Employee training can cost a lot of money. Not training your employees can cost even more. In lawsuits, courts and regulatory agencies sometimes impose after-the-fact training requirements in addition to large monetary penalties. Consider these actual cases:

A dealership faced a wide range of complaints, including failure to disclose material defects and misrepresenting sales and extended service contract prices, and was ordered to pay $1.5 million in restitution to victims, plus $300,000 to the state Department of Consumer Protection. As part of the settlement, the dealer also agreed to initiate a mandatory education program for all its employees within 60 days of the settlement, instructing employees on state consumer protection laws.

A jury awarded a $14.4 million wrongful death verdict against a dealership that performed a faulty tire repair and failed to take the tire out of service, leading to a rollover crash that killed a couple. As a condition of the post-verdict settlement, the dealer agreed to implement a training program to better train its technicians about safe tire repair practices to improve consumer safety.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), entered into a $1.5 million settlement of a sex and age discrimination lawsuit with an auto dealership. Along with the monetary penalty, under a consent decree the dealership must provide current employees with four hours of EEO training annually and new hires must receive such training within ten days of employment.

The EEOC reached a $700,000 settlement of a national origin, religion and racial discrimination lawsuit against another dealership. According to the Consent Decree resolving the case, the dealership is required to hire a presenter approved by the EEOC to provide annual training to all of its managers and supervisory personnel on all aspects of Title VII.

What’s that old expression about closing the barn door after the horses are out?

Employee training can cost a lot of money. Not training your employees can cost even more. In lawsuits, courts and regulatory agencies sometimes impose after-the-fact training requirements in addition to large monetary penalties. Consider these actual cases:

A dealership faced a wide range of complaints, including failure to disclose material defects and misrepresenting sales and extended service contract prices, and was ordered to pay $1.5 million in restitution to victims, plus $300,000 to the state Department of Consumer Protection. As part of the settlement, the dealer also agreed to initiate a mandatory education program for all its employees within 60 days of the settlement, instructing employees on state consumer protection laws.

A jury awarded a $14.4 million wrongful death verdict against a dealership that performed a faulty tire repair and failed to take the tire out of service, leading to a rollover crash that killed a couple. As a condition of the post-verdict settlement, the dealer agreed to implement a training program to better train its technicians about safe tire repair practices to improve consumer safety.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), entered into a $1.5 million settlement of a sex and age discrimination lawsuit with an auto dealership. Along with the monetary penalty, under a consent decree the dealership must provide current employees with four hours of EEO training annually and new hires must receive such training within ten days of employment.

The EEOC reached a $700,000 settlement of a national origin, religion and racial discrimination lawsuit against another dealership. According to the Consent Decree resolving the case, the dealership is required to hire a presenter approved by the EEOC to provide annual training to all of its managers and supervisory personnel on all aspects of Title VII.

What’s that old expression about closing the barn door after the horses are out?

If your sales staff told you that they had a 50% closing ratio, would you take their word for it? I suspect not – you would probably track all of their opportunities to determine the true percentage. Most dealerships measure a vast number of items on a daily basis. After all, you can’t manage what you don’t measure, right?

How about the level of compliance and ethical behavior in your dealership? Is that something you measure or do you just take everyone’s word for it? Have you really thought about how your staff is conducting itself in these areas? Is it possible that some of these thoughts are floating around?

“We’ve always done it this way – haven’t been caught yet”
“Hey, if we get sued, that’s what insurance is for.”
“Compliance is not in my pay plan. I’ll do whatever it takes to make a decent paycheck.”

Sure, you can bury your head in the sand and hope for the best, but is it really worth finding out the hard way that you were mistaken, or that your customers are not being treated the way you expect?

Instead, why not follow a few simple steps?

1. Audit your operation to determine where you really stand.
2. Have your staff properly trained in all aspects of legal compliance.
3. Once trained, have them sign a code of ethics which will not only help protect the dealership, but let everyone know that the organization is serious about compliance and ethical behavior.

These steps are easy and far more affordable than the costs associated with lawsuits, regulatory actions and, most importantly, hits to your valuable reputation. Don’t find out the hard way that your operation isn’t as clean as you thought it was.

If your sales staff told you that they had a 50% closing ratio, would you take their word for it? I suspect not – you would probably track all of their opportunities to determine the true percentage. Most dealerships measure a vast number of items on a daily basis. After all, you can’t manage what you don’t measure, right?

