# Dealer want new lease contract signed.



## chrischeung (Sep 1, 2002)

Are you claiming the BMWCCA rebate?


----------



## ChrisF01 (Aug 21, 2012)

tomyboy28 said:


> Update:
> 
> I called the sales manager yesterday afternoon and he was unavailable so I left a message. He called me this morning and said there was an 'error' on their printer and they needed to come sit down with them for 1/2 to go over and sign the new lease. I told them (which is true) that I couldn't make the hour drive this week due to work. He then told me he thinks can get someone to come to my work with the new paper work. He then asked me how many bimmers I've bought from them to which I responded 3. He said he would talk it over with his 'team' this morning and give me a call back in an hour. It's now been 6 hours. So I don't know what's going on.
> 
> Another question. I already have 2,000 on my car and the new lease indicates 20 miles on the car. Should I ask them to put the actual miles that are currently on the car in the new lease but ask them to leave the 36,000 miles on the lease? In essence asking them to give me those first 2,000 miles for free? Thanks guys!


Error on their printer? This is why I'd tell them to pound sand, they're lying to you about the mistake. They should have just been upfront with you, hey the FI person was new, sick, having a bad day - whatever.

They can compensate you for your time on this, if it was a Bimmerfest sponsor I was dealing with I would go re-sign, but some random shady dealer? If you're having to re-sign, re-examine the paperwork, they can eat some of that profit they included in that deal. Just re-signing is letting them off the hook, and they're not even trying to compromise with you.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

tomyboy28 said:


> He then told me he thinks can get someone to come to my work with the new paper work. He then asked me how many bimmers I've bought from them to which I responded 3. He said he would talk it over with his 'team' this morning and give me a call back in an hour. It's now been 6 hours. So I don't know what's going on.


Call him back and remind him that he promised to "talk it over with his team." Tell him you would like a "member of his team" to come out to your work to get this thing signed. Remind him that you bought three BMWs from him and suggest something that would ease your disappointment at the way this thing has been mishandled. I don't know what, that's up to you. Do you like any of those expensive BMW car cleaning kits with all their super-duper products and lamb's wool mitts and stuff? Anything else in the under $200 range that you can think of right now? Just don't go overboard. 



> Another question. I already have 2,000 on my car and the new lease indicates 20 miles on the car. Should I ask them to put the actual miles that are currently on the car in the new lease but ask them to leave the 36,000 miles on the lease? In essence asking them to give me those first 2,000 miles for free? Thanks guys!


They can't do that even if they wanted to. The lease has to be dated with the previous date and the mileage has to be the actual mileage that was on the odometer when the car was delivered to you. This is not negotiable at all.


----------



## veery (Feb 25, 2015)

Resign is a funny word! Are you resigned to resigning? Maybe the F&I guy should consider it.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

veery said:


> Resign is a funny word!


It's one of those words in the English language that can have more than one completely different meanings. Will you please resign this lease? Nixon announced that he will resign the presidency at noon today.


----------



## veery (Feb 25, 2015)

Like _sanction_, _oversight,_ and some others. For those learning English as a second language, this is a tough one.

It was an oversight that the US failed to sanction the offending country. But the agency handling the oversight of the behavior evidently thought it was sanctioned.


----------



## opfreak (Nov 10, 2009)

Breakerofthings said:


> I agree with Bimmerbuff.
> 
> It's a tough position because you don't want to dehumanize the dealership and say "sucks for you" (it should be acknowledged that real people made these mistakes), but you have to wonder how helpful they would be were the situation reversed. For example, if someone told you that you should qualify for X money factor, then RIGHT BEFORE you sign the lease, they say "Oh, sorry, your money factor will have to be higher based on your credit", then you find out a few weeks later that you should have qualified for a better one and whoever said that made a mistake. I honestly can't imagine the dealership saying anything other than "Yes, you should've qualified, but you signed the lease at the money factor you agreed on and that's on you."





