• Go to page :
  • 123 4
  • Text Only
tolamapS said:   joewaters said:   It's amazing how often this happens. In 2007, I negotiated the price on a special ordered car through emails, and when it arrived, the paperwork guy (not the salesman) suffered from dyslexia and inverted two numbers giving me a $27400 car for $24700. I wrote the check for the lower amount, having waited about a three weeks from order to delivery, not remembering the final price. I got home with the car, checked the invoice to the emails, and noticed the difference. I called the salesman to see if it was a mistake or a price drop. He explained, then asked me to come in and write another check for only half the difference. I sent two friend to him in the next six months for their cars. Didn't think this was very common, but I imagine that statistics will show a certain volume of sales will net a certain number of errors, either benefitting the customer or dealer. The question I pose here, would the dealer write me a check if the error was in his favor?

In the court of public opinion (and my personal opinion too), the answer is never.


I don't know. In Joewaters' situation, he had documentation that showed the intended sales price. If the error on the final signed sales agreement had been in the dealer's favor, maybe he would have lost a lawsuit (maybe not?) but I doubt the average new car dealership would have let it go that far. I don't think the dealer would want Joewaters telling everyone he knows how the dealer enticed him with a low price and then switched it at the last minute.

Please read the following Mr Farnsworths:

“This is a horrible injustice to her,” said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. But Coney said she was not surprised the error involved the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database.

“There have been several well-publicized incidents involving inaccuracies in the NCIC database,” she said, some dating back 20 years. According to online Maryland court records, a nursing home won an $11,676 civil judgment against Studnitz in 2005, but she says that actually involved her late father’s estate. She has no criminal record." From the article

The statement that she had no criminal record is correct. BUT NCIC said she did. She was then terminated because of that erroneous report an occurrance tha tis by no means isolated. . Couple of possibilities
1. The FBI screwed up and entered the judgment against her father's estate as an arrest or 2. the FBI screwed up as it often does and identified the wrong person in the wrong case. The fact that NCIC is involved MEANS that there is an arrest record involved. NCIC does not house any civil information.

"Be aware that no database or information system is infallible. Even the federal law enforcement database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), is subject to errors. One problem is that of agency reporting. Agencies from all fifty states report to NCIC — but do they report crime accurately? Certainly many do, but mistakes can be made. Do they report using the same or similar system? The answer is no. Furthermore, do all of them report? That answer is also no — some smaller departments don't report their crime statistics at all, and others don't report consistently. NCIC is also subject, as is every database, to human entry errors.
http://www.netplaces.com/private-investigation/special-investiga... and

"About half of the arrest records in the system have not been updated to reflect convictions, dismissals or acquittals, Weise said, adding that local law enforcement agencies are responsible for giving the FBI updated information."

This is not a new problem; it's only new that the FBI is admitting how bad it is." http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-libert...

Independent audit of immigration data reported at NCIC showed a 42% error rate.

Errors in computer data basis on crime information are a daily occurrence. Officers have testified in court that 20% of NCIC hits are erroneous. I suggest you read and comprehend this Fordham Law Journal publication from which the folling is taken.http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&co...

"In People v. Decuir,33 the defendant was arrested by a police officer
who had been furnished with NCIC information that there was a
warrant outstanding for the defendant's arrest. The NCIC information,
in fact, had been inaccurate for two months. 34 The court
granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence on a narcotics
charge stemming from a search incident to the arrest. 35 Following
Whitely, the court held that although the arresting officer acted
reasonably, the arrest was invalid because there was no probable
cause independent of the invalid warrant.3 The Decuir result is
correct in that the two month failure to cancel the NCIC information
concerning the outdated warrant was unreasonable action on the part
of the sending agency and could not be used to furnish probable cause"

You should have also have read this DOJ publication on Negligent Misuse of NCIC data. http://www.masc.sc/SiteCollectionDocuments/Municipal%20Court/NCI...

nsdp said:   Please read the following Mr Farnsworths:

“This is a horrible injustice to her,” said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. But Coney said she was not surprised the error involved the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database.

“There have been several well-publicized incidents involving inaccuracies in the NCIC database,” she said, some dating back 20 years. According to online Maryland court records, a nursing home won an $11,676 civil judgment against Studnitz in 2005, but she says that actually involved her late father’s estate. She has no criminal record." From the article

The statement that she had no criminal record is correct. BUT NCIC said she did. She was then terminated because of that erroneous report an occurrance tha tis by no means isolated. . Couple of possibilities
1. The FBI screwed up and entered the judgment against her father's estate as an arrest or 2. the FBI screwed up as it often does and identified the wrong person in the wrong case. The fact that NCIC is involved MEANS that there is an arrest record involved. NCIC does not house any civil information.