How about the level of compliance and ethical behavior in your dealership? Is that something you measure or do you just take everyone’s word for it? Have you really thought about how your staff is conducting itself in these areas? Is it possible that some of these thoughts are floating around?

“We’ve always done it this way – haven’t been caught yet”
“Hey, if we get sued, that’s what insurance is for.”
“Compliance is not in my pay plan. I’ll do whatever it takes to make a decent paycheck.”

Sure, you can bury your head in the sand and hope for the best, but is it really worth finding out the hard way that you were mistaken, or that your customers are not being treated the way you expect?

Instead, why not follow a few simple steps?

1. Audit your operation to determine where you really stand.
2. Have your staff properly trained in all aspects of legal compliance.
3. Once trained, have them sign a code of ethics which will not only help protect the dealership, but let everyone know that the organization is serious about compliance and ethical behavior.

These steps are easy and far more affordable than the costs associated with lawsuits, regulatory actions and, most importantly, hits to your valuable reputation. Don’t find out the hard way that your operation isn’t as clean as you thought it was.

“BUYERS ARE LIARS”.

I don’t think I was in the car business one hour before I heard that catchy little phrase. Sure enough, over the course of my retail career, I suspect I was lied to over and over again by the best of them.

I’m not going to pontificate about what buyers lie about and why – many of us could easily write a book on that subject. Instead I’m going to bring up what I think is an important point – buyers can say pretty much whatever they want without fear of recourse, dealers cannot. Yep, that’s right. Buyers can outright lie through their teeth, but dealers are not allowed to stretch the truth even a little.

Doesn’t seem fair, does it? Well it’s not. All may be fair in love and war, but it sure isn’t fair on a car lot. For the most part, when buyers lie to a dealer, they get to go on their merry old way. But if a dealership is accused of being dishonest with a customer, either by commission or omission, they may end up in a courtroom or worse.

When you look at actual enforcement actions and court cases against dealerships, there is typically one common element – the perception that the dealer was less than completely honest with a consumer. The laws allow for a very broad interpretation of what is considered to be unfair or deceptive. Here are some common examples of accusations by plaintiff’s attorneys and regulators:

• Making false statements or failing to disclose a material facts to a consumer
• Oral promises made to the consumer that the dealer fails to deliver upon
• Misleading statements about APR, such as “You won’t be able to get a better interest rate than this”, when the buy rate is being marked up
• Communicating information in a manner that may be misleading, either by commission or omission
• Adding the cost of an F&I product to a consumer’s purchase agreement or lease without first obtaining the consumer’s express consent to purchase the product
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that the price of any F&I product is included in the price of the motor vehicle
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that the sale or lease of a vehicle subject to credit approval is a final or completed transaction
• Altering documents without the knowledge and permission of all parties
• Obtaining a credit bureau without proper authorization
• Failing to sell a vehicle at or below an advertised price, whether or not the consumer knows about the advertisement
• Advertising vehicles with intent not to sell them as advertised
• Misrepresenting discounts in advertising and not disclosing important limitations
• Advertising claims such as "everyone financed," "no credit rejected," or similar claims when the dealer is unwilling to extend credit to any person under any and all circumstances
• Engaging in false or misleading advertising, either orally or by way of media
• Advertising “no money down” or “zero drive off” when there is actually some money needed to achieve the advertised payment amount (such as tax, license, acquisition fee, etc.)
• Representing to a consumer that a vehicle is available for sale when it is not
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that an F&I product is a required purchase
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that purchase of an F&I product will increase the likelihood that the consumer will be approved for financing or that financing will be approved on more favorable terms to the consumer
• Increasing the selling price of a vehicle to cover a bank acquisition fee
• Intentionally overstating a vehicle’s value by supplying an incorrect book-sheet or due bill to a financial institution
• Over-allowing on a trade-in, thereby increasing the sale price of the purchased vehicle or failing to properly disclose negative equity
• Misrepresenting the amount of rebates available to a customer
• Engaging in payment packing, i.e. inflating payments, inflating down payments, extending the contract term or in any way disguising the actual charges for goods or services.
• Knowingly delivering a vehicle where the lender or lessor will not approve the consumer for financing according to the terms set forth in the installment sales or lease contract, with the intention of re-writing the contract at a later date
• Failing to properly disclose deferred down payments
• Knowingly misrepresenting a vehicle’s prior history or condition, either by commission or omission
• Forging documents
• Knowingly misrepresenting a vehicle, products or the terms being offered
• Falsifying, or allowing to be falsified, any information on a credit application
• Knowingly allowing a consumer to participate in a “straw purchase”
• Misrepresenting the scope or extent of coverage under a service contract or warranty

It’s more important than ever to be very careful when dealing with customers. Plaintiff’s attorneys are constantly on the prowl for cases and regulators recognize the political capital in going after dealers. There’s just no upside to being accused of lying.

