*** did, in fact, take the car to the shop to have the transmission checkedOn February 29, Mr*** called again and spoke to ***It was that time that *** informed Mr*** that the warranty claim was beyond the day period It was during this conversation that Mr*** first informed *** that the transmission was installed on November 5, *** informed Mr*** that regardless of the date that the Transmission was installed, the warranty begins on the date of purchaseMr*** became very upset and the conversation came to an endOn March 2, Mr*** did call again to speak with *** and informed *** that he was going to see an Attorney and also contact the Attorney Generals OfficeThat was the last communication with Mr*** until his recent complaint with the Revdex.comK&R did not sell Mr*** a transmission with the intent of robbing himThe company has been in business for more than yearsMr*** was aware at all times that the transmission was a used transmission that came with a limited replacement warrantyThe warranty is explained at the time of the saleAt the time of the sale the customer also had the opportunity to ask questions regarding the warranty if the customer does not fully understand the terms of the warrantyThe invoice clearly refers to the terms of the limited warranty and the yellow card that is attached to every transmission sold explains the warranty in specific detailIt may be that Mr*** was not fully aware of the terms of the limited warranty, but the company takes great pains to explain the limited warranty and the conditions that apply to making a claim for a replacement partThe Company does not make exceptions to the starting or ending date of the terms of the warrantyIf it did, there would be no purpose to having warranties at allMr*** apparently drove the vehicle throughout the first three months of the warranty and beyond until he developed a problemIf not, then why did he take so long to report the problem to the companyIn either case, the delay and failure of Mr*** to promptly in form the company of the issue during the warranty period is solely Mr*** issueThe company has not been in existence for more than years by "robbing" peopleIn addition, Mr*** was already paid the core chargeTherefore, even if he were entitled to a refund, which he is not, the amount would not be In conclusion , it is the company's position that Mr*** is not entitled to a refund of in that the conditions that a customer must follow precedent to refund or replacement were not met

On October 3, 2015 [redacted] ordered a 2005 [redacted] motor from K&R. The transaction was processed by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] placed the order under Anything Auto Parts with a business address of [redacted]. He represented that he was an auto parts...

broker. The address that he gave to us as his business address is listed as a [redacted] store. The motor was paid for by credit card. He gave instructions to us to ship the motor to to an address that he represented was an auto sales business located at [redacted]. During the sale he was informed that if the business was a residence, the freight company would charge an extra fee. We shipped the motor to the address that he provided to us. he was charged freight for delivery to a business. When the item was being delivered. we received a call from the shipping company stating that the address on the bill was in fact a residence and there would be an additional 100.00 tail gate fee charge. The tail gate fee is a fee that shipping companies charge for having to remove the item from the truck because there is no machinery to lift the item from the back of the freight truck. K&R was not aware of the fact that the address that Mr. [redacted] gave to us was a residence. We discovered this only when the freight delivery driver called our office at the time of delivery. [redacted] attempted to contact Mr. [redacted] to inform him of the extra charge to a residence. We could not reach him with the phone number that he gave to us. [redacted] was faced with a decision. Since we could not contact Mr. [redacted] to get paid for the additional shipping charges, we were forced to have the motor returned. During our attempt to contact Mr. [redacted] by phone, we discovered that his phone blocked our call. It is K&R's position that Mr. [redacted] presented himself as an auto parts broker. As an auto parts broker, he places orders for parts that he purchases and then sells to other persons. The customer was his customer and Mr. [redacted] is supposed to have all the pertinent information relative to his customer. We have no control over the information and or communication with his customer. He was informed in writing , prior to the sale of K&R's sales policy regarding shipping costs relative to a tailgate fee and shipping costs not being refundable in the event of a return. It is Ironic that Mr. [redacted] elected to complain through Revdex.com. A check of his business name on the Revdex.com website indicated that his rating is D+. The Revdex.com website also states that this business address is [redacted], but the business address he gave to K&R for this transaction is [redacted] Jacksonville, FL. 32257. K&R did everything that it was supposed to do. It packaged and shipped a motor to the address that was given for his customer. It is not K&R's obligation to verify an address that our customer, Mr. [redacted], gave to us for delivery. It was delivered. Due to the nature of the address (residential), there is an additional charge for residence. Mr. [redacted] knew about the additional charge that could be imposed by the freight company well in advance of the order. Proof of his knowledge is a prior complaint made by a customer who attests to the fact with her that also went bad. See attached copy of the complaint taken from the website: Rip off report. He cannot now claim that he that he was not aware of the delivery charge or that it was K&R's responsibility to do so. When the freight company contacted K&R, the attempted to immediately contact him via the phone number that he gave to us. It was not K&R's fault that he blocked the call. K&R is not obligated to pay additional charges (100.00 tailgate fee) for the delivery to his customer. K&R did not pay the charges and thus the part was returned, at considerable expense to K&R. Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] is also doing business through another company as All Things Auto Parts with an address that is the same listed as the address on the complaint in this matter.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
Regards,
[redacted]