Ninong said:


> Except this is not a situation like that, is it?


Because that situation never happens. No dealer is going to come back and say, opps sorry we put the interest rate in too high, here's some cashback.

Most of the time you from from a sales guy where you settle on a price, to a finance guy thats trying to jack the rate up.

With dealers its always tails you lose, heads I win.

Now the OP did originally agree to some pay around 650 dollars. But when it came down to sign for the car he signed up for payments for $590.

What fault of OP's was it that the dealer made some error? OP didn't write the contract, OP didn't fill out the lease document. OP got a price form the dealer, on paper, and signed for it.

Dealer should be kissing OP's behind to get him to resign. Or working to get the car back. But the dealer doesn't want a 'new' bmw with 2000 miles on it back on his lot does he?

OP has the trump card here, (provided he's willing to walk away). Unwind the deal get your car/cash back and find something else. He should use that against the dealer.


----------



## sactoken (Apr 4, 2004)

The way the dealer has handled this is appalling. When they discovered the error, they should have called the OP (not just send a new lease in the mail), truthfully explain exactly what the problem was (it was NOT a math error), apologize profusely for it, offer better terms or something of value (like free detailing) as compensation, and lastly, let him know what the consequences would be if he failed to sign the new lease (assuming they would take back the car). The way they handled it left the OP totally confused about what was happening and why. He shouldn't have had to come to Bimmerfest for the answers.


----------



## bimmerbuff (May 27, 2004)

Ninong said:


> P.S. -- Okay, I have to add this postscript comment. I'm not an attorney and I have no clue what complications might enter into this situation because of the length of time it took the dealership to get back to the customer on this. I don't have a lease in front of me to read right now and I don't remember what the time restrictions might be. I know that they all call for the dealer to be able to rescind a lease if he can't get it accepted by the lender on terms that are acceptable to him. I just forgot how long he has under the law to get back to the customer???


I thought it was either 10 or 14 days. From the timeline, it looks like they took a month or more.



ChrisF01 said:


> Error on their printer? This is why I'd tell them to pound sand, they're lying to you about the mistake. They should have just been upfront with you, hey the FI person was new, sick, having a bad day - whatever.


Absolutely. The shadiness is disgusting.



sactoken said:


> The way the dealer has handled this is appalling. When they discovered the error, they should have called the OP (not just send a new lease in the mail), truthfully explain exactly what the problem was (it was NOT a math error), apologize profusely for it, offer better terms or something of value (like free detailing) as compensation, and lastly, let him know what the consequences would be if he failed to sign the new lease (assuming they would take back the car). The way they handled it left the OP totally confused about what was happening and why. He shouldn't have had to come to Bimmerfest for the answers.


Exactly. This is why I wouldn't simply just sign the new lease. Yes, that will likely be the end game, but something has to be done to make this right because the way the dealer handled this was just stupid. A month after he takes delivery you mail him a new lease to sign and say there was a "math error" then when questioned it's a "printer error"? They already maxed out his acquisition free, now they're jerking him around on this...and he's a 3x repeat customer!


----------



## AggieKnight (Dec 26, 2008)

tomyboy28 said:


> He called me this morning and said there was an 'error' on their printer and they needed to come sit down with them for 1/2 to go over and sign the new lease. ...He said he would talk it over with his 'team' this morning and give me a call back in an hour. It's now been 6 hours.


/rant

As someone who works professionally in sales (albeit in a completely different industry), it freakin kills me when people tell little "white" lies rather than mea culpa with things go bad. Putting your relationship/credibility at risk rather than accepting fault in a situation where your team messed up? :eeps::eeps:

/end rant

I think you are on the right track to force them to work around your schedule, and I'd encourage you (as other's have mentioned) to ask for some realistic demands to make up for the inconvenience of wasting your time.