The good news is that you can feel free to lie to car salespeople in your spare time.

“BUYERS ARE LIARS”.

I don’t think I was in the car business one hour before I heard that catchy little phrase. Sure enough, over the course of my retail career, I suspect I was lied to over and over again by the best of them.

I’m not going to pontificate about what buyers lie about and why – many of us could easily write a book on that subject. Instead I’m going to bring up what I think is an important point – buyers can say pretty much whatever they want without fear of recourse, dealers cannot. Yep, that’s right. Buyers can outright lie through their teeth, but dealers are not allowed to stretch the truth even a little.

Doesn’t seem fair, does it? Well it’s not. All may be fair in love and war, but it sure isn’t fair on a car lot. For the most part, when buyers lie to a dealer, they get to go on their merry old way. But if a dealership is accused of being dishonest with a customer, either by commission or omission, they may end up in a courtroom or worse.

When you look at actual enforcement actions and court cases against dealerships, there is typically one common element – the perception that the dealer was less than completely honest with a consumer. The laws allow for a very broad interpretation of what is considered to be unfair or deceptive. Here are some common examples of accusations by plaintiff’s attorneys and regulators:

• Making false statements or failing to disclose a material facts to a consumer
• Oral promises made to the consumer that the dealer fails to deliver upon
• Misleading statements about APR, such as “You won’t be able to get a better interest rate than this”, when the buy rate is being marked up
• Communicating information in a manner that may be misleading, either by commission or omission
• Adding the cost of an F&I product to a consumer’s purchase agreement or lease without first obtaining the consumer’s express consent to purchase the product
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that the price of any F&I product is included in the price of the motor vehicle
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that the sale or lease of a vehicle subject to credit approval is a final or completed transaction
• Altering documents without the knowledge and permission of all parties
• Obtaining a credit bureau without proper authorization
• Failing to sell a vehicle at or below an advertised price, whether or not the consumer knows about the advertisement
• Advertising vehicles with intent not to sell them as advertised
• Misrepresenting discounts in advertising and not disclosing important limitations
• Advertising claims such as "everyone financed," "no credit rejected," or similar claims when the dealer is unwilling to extend credit to any person under any and all circumstances
• Engaging in false or misleading advertising, either orally or by way of media
• Advertising “no money down” or “zero drive off” when there is actually some money needed to achieve the advertised payment amount (such as tax, license, acquisition fee, etc.)
• Representing to a consumer that a vehicle is available for sale when it is not
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that an F&I product is a required purchase
• Informing or suggesting to a consumer that purchase of an F&I product will increase the likelihood that the consumer will be approved for financing or that financing will be approved on more favorable terms to the consumer
• Increasing the selling price of a vehicle to cover a bank acquisition fee
• Intentionally overstating a vehicle’s value by supplying an incorrect book-sheet or due bill to a financial institution
• Over-allowing on a trade-in, thereby increasing the sale price of the purchased vehicle or failing to properly disclose negative equity
• Misrepresenting the amount of rebates available to a customer
• Engaging in payment packing, i.e. inflating payments, inflating down payments, extending the contract term or in any way disguising the actual charges for goods or services.
• Knowingly delivering a vehicle where the lender or lessor will not approve the consumer for financing according to the terms set forth in the installment sales or lease contract, with the intention of re-writing the contract at a later date
• Failing to properly disclose deferred down payments
• Knowingly misrepresenting a vehicle’s prior history or condition, either by commission or omission
• Forging documents
• Knowingly misrepresenting a vehicle, products or the terms being offered
• Falsifying, or allowing to be falsified, any information on a credit application
• Knowingly allowing a consumer to participate in a “straw purchase”
• Misrepresenting the scope or extent of coverage under a service contract or warranty

It’s more important than ever to be very careful when dealing with customers. Plaintiff’s attorneys are constantly on the prowl for cases and regulators recognize the political capital in going after dealers. There’s just no upside to being accused of lying.

The good news is that you can feel free to lie to car salespeople in your spare time.

