There are a number of good reasons for operating an ethical and legally compliant dealership, not the least of which is staying out of a courtroom.  Perhaps the most important - and most often overlooked - reason is increased customer satisfaction.  There are times when an employee may feel that he or she came out the winner by bending the rules a little, but what about the dealership’s reputation?  What about the customers who were mislead?  It seems like there might be some losers in the game.

Customers often make decisions during a vehicle sale transaction that they come to regret after the “ether has worn off”.  Perhaps they read the contract more carefully after they got home or showed it to a relative, friend, neighbor, etc.  The customer may notice some imperfections on the vehicle in the light of day and have it inspected by a mechanic or body shop or run a vehicle history report.  If there is a concern, some customers will let the dealer know while others will just chalk it up to (bad) experience.

Now, if the dealer is lucky enough to get a chance to rectify the customer’s concern, how will the complaint be handled?  Will it be “Sorry, all sales are final” or “You signed the contract”?

What about the customer that doesn’t bother to report the concern?  You can be sure they’re telling somebody about the transaction.  Or perhaps they’re telling thousands of people via social media?

Here are some examples of after-sale situations that can cause potential customer satisfaction nightmares:

• The customer sees your advertisement for a price lower than was charged for the vehicle.
• The customer discovers additional charges on the contract for items that he or she thought were included in the price of the vehicle.
• The customer discovers that F&I products were sold at much-higher-than-market prices.
• The customer discovers additional charges on the contract for items that he or she never agreed to purchase.
• The customer gets a call from the lender who asks for verification that the vehicle has a sunroof – and it doesn’t.
• The customer discovers that the price of the vehicle was raised to cover negative equity on the trade-in when after being told that the dealer agreed to purchase the trade-in for the full loan balance.
• The customer gets a call from the lender asking for verification of an income amount which is much higher than what was written on the credit application.
• The customer discovers that the vehicle purchased had undisclosed prior damage.
• The customer runs a vehicle history report and discovers that the vehicle purchased was an undisclosed previous rental, a prior demo, flood damaged, etc.
• The customer brings the vehicle in for repairs and discovers that the warranty or service contract coverage or term was misrepresented.

Sure, you made the deal. But is it really worth putting the reputation that you have worked years to build at risk? Take compliance and ethical behavior seriously.  A commitment to honesty and fair dealing will protect your company, your employees, your customers and, most importantly, your good name.

There are a number of good reasons for operating an ethical and legally compliant dealership, not the least of which is staying out of a courtroom.  Perhaps the most important - and most often overlooked - reason is increased customer satisfaction.  There are times when an employee may feel that he or she came out the winner by bending the rules a little, but what about the dealership’s reputation?  What about the customers who were mislead?  It seems like there might be some losers in the game.

Customers often make decisions during a vehicle sale transaction that they come to regret after the “ether has worn off”.  Perhaps they read the contract more carefully after they got home or showed it to a relative, friend, neighbor, etc.  The customer may notice some imperfections on the vehicle in the light of day and have it inspected by a mechanic or body shop or run a vehicle history report.  If there is a concern, some customers will let the dealer know while others will just chalk it up to (bad) experience.

Now, if the dealer is lucky enough to get a chance to rectify the customer’s concern, how will the complaint be handled?  Will it be “Sorry, all sales are final” or “You signed the contract”?

What about the customer that doesn’t bother to report the concern?  You can be sure they’re telling somebody about the transaction.  Or perhaps they’re telling thousands of people via social media?

Here are some examples of after-sale situations that can cause potential customer satisfaction nightmares:

• The customer sees your advertisement for a price lower than was charged for the vehicle.
• The customer discovers additional charges on the contract for items that he or she thought were included in the price of the vehicle.
• The customer discovers that F&I products were sold at much-higher-than-market prices.
• The customer discovers additional charges on the contract for items that he or she never agreed to purchase.
• The customer gets a call from the lender who asks for verification that the vehicle has a sunroof – and it doesn’t.
• The customer discovers that the price of the vehicle was raised to cover negative equity on the trade-in when after being told that the dealer agreed to purchase the trade-in for the full loan balance.
• The customer gets a call from the lender asking for verification of an income amount which is much higher than what was written on the credit application.
• The customer discovers that the vehicle purchased had undisclosed prior damage.
• The customer runs a vehicle history report and discovers that the vehicle purchased was an undisclosed previous rental, a prior demo, flood damaged, etc.
• The customer brings the vehicle in for repairs and discovers that the warranty or service contract coverage or term was misrepresented.

Sure, you made the deal. But is it really worth putting the reputation that you have worked years to build at risk? Take compliance and ethical behavior seriously.  A commitment to honesty and fair dealing will protect your company, your employees, your customers and, most importantly, your good name.

A recently filed lawsuit against an auto dealership accused a sales manager of sexual harassment and sexual battery against a salesperson. According to the complaint, the employee was harassed continuously over a ten day period and ultimately quit due to the alleged behavior.  The complaint further stated that the dealership should have known what was going on and tried to correct it.

The dealership responded that the claims have no merit, that it has a zero-tolerance harassment policy and that human resources was not contacted about the situation, as its employee handbook specifies.

I have no idea what the true merits of this particular case are, but it brings to mind what an uphill battle fighting these claims can be.