Based on what you've shared, I would also encourage you to call and ask for the dealership manager. If the sales manager is not being responsive to you, then you should go above him. Next step is calling BMW Customer Care for assistance.


----------



## macct (Dec 16, 2004)

I am surprised this isn't resolved yet. The OP agreed to and expected a higher payment. He didn't really challenge it when the lower payment was shown to him even though it was an obvious mistake. While not all situations are black and white, this one is and I agree with Ninong.


----------



## bimmerbuff (May 27, 2004)

macct said:


> I am surprised this isn't resolved yet. The OP agreed to and expected a higher payment. He didn't really challenge it when the lower payment was shown to him even though it was an obvious mistake. While not all situations are black and white, this one is and I agree with Ninong.


How was it an obvious mistake? Salesperson said $650, F&I guy said $590 because the interest rate was lower.
Why would he challenge the finance person? Shouldn't they be the end authority on his interest rate?

I'm not saying he didn't initially agree to the $650 payment (although it would be nice to know if there was a signed sales order or not), but I don't think we can call this an obvious mistake given what we were told transpired.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

Does josh know Ninong acts as a proxy for BMW sales? Make sure you understand his bias before assuming he is giiving good advice.

OP what you SAID and AGREED TO with you salesman, verbally, is ABSOLUTELY NOT germane.

I find it humorous that somoene might suggest "well you agree to it with your salesman, just becusae they messed up the contract you shouldnt hold them to it". 99.9% of the time it is the other way, the Finance guy screws the buyer on some term that isnt what he and the saelsmane agreed to, and the Dealer and BMW says '"its the paperwork you signed'.


In the paperwork you signed there is (probably) somethin that says "nothing I agreed to with anyone here forms part of this agreement, the ONLY binding terms are those there are IN the contract"... this is the way it works.

Play hardball. Tell them they can take the car back if they want and you'll take the trade back. Their choice.


Edit: If this was the other way around- a member said "the saleman and I agreed to $590 and when I got to the FI guy it was $650" and "how can I get that $590 deal"

You'd get the same guys in this post saying "you agreed in the contract, tough"....you would NOT hear "well you did have an agreement with the saleman for 590, so the FI guy should rewrite the contract now"


36 months times $60 = 2160. Tell them 'have a cashiers check for $2160 and I'll sign the new docs" Explain to them "This is an excellent learning opportunity for your business!"


----------



## xi2d (Oct 25, 2009)

ard said:


> In the paperwork you signed there is (probably) somethin that says "nothing I agreed to with anyone here forms part of this agreement, the ONLY binding terms are those there are IN the contract"... this is the way it works.


"...This Lease describes all agreements between us with respect to the Lease of the Vehicle. All prior agreements, whether oral or in writing, are superseded..."


----------



## bimmerbuff (May 27, 2004)

ard said:


> Play hardball. Tell them they can take the car back if they want and you'll take the trade back. Their choice.


Trade-in was apparently already sold. He had negative equity on it that was rolled in to the new lease. They'd have to cut him a check for the full amount to make him whole and you know they don't want to do that.


----------



## bimmerbuff (May 27, 2004)

cxp said:


> I'm surprised nobody has commented on the "0.2 cents per mile" overage fee in the original lease. It would only cost $200 to return the car with 136k miles!


Ha, good catch.

Seriously, how on Earth did they print this lease agreement with so many errors? Don't they use software that would call out basic mistakes like this?


----------



## BMWFanboy (Apr 27, 2008)

Some of the comments here are absurd and I wonder if these people were in the same situation if they'd heed their own advice. It's absurd to me that the dealership wouldn't just accept their mistake and take the hit. I'm guessing they probably still come out ahead in this deal even if they absorb the mistake probably on the trade-in alone. Worst case they should let you back out of the deal.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

bimmerbuff said:


> Trade-in was apparently already sold. He had negative equity on it that was rolled in to the new lease. They'd have to cut him a check for the full amount to make him whole and you know they don't want to do that.