I was browsing through the website of a prominent dealer-chasing law firm this morning (I know, I have weird hobbies), and came across a posting about a dealer with a link to a YouTube video. This dealership is part of a good-sized group that is very well-regarded in the area. As I am personally acquainted with this dealer group, I can attest to their integrity and dedication to customer satisfaction. So, when I clicked on the YouTube link, I expected to see another unconvincing customer with a bad case of buyer’s remorse. Well, I wasn’t disappointed – the customer bought a cheap older car and expected it to run like a brand-new Mercedes.

Not surprisingly, the video attempted to make the dealership look terrible and completely at fault. But here’s the thing - this video wasn’t an amateurish clip of a customer ranting and raving, it was obviously professionally done. So well done in fact that I suspect most consumers viewing the video would find it believable.

Then I noticed the view count on the video. Just short of 110,000 views so far, most of which are from the last month or so. Needless to say, I was astounded! One car deal, one customer, one dealership, over 100 thousand views? No way, this has to be a mistake.

Sadly, it’s no mistake. Here’s how it happened:

The video was produced by a consumer group who naturally had an agenda of their own. While the customer’s initial complaint was that the car had problems and he wanted his money back, a good portion of the video dealt with how the customer was saddled with an unfair arbitration agreement by the dealer. Now, according to the clip, the poor customer can’t get his day in court, has had to wait years for his arbitration hearing, has little or no chance of winning in arbitration because it’s skewed towards the dealer, and all kinds of other nonsense.

The arbitration issue is what caused this video to go viral. Consumer groups and plaintiff’s attorneys have been lobbying against arbitration agreements for years. This is just another sneaky way to promote their agenda. There are now links to this video on consumer sites, legal blogs, you name it. The worst part is that the video shows up on page one when you Google the dealership or search on YouTube. It’s just a darn shame.

I was browsing through the website of a prominent dealer-chasing law firm this morning (I know, I have weird hobbies), and came across a posting about a dealer with a link to a YouTube video. This dealership is part of a good-sized group that is very well-regarded in the area. As I am personally acquainted with this dealer group, I can attest to their integrity and dedication to customer satisfaction. So, when I clicked on the YouTube link, I expected to see another unconvincing customer with a bad case of buyer’s remorse. Well, I wasn’t disappointed – the customer bought a cheap older car and expected it to run like a brand-new Mercedes.

Not surprisingly, the video attempted to make the dealership look terrible and completely at fault. But here’s the thing - this video wasn’t an amateurish clip of a customer ranting and raving, it was obviously professionally done. So well done in fact that I suspect most consumers viewing the video would find it believable.

Then I noticed the view count on the video. Just short of 110,000 views so far, most of which are from the last month or so. Needless to say, I was astounded! One car deal, one customer, one dealership, over 100 thousand views? No way, this has to be a mistake.

Sadly, it’s no mistake. Here’s how it happened:

The video was produced by a consumer group who naturally had an agenda of their own. While the customer’s initial complaint was that the car had problems and he wanted his money back, a good portion of the video dealt with how the customer was saddled with an unfair arbitration agreement by the dealer. Now, according to the clip, the poor customer can’t get his day in court, has had to wait years for his arbitration hearing, has little or no chance of winning in arbitration because it’s skewed towards the dealer, and all kinds of other nonsense.

The arbitration issue is what caused this video to go viral. Consumer groups and plaintiff’s attorneys have been lobbying against arbitration agreements for years. This is just another sneaky way to promote their agenda. There are now links to this video on consumer sites, legal blogs, you name it. The worst part is that the video shows up on page one when you Google the dealership or search on YouTube. It’s just a darn shame.

I get it. It’s tough out there. Customer access to information on the internet continues to squeeze margins. Dealerships are just trying to make a buck in a fiercely competitive marketplace. You have to do whatever it takes to stay ahead of the competition.

I also get that some may view compliance as unnecessary, overrated, annoying, a waste of time and money, and downright harmful to profitability. These are perceptions and as they say, perception is reality.

Some employees may be tempted to step over the line ethically when trying to make a deal. After all, the chances of getting caught are pretty slim, right? That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is to ask yourself what’s really more important in the long run - flying under the radar or satisfying your customers? In my view, when it comes to compliance and ethical behavior, the true payoff is customer satisfaction and retention. It really comes down to one simple premise - your customer’s perception is the only reality that should matter.