In some cases, employers may be considered to be “strictly liable” for sexual harassment, meaning that the employer is liable for harassment by an employee or other individual even if the employer did not know about the harassment or acted immediately to stop it. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has recognized a viable defense to this liability. If an employer can prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and the complaining employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities the employer provided or to otherwise avoid harm, the employer may avoid liability for unlawful harassment. Note however, where a supervisor’s harassment includes a tangible employment action (for example, firing the individual); this defense may not be used. An employer is always liable for harassment by a supervisor on a prohibited basis that culminates in a tangible employment action. The Supreme Court recognized that this result is appropriate because an employer acts through its supervisors, and a supervisor's undertaking of a tangible employment action constitutes an act of the employer.

The result in the this case may well come down to whether or not the court believes that the employer exercised “reasonable care” and that the employee “unreasonably” failed to take advantage of opportunities that the employer provided.

Most dealerships have an anti-harassment policy in place that they have all of their employees sign. That’s a great first step, but the questions remain: Have the employees actually read the policy and do they really understand it? Are they really aware of the procedures set forth in the policy to protect them from harassment?

If employees are trained on exactly what to do in the case of harassment (like who to report it to, and so forth) and fail to do so, the dealer will likely be in a better position to defend itself against a claim. On the other hand, if victims of harassment are uncertain about whom to report the harassment to within the company or worse yet, their claims are not taken seriously; they may feel their only recourse is to contact an attorney. That’s when it gets ugly.

The following procedures can be helpful in demonstrating that an employer has taken reasonable care in preventing or mitigating harassment:

• Preparing and adopting an anti-harassment policy and communicating the anti-harassment policies to all employees.
• Clearly communicating that harassment will not be tolerated and clearly explaining prohibited conduct.
• Creating a sexual harassment complaint procedure and explaining the employee’s obligation to report any conduct that may be viewed as harassing.
• Providing every employee with a copy of the harassment policy and complaint procedure, and redistributing it periodically.  The policy and complaint procedure should be written in a way that will be understood by all employees in the employer's workforce.
• Making the anti-harassment policy easily accessible via the company intranet, posters, employee handbooks and including it in the new-hire process.
• Providing sexual harassment training to all employees to ensure that they understand their rights and responsibilities.
• Taking any claim seriously and investigating it.
• Taking prompt and appropriate action.

Unfortunately, being a traditionally male-dominated industry, harassment claims against auto dealerships are not an uncommon occurrence. Having a policy in place and hanging posters may not be enough to adequately protect yourself.

A recently filed lawsuit against an auto dealership accused a sales manager of sexual harassment and sexual battery against a salesperson. According to the complaint, the employee was harassed continuously over a ten day period and ultimately quit due to the alleged behavior.  The complaint further stated that the dealership should have known what was going on and tried to correct it.

The dealership responded that the claims have no merit, that it has a zero-tolerance harassment policy and that human resources was not contacted about the situation, as its employee handbook specifies.

I have no idea what the true merits of this particular case are, but it brings to mind what an uphill battle fighting these claims can be.

In some cases, employers may be considered to be “strictly liable” for sexual harassment, meaning that the employer is liable for harassment by an employee or other individual even if the employer did not know about the harassment or acted immediately to stop it. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has recognized a viable defense to this liability. If an employer can prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and the complaining employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities the employer provided or to otherwise avoid harm, the employer may avoid liability for unlawful harassment. Note however, where a supervisor’s harassment includes a tangible employment action (for example, firing the individual); this defense may not be used. An employer is always liable for harassment by a supervisor on a prohibited basis that culminates in a tangible employment action. The Supreme Court recognized that this result is appropriate because an employer acts through its supervisors, and a supervisor's undertaking of a tangible employment action constitutes an act of the employer.

The result in the this case may well come down to whether or not the court believes that the employer exercised “reasonable care” and that the employee “unreasonably” failed to take advantage of opportunities that the employer provided.

Most dealerships have an anti-harassment policy in place that they have all of their employees sign. That’s a great first step, but the questions remain: Have the employees actually read the policy and do they really understand it? Are they really aware of the procedures set forth in the policy to protect them from harassment?

If employees are trained on exactly what to do in the case of harassment (like who to report it to, and so forth) and fail to do so, the dealer will likely be in a better position to defend itself against a claim. On the other hand, if victims of harassment are uncertain about whom to report the harassment to within the company or worse yet, their claims are not taken seriously; they may feel their only recourse is to contact an attorney. That’s when it gets ugly.

The following procedures can be helpful in demonstrating that an employer has taken reasonable care in preventing or mitigating harassment:

• Preparing and adopting an anti-harassment policy and communicating the anti-harassment policies to all employees.
• Clearly communicating that harassment will not be tolerated and clearly explaining prohibited conduct.
• Creating a sexual harassment complaint procedure and explaining the employee’s obligation to report any conduct that may be viewed as harassing.
• Providing every employee with a copy of the harassment policy and complaint procedure, and redistributing it periodically.  The policy and complaint procedure should be written in a way that will be understood by all employees in the employer's workforce.
• Making the anti-harassment policy easily accessible via the company intranet, posters, employee handbooks and including it in the new-hire process.
• Providing sexual harassment training to all employees to ensure that they understand their rights and responsibilities.
• Taking any claim seriously and investigating it.
• Taking prompt and appropriate action.

Unfortunately, being a traditionally male-dominated industry, harassment claims against auto dealerships are not an uncommon occurrence. Having a policy in place and hanging posters may not be enough to adequately protect yourself.

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?

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.