Precisely.

They drafted the contract, and they signed it. They bear the ENTIRE cost of fixing their mistake.

The OP has NO obligation to make any accomodations for their error.

It doesnt matter one bit how expensive, or difficult this it for them..... blather like 'we cant do this or that' or "it was an honest mistake" or "you had agreed verbally to the other deal" are just nonsense.

It is odd how this dealer has taken this as far as they have- almost as if some idiot yahoos at the dealer are trying to pull a legal fast one before any of the adults in the process get involved.... OP, by not dropping the hammer from the get go, has let this get out of hand. IMO

PS If they also made a mistake on the mileage overage, that is a lot more than $2160 to fix...


----------



## veery (Feb 25, 2015)

bimmerbuff said:


> Ha, good catch.
> 
> Seriously, how on Earth did they print this lease agreement with so many errors? Don't they use software that would call out basic mistakes like this?


Maybe they do but remember - they had a _*printer error*_.

With nearly 50 years in IT, I have no idea what a printer error is. What, it printed the wrong text? The principle of GIGO still applies. The party responsible for the Garbage In - the dealer - should suck it up and accept it as a lesson learned, and not a very expensive one, either, in the long run.

If I were the OP, I'd be tempted to take the car back and tell 'em to ?&%@@ it.


----------



## bimmerbuff (May 27, 2004)

veery said:


> With nearly 50 years in IT, I have no idea what a printer error is. What, it printed the wrong text? The principle of GIGO still applies. The party responsible for the Garbage In - the dealer - should suck it up and accept it as a lesson learned, and not a very expensive one, either, in the long run.


I've never heard of it either. I've seen printers go nuts and spew out page after page of garbage text/characters, but never one that forgets a trade-in, reduces the cost of extra miles, and comes up with a rebate out of nowhere. Must be a new printer language. There's PCL and now LCL (low cost lease).


----------



## tomyboy28 (Aug 9, 2005)

Still no call back from the dealer. I'm wondering what they could be up to.


----------



## Lionnutz (Jul 24, 2014)

tomyboy28 said:


> Still no call back from the dealer. I'm wondering what they could be up to.


Probably figuring out how to resolve this. As someone else mentioned, the dealer maybe able to honor the $590 per month without taking too much of a lost if any. The MF looks marked up from looking at the total rent charge. so theres room just from that. U also had a trade in as well.

They might try to propose a compromise first but if u really want u can stand your ground and have them find a way to keep ur payment at $590. Or worse case they take the car back and unwind the deal, which i highly doubt they would wanna do considering the new models are due in any day now and ur car has 2k miles.

Even If they do end up taking your car back, reach out to a board sponsor and they might be able to hook u up with an even better deal on a similar car than u originally had.


----------



## Arcane.Host (Sep 8, 2006)

Purely from a paperwork perspective: Looking at both the contracts (original and newly proposed), it seems to me that BMWFS will accept the paperwork if the overage mile fee is changed to 20 cents (from 0.2 cents). Regarding the tradein, BMWFS will not care if the dealer makes that figure a net zero transaction and absorbs it.

In my line of work: 
1. If several millions of dollars are at stake, we would be requested to pay or to get paid. However, it would have been handled more promptly and much more professionally and at a more senior level; 2. If the amount were a few hundred dollars or so (say under $5-6k), we'd simply write it off as the cost if doing business. After all, we would not want our customer to see how below par our deal management team is and shake their confidence in our team.
Regardless of the size of the deal, the person who wrote and signed off on this and the people overseeing it would receive strong warnings if this were their first mistake. Mind you, I come from a startup background (read small company with a miniscule possibility of making it big) and loss of credibility can kill the company.


----------



## TXPearl (Apr 16, 2010)

"but you agreed to $650/mo (verbally) with the salesman".... as if this matters AT ALL.