“We have to advertise aggressively and do whatever it takes to drive traffic to the dealership.”
Customer Perception – “I hate the way you advertise. Why is it that the deal is never what it seems? Like when you advertise a car for $7,000 and when I get there I find out that the $7,000 is only the up-front payment for a pre-paid lease and the residual is $11,000. Why can’t you just advertise the real price with no tricks?”

“Customers make ridiculously low offers. If we don’t pack the payments they won’t feel like they got a deal. It’s all part of the game.”
Customer Perception – I hate that damned “four-square” thing you do! It really tempts me to do something uncivilized with your green sharpie. I didn’t come here for a shell game – I came here to give you the opportunity to give me real numbers and perhaps sell me a car. If I didn’t like your car, I wouldn’t be here - why do feel it is necessary to play games with me?”

“If a customer is willing to pay more than the ad price, I’m not going to talk him out of it.”
Customer Perception – “It’s ridiculous that you have multiple prices. Why is it that you advertise one price on the internet and a different price on the lot? Why must I have to try to negotiate down to the price that you have already advertised? I’m not Inspector Closeau – I just want a fair deal and don’t want to be treated like an idiot because I failed to turn over every rock to find your “best” price.”

“Whatever you do, don’t sell the ad car, it’s a big loser. Get the customer down here and switch them to something we can make money on.”
Customer Perception – “I saw an advertisement for a great price so I called you and asked if the car was still available. You told me ‘Yes, c’mon down’. When I got there a short time later, I was told ‘the car was sold last night but don’t worry, we’ll give you a great deal on something else’. Why did you lie to me?”

“The only reason we advertise those loss leaders is to get people on the lot. No way am I going to sell a car and lose money.”
Customer Perception – “I tried to buy a car at the price you advertised in the paper and you told me that the ad was a mistake and the real price is higher. I don’t believe that for a second.”

“We need to close the customer at the highest payment possible so we can make some money.”
Customer Perception – “You told me that the service contract and other accessories were included, but when I read my contract I see that you charged me thousands more.”

“This customer is credit-challenged, she’s lucky to get approved at all.”
Customer Perception – “You told me that the bank won’t finance me unless I pay a higher price for the car and I buy a service contract to “protect the loan”. I’m willing to pay a higher interest rate, but I don’t think it’s fair that I have to pay more for the car too.”

“Your customer’s debt-to-income ratio sucks. We need to give him a raise and hope the bank doesn’t stip for income.”
Customer Perception – “You lied about my income on the credit application and told me not to worry because the bank won’t ask for proof. What else are you lying about? And what happens if the bank calls me, do you expect me to lie to them too? It doesn’t seem like the right thing to do.”

“That’s the perfect car for your customer. Do whatever it takes to send her home in it.”
Customer Perception – “You told me that the car I bought is a ‘one-owner creampuff’, then I find out that the ‘one owner’ was Hertz Rent-a Car! Why did you lie to me? I still might have bought another car from you if you had told me the truth.”

“I’ll over-allow on the trade to make them happy, just close them at this payment.”
Customer Perception – “You told me you would pay off my trade then I found out you added thousands to the price of the car I bought. I would have sold the car myself if I knew you were going to charge me more.”

“We need get rid of those grounded demos.”
Customer Perception – “I was told that the car I bought was new and had a full factory warranty. When I asked why it had 7,000 miles on it, I was told that the manager drove it back and forth to work. Then I found out that a good portion of the warranty was used up.”

“If a customer asks about that painted fender, just say it was key-scratched and repaired.”
Customer Perception – “When I asked you if the car have ever been in an accident, you said it hadn’t. Then my neighbor, who runs a body shop, checked out the car and told me tells me that it’s been wrecked.”

“Let’s just roll the deal. Once they fall in love with the car and show it to all of their friends, they’ll re-write at a higher payment.”
Customer Perception – “You told me my loan was approved, and then you called me back and told me that I need to put more money down and agree to a higher payment or you’ll take the car back. I never would have taken the car home if I knew this was going to happen.”


This article is intended as food for thought. You may agree or disagree. One final thought though - a consumer law firm or attorney general’s perception of the above scenarios probably wouldn’t be pretty.

I get it. It’s tough out there. Customer access to information on the internet continues to squeeze margins. Dealerships are just trying to make a buck in a fiercely competitive marketplace. You have to do whatever it takes to stay ahead of the competition.

I also get that some may view compliance as unnecessary, overrated, annoying, a waste of time and money, and downright harmful to profitability. These are perceptions and as they say, perception is reality.

