Showcase Luxury Cars II

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2016/03/29) */ Mr [redacted] purchased a vehicle "as is" after he had it checked by his own mechanic The Ca, Civil Code 1795.51, which Mr [redacted] referred to, does not apply to his purchaseIt only applies to cars that are financed at the dealership where the dealer is collecting interestI am attaching a copy of the code explaining this Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2016/04/08) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The code in question applies to the dealership because they tell all of their customers that they offer a warranty, and that likely establishes a binding verbal contract under CA lawHowever, even if the code does not apply in any way, the fact remains that they sold a car with a faulty catalytic converter in violation of CA emissions lawsAlso remember, I pointed out that I have obtained evidence that they offer a 30-day warranty on all cars they sell, including those they sell 'as-is' The only symptom of the issue was a check engine light, which automatically causes the vehicle to fail smog, which is required for re-registrationAnd due to the fact that the dealership likely illegally cleared the code whenever it was triggered, and that it would take a few days for the code to return, it would have been impossible for the issue to have been known in the short time the vehicle was inspected prior to purchaseTherefore, the fact that my mechanic looked at the car is irrelevant The fact that the Pcode was triggered the day after purchase makes the issue's pre-existence a near certaintySelling a vehicle requiring extensive repairs and concealing the issue from clients constitutes fraud, and even if there is indeed no warranty, an 'as-is' sale is not a valid defense against fraud Notice that the dealership's response is essentially 'Oh, that's not our problem, too bad'If the warranty established by the CA Civil Code truly does not apply to them, then it is clear that they tell any potential customers assurances that they are required to provide it to lure them into a sense of security, and when an issue arises, they just say that there is no warranty, and kick the customer to the curb I would appreciate any assistance the Revdex.com would provide in preparing for litigation in order to bring this underhanded dealership's schemes to an endIf nothing else, the Revdex.com should lower this establishment's Revdex.com grade to warn future car buyers of this dealership's fraudulent business practices

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/03/29) */
Mr. [redacted] purchased a vehicle "as is" after he had it checked by his own mechanic.
The Ca, Civil Code 1795.51, which Mr. [redacted] referred to, does not apply to his purchase. It only applies to cars that are financed at the dealership...

where the dealer is collecting interest. I am attaching a copy of the code explaining this.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/04/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The code in question applies to the dealership because they tell all of their customers that they offer a warranty, and that likely establishes a binding verbal contract under CA law. However, even if the code does not apply in any way, the fact remains that they sold a car with a faulty catalytic converter in violation of CA emissions laws. Also remember, I pointed out that I have obtained evidence that they offer a 30-day warranty on all cars they sell, including those they sell 'as-is'.
The only symptom of the issue was a check engine light, which automatically causes the vehicle to fail smog, which is required for re-registration. And due to the fact that the dealership likely illegally cleared the code whenever it was triggered, and that it would take a few days for the code to return, it would have been impossible for the issue to have been known in the short time the vehicle was inspected prior to purchase. Therefore, the fact that my mechanic looked at the car is irrelevant.
The fact that the P0420 code was triggered the day after purchase makes the issue's pre-existence a near certainty. Selling a vehicle requiring extensive repairs and concealing the issue from clients constitutes fraud, and even if there is indeed no warranty, an 'as-is' sale is not a valid defense against fraud.
Notice that the dealership's response is essentially 'Oh, that's not our problem, too bad'. If the warranty established by the CA Civil Code truly does not apply to them, then it is clear that they tell any potential customers false assurances that they are required to provide it to lure them into a false sense of security, and when an issue arises, they just say that there is no warranty, and kick the customer to the curb.
I would appreciate any assistance the Revdex.com would provide in preparing for litigation in order to bring this underhanded dealership's schemes to an end. If nothing else, the Revdex.com should lower this establishment's Revdex.com grade to warn future car buyers of this dealership's fraudulent business practices.