OP, you'll get the $590/mo. deal if you just remain patient (i.e. do nothing). The other options for the dealer are more expensive.


----------



## tturedraider (Nov 11, 2005)

Lots of good discussion here. I'll just throw out a little example from my past work life. I used to be a stock broker for one of the major online brokerages. In addition to customer trades entered online those brokerages also have live brokers who will place trades for customers. On more than one occasion one of those brokers screwed up a trade. As we all know the markets move fast and it wasn't always possible to unwind a bad trade before major losses occurred. I remember more than one occasion where we took $25,000 - $50,000 losses to fix mistakes one of our brokers made and make our customer whole. We didn't have the benefit of trying to obfuscate what happened with lies like "it was a printer error"; we were held to strict SEC regulations.

The bottom line here is the dealer screwed up royally and they have yet to unequivocally and honestly own up to the mistake they made. I don't disagree with Ninong's viewpoint or advice, but the dealer is ruining their reputation with this customer by not being upfront and forthcoming about the TRUTH of the mistake they made. They pretty much deserve to have the screws put to them to some degree.


----------



## tturedraider (Nov 11, 2005)

Lionnutz said:


> Probably figuring out how to resolve this. As someone else mentioned, the dealer maybe able to honor the $590 per month without taking too much of a lost if any. The MF looks marked up from looking at the total rent charge. so theres room just from that. U also had a trade in as well.
> 
> They might try to propose a compromise first but if u really want u can stand your ground and have them find a way to keep ur payment at $590. Or worse case they take the car back and unwind the deal, which i highly doubt they would wanna do considering the new models are due in any day now and ur car has 2k miles.


+1 - there are all kinds of "soft" numbers in this deal that can be massaged to keep the payment where it is or close to it.



TXPearl said:


> "but you agreed to $650/mo (verbally) with the salesman".... as if this matters AT ALL.
> 
> OP, you'll get the $590/mo. deal if you just remain patient (i.e. do nothing). The other options for the dealer are more expensive.


+1 - OP, you'll get your best outcome by moving slowly and fully understanding all the moving parts of this deal.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

Two mistakes were made in the lease, which can be seen in the second versions shown by Josh, the ones that include Section 13. In the original version the F&I person left out the $5,650.00 balance due on the trade-in, which is why the cap cost was so low compared to the cap cost on the corrected version. Also, in the original version, the F&I person entered .2 in the field for the cents per excess mile. It should have been 20. Apparently they were thinking of all the other numbers that are entered as dollars and cents with a decimal.

"Printer error" was not the cause of the mistakes. Operator error was. Makes me wonder who at that dealership is responsible for processing deals? Nobody? Does the F&I office simply FedEx them in for funding without anyone at the dealership's office entering anything into their system first?

Apparently is was slightly more than a month between the date Josh took delivery of this car and signed the original lease and the date anyone from the dealership contacted him about the problem. I don't understand that either. This situation is unusual in that at most dealership it would be impossible for a number of reasons but maybe things have changed? Obviously the dealership had a prior approval from BMWFS, so it wasn't an inability to assign the lease in the usual sense that no one will approve the customer's credit application. That's the clause that allows the dealership 10 days to rescind a contract and refund to the customer all money and/or trade considerations. It's a simple error in the way the information was entered. If someone has a current BMWFS lease and can read every single word maybe they can find a contingency for that? There probably is but I don't remember it or what the time limitations might be.

The OP's situation is that he negotiated and agreed to a deal with a payment in the 650's. He was pleasantly shocked that the payment was only $591. The F&I person made up some idiotic explanation about the interest rate coming back better than expected. Then more than a month later, according to his report above, he was notified that the correct payment was really $650/month afterall.

Yes, the contract you sign in the F&I office is the only binding legal document, but dealers have used worksheets from the salesman's negotiations as backup to support claims that unintentional errors were made in the preparation of the contract. At least that's what I have heard although never, ever experienced in more than 30 years in this business. 