Some employees may be tempted to step over the line ethically when trying to make a deal. After all, the chances of getting caught are pretty slim, right? That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is to ask yourself what’s really more important in the long run - flying under the radar or satisfying your customers? In my view, when it comes to compliance and ethical behavior, the true payoff is customer satisfaction and retention. It really comes down to one simple premise - your customer’s perception is the only reality that should matter.

“We have to advertise aggressively and do whatever it takes to drive traffic to the dealership.”
Customer Perception – “I hate the way you advertise. Why is it that the deal is never what it seems? Like when you advertise a car for $7,000 and when I get there I find out that the $7,000 is only the up-front payment for a pre-paid lease and the residual is $11,000. Why can’t you just advertise the real price with no tricks?”

“Customers make ridiculously low offers. If we don’t pack the payments they won’t feel like they got a deal. It’s all part of the game.”
Customer Perception – I hate that damned “four-square” thing you do! It really tempts me to do something uncivilized with your green sharpie. I didn’t come here for a shell game – I came here to give you the opportunity to give me real numbers and perhaps sell me a car. If I didn’t like your car, I wouldn’t be here - why do feel it is necessary to play games with me?”

“If a customer is willing to pay more than the ad price, I’m not going to talk him out of it.”
Customer Perception – “It’s ridiculous that you have multiple prices. Why is it that you advertise one price on the internet and a different price on the lot? Why must I have to try to negotiate down to the price that you have already advertised? I’m not Inspector Closeau – I just want a fair deal and don’t want to be treated like an idiot because I failed to turn over every rock to find your “best” price.”

“Whatever you do, don’t sell the ad car, it’s a big loser. Get the customer down here and switch them to something we can make money on.”
Customer Perception – “I saw an advertisement for a great price so I called you and asked if the car was still available. You told me ‘Yes, c’mon down’. When I got there a short time later, I was told ‘the car was sold last night but don’t worry, we’ll give you a great deal on something else’. Why did you lie to me?”

“The only reason we advertise those loss leaders is to get people on the lot. No way am I going to sell a car and lose money.”
Customer Perception – “I tried to buy a car at the price you advertised in the paper and you told me that the ad was a mistake and the real price is higher. I don’t believe that for a second.”

“We need to close the customer at the highest payment possible so we can make some money.”
Customer Perception – “You told me that the service contract and other accessories were included, but when I read my contract I see that you charged me thousands more.”

“This customer is credit-challenged, she’s lucky to get approved at all.”
Customer Perception – “You told me that the bank won’t finance me unless I pay a higher price for the car and I buy a service contract to “protect the loan”. I’m willing to pay a higher interest rate, but I don’t think it’s fair that I have to pay more for the car too.”

“Your customer’s debt-to-income ratio sucks. We need to give him a raise and hope the bank doesn’t stip for income.”
Customer Perception – “You lied about my income on the credit application and told me not to worry because the bank won’t ask for proof. What else are you lying about? And what happens if the bank calls me, do you expect me to lie to them too? It doesn’t seem like the right thing to do.”

“That’s the perfect car for your customer. Do whatever it takes to send her home in it.”
Customer Perception – “You told me that the car I bought is a ‘one-owner creampuff’, then I find out that the ‘one owner’ was Hertz Rent-a Car! Why did you lie to me? I still might have bought another car from you if you had told me the truth.”

“I’ll over-allow on the trade to make them happy, just close them at this payment.”
Customer Perception – “You told me you would pay off my trade then I found out you added thousands to the price of the car I bought. I would have sold the car myself if I knew you were going to charge me more.”

“We need get rid of those grounded demos.”
Customer Perception – “I was told that the car I bought was new and had a full factory warranty. When I asked why it had 7,000 miles on it, I was told that the manager drove it back and forth to work. Then I found out that a good portion of the warranty was used up.”

“If a customer asks about that painted fender, just say it was key-scratched and repaired.”
Customer Perception – “When I asked you if the car have ever been in an accident, you said it hadn’t. Then my neighbor, who runs a body shop, checked out the car and told me tells me that it’s been wrecked.”

“Let’s just roll the deal. Once they fall in love with the car and show it to all of their friends, they’ll re-write at a higher payment.”
Customer Perception – “You told me my loan was approved, and then you called me back and told me that I need to put more money down and agree to a higher payment or you’ll take the car back. I never would have taken the car home if I knew this was going to happen.”


This article is intended as food for thought. You may agree or disagree. One final thought though - a consumer law firm or attorney general’s perception of the above scenarios probably wouldn’t be pretty.