"Be aware that no database or information system is infallible. Even the federal law enforcement database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), is subject to errors. One problem is that of agency reporting. Agencies from all fifty states report to NCIC — but do they report crime accurately? Certainly many do, but mistakes can be made. Do they report using the same or similar system? The answer is no. Furthermore, do all of them report? That answer is also no — some smaller departments don't report their crime statistics at all, and others don't report consistently. NCIC is also subject, as is every database, to human entry errors.
http://www.netplaces.com/private-investigation/special-investiga... and

"About half of the arrest records in the system have not been updated to reflect convictions, dismissals or acquittals, Weise said, adding that local law enforcement agencies are responsible for giving the FBI updated information."

This is not a new problem; it's only new that the FBI is admitting how bad it is." http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-libert...

Independent audit of immigration data reported at NCIC showed a 42% error rate.

Errors in computer data basis on crime information are a daily occurrence. Officers have testified in court that 20% of NCIC hits are erroneous. I suggest you read and comprehend this Fordham Law Journal publication from which the folling is taken.http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&co...

"In People v. Decuir,33 the defendant was arrested by a police officer
who had been furnished with NCIC information that there was a
warrant outstanding for the defendant's arrest. The NCIC information,
in fact, had been inaccurate for two months. 34 The court
granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence on a narcotics
charge stemming from a search incident to the arrest. 35 Following
Whitely, the court held that although the arresting officer acted
reasonably, the arrest was invalid because there was no probable
cause independent of the invalid warrant.3 The Decuir result is
correct in that the two month failure to cancel the NCIC information
concerning the outdated warrant was unreasonable action on the part
of the sending agency and could not be used to furnish probable cause"

You should have also have read this DOJ publication on Negligent Misuse of NCIC data. http://www.masc.sc/SiteCollectionDocuments/Municipal%20Court/NCI...


LOL! does NCIC contain a lot of misinformation? yes, but that's not what we were talking about.

to refresh your limited memory, we were discussing whether the feds refuse to hire people SOLELY for neglecting to report sealed/expunged arrests. answer? probably not. arrests aren't meaningful, since they can happen to anybody for PURE BULLSHIT.

but, if you want to discuss the failure of NCIC (or similar government databases), we can do that too.

I applied for a government job that asked whether I had ever been convicted of a felony? I put NO, since my felony had been reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged. But the morons at the county court had FAILED to update NCIC (or similar database) with the new information.

As a result, my background check showed that I had a felony conviction (for a white-collar offense), which was disqualifying for the government job I was applying for. But the mistake was really simple to clear up.

All I had to do was show the reduction/expungement paperwork to HR & was I quickly hired.

HR didn't give a shit that I was once a felon, as long as official paperwork showed that I was NO LONGER a felon (I also cleared up the omission at the state/federal levels, so that this nonsense wouldn't reoccur. that was really easy to do and was updated really fast---yes I got proof).

The above does not apply to the TSA

link

a person with a security clearance like that would not let it escalate that far, in fact they would tell the dealer they messed up the paperwork as soon as they saw it

hulamatt said:   a person with a security clearance like that would not let it escalate that far, in fact they would tell the dealer they messed up the paperwork as soon as they saw it

You must not know a lot of people with clearances...


Oh, and after a couple weeks, still not one single link to a story about someone loosing a clearance because of a past expungement issue.

money2011 said:   There's the thing SIS, even if his record is expunged won;t he have to check the box so to speak on future job applications asking if he was ever arrested for any reason?

Sure, he can explain the whole situation, submit proof that it was an error but, the gatekeepers of his future employer usually stop reading once they see that check mark. They never get to see the why.

For some government agencies, they specifically require you to disclose even if the record was sealed or expunged.

This could have life altering consequences.


I believe that expunging legally means you can answer "no" to that question.

Depends on the state law for expungement. In Texas the law is you must answer yes followed by the qualifier the matter was expunged. Expungements before Sept 1,1995 vary depending on the wording used by the state district court. Federal court is different and the basic answer is you will need a presidential pardon unless it was an arrest for a crime that may be reduced to a misdemeanor under FRCP17b. Then you may proceed to seal the record. Then you may answer no on questionaires. There was a bill filed int he House this time which would authorize federal expungements HR2449 but will probably die in committee. The only sure fire way to get a federal expungment is a jury acquittal. http://www.clearupmyrecord.com/reasons-for-expunging-dismissals-...

drsauce said:   He wants $500,000/hr for the time he spent in jail?