Whenever a contract is rejected by BMWFS and "returned for correction," it means that it was an acceptable deal that they approved but the contract didn't match what they approved or it had some other typo error of some sort (such as the .2 per mile thing). That's why when Josh called BMWFS they told him to "resolve" it with the dealer.

At this point it's up to Josh how he wants to resolve this situation. Without a current lease in front of me to read thoroughly, I can't offer an opinion of what the dealer's options may be.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

Another reason you have to read every single word on the contract you have if you're wondering what your options might be and/or what the dealer's options might be in any particular situation is that every lease or finance contract must comply with extremely specific federal requirements as well as the requirements of the various states. State laws are not all the same. Some states have provisions that other states don't.


----------



## bimmerbuff (May 27, 2004)

tturedraider said:


> The bottom line here is the dealer screwed up royally and they have yet to unequivocally and honestly own up to the mistake they made. I don't disagree with Ninong's viewpoint or advice, but the dealer is ruining their reputation with this customer by not being upfront and forthcoming about the TRUTH of the mistake they made. They pretty much deserve to have the screws put to them to some degree.


The dealer's behavior is even more absurd because he said he's a 3x repeat customer. Way to reward loyalty, guys.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

Previously I assumed that the attachments in Post 10 were just a repeat of the attachments in Post 7, but they are not. They are more complete. I noticed that last night when I opened the attachments in Post 10. Section 13 was not shown in Post 7 but it is included in Post 10. You can see in Section 13 of Post 10 that the $5,650.00 payoff on the trade-in shows up in the corrected lease but is missing in the original lease. In addition, there's the typo in the original lease where .2 is entered in the field for cents per excess mile instead of 20.

So I think the errors are obvious and should have been easy to explain and should have been caught much sooner in the process -- like immediately before even disclosing the printed up lease to the customer. If not then, then certainly before anyone forwarded the lease to BMWFS for funding.

The communication skills reported so far seem insufficient to "resolve" this matter to everyone's satisfaction. Hopefully things will improve and the customer will be satisfied in the end. That should be the goal of the dealership.


----------



## namelessman (Dec 23, 2004)

In the F30 purchase time frame there was a $750 loyalty credit that was skipped as the F&I couldn't complete the credit approval from BMWFS on the same day, and our preference was a finalized transaction with no contingency. It also didn't help when F&I demanded a $20k balance for 6 [email protected]%+ to make it worth their time, so that simplify our decision.


----------



## tturedraider (Nov 11, 2005)

namelessman said:


> In the F30 purchase time frame there was a $750 loyalty credit that was skipped as the F&I couldn't complete the credit approval from BMWFS on the same day, and our preference was a finalized transaction with no contingency. It also didn't help when F&I demanded a $20k balance for 6 [email protected]%+ to make it worth their time, so that simplify our decision.


??? Is this post supposed to be somehow related to this thread? If so, it requires a little history on what you're talking about.


----------



## chrischeung (Sep 1, 2002)

I wonder if the cap cost reduction of $5,650.00 was not counted by mistake, but the $0.20 per mile overage charge was correct, if the lease would have stood with BMWFS. I always thought that cap cost was outside the scope of what would cause a rejection by BMWFS. Pure speculation on my part here.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

chrischeung said:


> I wonder if the cap cost reduction of $5,650.00 was not counted by mistake, but the $0.20 per mile overage charge was correct, if the lease would have stood with BMWFS. I always thought that cap cost was outside the scope of what would cause a rejection by BMWFS. Pure speculation on my part here.


I understand your question but it would be pure speculation on my part to guess what BMWFS' current level of verification might be. Remember that they had the original application on file containing all of the correct figures (I hope!) to get an approval with the trade-in being $5,650.00 upside down and having the customer pony up $4,150.00 on delivery, $2,958.50 of which was the Cap Cost Reduction.