I want him to get enough money to scare the crap out of anyone ever thinking about requesting an arrest like this again.

Whenever I read stories about this I think about what must happen to people like my Grandparents on a daily basis. My grandparents nearly got taken on pre-sold funeral arrangements, car purchases, credit offers, cable, exterminators, you name it. I know it's not relevant to this individual's situation but if dealerships try to put one over on otherwise intelligent people, how badly can they get away with elderly people who are easily confused, sometimes skip details, forget things quickly and may not have a good understanding of a process?

My grandfather, a very proud man, eventually realized he needed help in big purchases or even something as simple as getting a different Cable TV package to avoid getting screwed. I sure hope I realize it too when I get "up there" in years.

Dawgswin said:   Whenever I read stories about this I think about what must happen to people like my Grandparents on a daily basis. My grandparents nearly got taken on pre-sold funeral arrangements, car purchases, credit offers, cable, exterminators, you name it. I know it's not relevant to this individual's situation but if dealerships try to put one over on otherwise intelligent people, how badly can they get away with elderly people who are easily confused, sometimes skip details, forget things quickly and may not have a good understanding of a process?

My grandfather, a very proud man, eventually realized he needed help in big purchases or even something as simple as getting a different Cable TV package to avoid getting screwed. I sure hope I realize it too when I get "up there" in years.


You know, I think your grandfather is ahead of the game. I know none of my grandparents could suck up their pride enough to ask for help on something like cable TV, and I'm sure they're getting screwed on it. Props to him, and for your family's willingness to help.

When my grandmother died we found out that she had been renting a phone from the local baby bell for the last 25 years. My sister called them up and said "wtf‽". The replied "Some of our older customers prefer to rent their phones."

joebos said:   When my grandmother died we found out that she had been renting a phone from the local baby bell for the last 25 years. My sister called them up and said "wtf‽". The replied "Some of our older customers prefer to rent their phones."

Not totally rare:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3538

While it's an outrageous amount of profit, who are we to blame them?

Unless the bill didn't have a detailed accounting, what more could they do? Lots of people still rent their modem from the cable company, too. As long as it's transparent on the bill, it's not really up to the company to call grandma and say "did you know for X months rent you could just BUY the phone/modem/etc". In fact, I know some people would be suspicious of the call and think they are going to get their long distance provider switched or locked into a contract.

Just providing an update...

Seven weeks after the president of Priority Chevrolet publicly apologized for the wrongful arrest of a customer and promised to make things right, his attorneys are asking the courts to dismiss the Chesapeake man's million-dollar lawsuits.

Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/dealership-wants-court-dismiss-b...

BADADVICE said:   Just providing an update...

Seven weeks after the president of Priority Chevrolet publicly apologized for the wrongful arrest of a customer and promised to make things right, his attorneys are asking the courts to dismiss the Chesapeake man's million-dollar lawsuits.

Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/dealership-wants-court-dismiss-b...



These guys are really interesting, are they not? There is no legal precedent that I have ever heard of that could possibly make them move this case to arbitration. Guess the car lot's lawyer is officially now "grasping at straws" in hope of something other than financial ruin for that dealership.

BADADVICE said:   Just providing an update...

Seven weeks after the president of Priority Chevrolet publicly apologized for the wrongful arrest of a customer and promised to make things right, his attorneys are asking the courts to dismiss the Chesapeake man's million-dollar lawsuits.

Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/dealership-wants-court-dismiss-b...


You mean a car dealer promised something and then didn't deliver????? GASP!

BADADVICE said:   
Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.


Thanks for the update!

I like that the dealership chose the BBB - they are a totally neutral party (right). It's not like the dealership is a member and pays annual fees to the BBB or anything.

Has there been any word of any of the dealership employees getting criminally charged with filing a false police report? That's what I really want to see.

Mickie3 said:   BADADVICE said:   Just providing an update...

Seven weeks after the president of Priority Chevrolet publicly apologized for the wrongful arrest of a customer and promised to make things right, his attorneys are asking the courts to dismiss the Chesapeake man's million-dollar lawsuits.

Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/dealership-wants-court-dismiss-b...



These guys are really interesting, are they not? There is no legal precedent that I have ever heard of that could possibly make them move this case to arbitration. Guess the car lot's lawyer is officially now "grasping at straws" in hope of something other than financial ruin for that dealership.


There might be something in the purchase agreement.

When will Congress get rid of mandatory binding arbitration?

LorenPechtel said:   Mickie3 said:   BADADVICE said:   Just providing an update...

Seven weeks after the president of Priority Chevrolet publicly apologized for the wrongful arrest of a customer and promised to make things right, his attorneys are asking the courts to dismiss the Chesapeake man's million-dollar lawsuits.

Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/dealership-wants-court-dismiss-b...



These guys are really interesting, are they not? There is no legal precedent that I have ever heard of that could possibly make them move this case to arbitration. Guess the car lot's lawyer is officially now "grasping at straws" in hope of something other than financial ruin for that dealership.


There might be something in the purchase agreement.

When will Congress get rid of mandatory binding arbitration?


There well may be in the purchase agreement, but somehow I can't fathom how a court could rule that being arrested, etc. was included in the purchase agreement. If that judge does happen to rule that way, willing to bet attorney can and will get it overturned quickly by appellate tribunal (and judge's hate to be overturned, so don't see that happening.)

LorenPechtel said:   Mickie3 said:   BADADVICE said:   Just providing an update...

Seven weeks after the president of Priority Chevrolet publicly apologized for the wrongful arrest of a customer and promised to make things right, his attorneys are asking the courts to dismiss the Chesapeake man's million-dollar lawsuits.

Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/dealership-wants-court-dismiss-b...



These guys are really interesting, are they not? There is no legal precedent that I have ever heard of that could possibly make them move this case to arbitration. Guess the car lot's lawyer is officially now "grasping at straws" in hope of something other than financial ruin for that dealership.


There might be something in the purchase agreement.

When will Congress get rid of mandatory binding arbitration?


According to the article, the contract did have an arbitration clause.
from the article said: "For someone who says they want to make it right, they are making no effort to do so," said Rebecca Colaw, Sawyer's attorney. She said she is not interested in arbitration - that the arbitration clause of her client's contract with Priority was voided when the dealership acted in "bad faith" and had him arrested.

Taking it another step, since the dealership was claiming the buyer didn't have a valid contract - that would mean the arbitration clause wouldn't count either

This dealer is really stupid for not making this issue just go away. I'm sure the plaintiff doesn't really expect 2mil, but would probably settle for $200,000 + cost of car (plaintiff keeps the car) + legal fees. In total, that shouldn't run more than $400,000. In my opinion that's well worth getting out from under this bad publicity. I'm sure their sales must have dipped from this. Who wants to buy a car and run the risk of getting arrested later?

civ2k1 said:   LorenPechtel said:   Mickie3 said:   BADADVICE said:   Just providing an update...

Seven weeks after the president of Priority Chevrolet publicly apologized for the wrongful arrest of a customer and promised to make things right, his attorneys are asking the courts to dismiss the Chesapeake man's million-dollar lawsuits.

Attorneys representing Priority also asked the Circuit Court last week to compel Danny Sawyer to enter into binding arbitration with the Better Business Bureau in Norfolk.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/dealership-wants-court-dismiss-b...



These guys are really interesting, are they not? There is no legal precedent that I have ever heard of that could possibly make them move this case to arbitration. Guess the car lot's lawyer is officially now "grasping at straws" in hope of something other than financial ruin for that dealership.


There might be something in the purchase agreement.

When will Congress get rid of mandatory binding arbitration?


According to the article, the contract did have an arbitration clause.
from the article said: "For someone who says they want to make it right, they are making no effort to do so," said Rebecca Colaw, Sawyer's attorney. She said she is not interested in arbitration - that the arbitration clause of her client's contract with Priority was voided when the dealership acted in "bad faith" and had him arrested.

Taking it another step, since the dealership was claiming the buyer didn't have a valid contract - that would mean the arbitration clause wouldn't count either

This dealer is really stupid for not making this issue just go away. I'm sure the plaintiff doesn't really expect 2mil, but would probably settle for $200,000 + cost of car (plaintiff keeps the car) + legal fees. In total, that shouldn't run more than $400,000. In my opinion that's well worth getting out from under this bad publicity. I'm sure their sales must have dipped from this. Who wants to buy a car and run the risk of getting arrested later?


Interesting PR strategy for the dealership... they laid low and waited for about 2 months for the national media spotlight to die down, then rescinded their attempt to make the customer "right". And this whole story will be back and bigger when/if this actually goes to trial.

BADADVICE said:   
Interesting PR strategy for the dealership... they laid low and waited for about 2 months for the national media spotlight to die down, then rescinded their attempt to make the customer "right". And this whole story will be back and bigger when/if this actually goes to trial.


It'll be like Casey Anthony 2.0. Grab your popcorn!

Maybe the Judge will do something cool. Like suggest an impartial arbitrator who can go over all the dealership transactions for the last five years (including the service and repair shop), and make sure everyone was treated fairly.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014