The correct deal should have shown a net Cap Cost Reduction of $2,958.50 with the other $2,691.50 of negative equity in the trade being rolled into the cap. Somehow they managed to ignore the negative equity in the trade altogether and ended up giving the customer a total drive-offs of $6,778.79, only $4,150.00 of which was cash out of pocked on signing, the rest being incentives.

In response to your point about the 20 cents per mile error, you have to remember that the words "cents per mile" are already printed on the lease so the entry from the F&I person should have been 20, not .2 and not $0.20. The only correct entry for that blank space is 20.

Your question is whether they would have funded the contract anyway in spite of the fact that it showed the 2013 Honda trade-in as being $5,650.00 upside down in Section 4 on both the original incorrect lease and the second corrected lease, except that the original incorrect lease made no accommodation for that negative equity. I don't know. Interesting question. If they're doing their job thoroughly, they should have caught that error and returned it for correction.

Some lenders are more thorough than you could imagine once the lease is presented for funding. They do things that they didn't do before giving the approval. For example, I remember two leases that were rejected outright and returned because in both cases the applicant's employment had been terminated within days of him coming in to get his shiny new BMW. Both customers were what I would consider just regular guys who thought it would be a good idea to get a new BMW now so that they would have it just in case it was more difficult later, if and when they found their new job. In other words, both had been laid off in what some companies call a reduction in force (tech industry). What they didn't even realize was that they had committed serious bank fraud by claiming employment that they did not have at the time they signed the credit application and that is covered by statute and is sometimes prosecuted but only in rare instances.

Getting back to the OP's situation. The F&I person is required by federal law to disclose (meaning go over) that lease line-by-line with him before asking him to sign it. I can't believe that was actually done. I still can't understand how the F&I person could simply look at the figures and then ignore the original deal and tell him it was because the interest rate came back better than expected. How could that happen? Is that person still working there? Makes no sense.

The dealers usually have an out on just about anything thing you can think of when it comes to mistakes being made in the paperwork. You have to read the exact working and then read between the lines. I wouldn't want to speculate on what their options might be to fix this mess. For one thing, if they have the right to rescind this contract, which might be possible, it would be a total disaster for them. (1) They end up losing one of their best customers. (2) Then end up with a used BMW with several weeks of time and miles on the warranty. (3) They have to resolve the issue of what constitutes fair market value for the 2013 Honda trade-in that is no longer available. (4) They have probably paid off the Honda already. At least I'm assuming they did but who knows? The Honda's fair market value is going to be less than the payoff, which complicates things but probably for them if they already paid it off. In other words, unwinding this deal is virtually impossible.


----------



## opfreak (Nov 10, 2009)

Ninong said:


> I understand your question but it would be pure speculation on my part to guess what BMWFS' current level of verification might be. Remember that they had the original application on file containing all of the correct figures (I hope!) to get an approval with the trade-in being $5,650.00 upside down and having the customer pony up $4,150.00 on delivery, $2,958.50 of which was the Cap Cost Reduction.
> 
> The correct deal should have shown a net Cap Cost Reduction of $2,958.50 with the other $2,691.50 of negative equity in the trade being rolled into the cap. Somehow they managed to ignore the negative equity in the trade altogether and ended up giving the customer a total drive-offs of $6,778.79, only $4,150.00 of which was cash out of pocked on signing, the rest being incentives.
> 
> ...


Its possible, but the dealer is going to have to pay.

If BMWFS rejected financing there is no deal. Dealer would be stuck.

so OP holds power.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

opfreak said:


> Its possible, but the dealer is going to have to pay.


Right. Even if it's legally possible to rescind the contract, it's not practical.



> If BMWFS rejected financing there is no deal.


Correct. BMWFS already told OP that they do not have an account in his name and that he needs to talk to the dealer to "resolve" this matter. That's the situation in a nutshell.


----------



## namelessman (Dec 23, 2004)

tturedraider said:


> ??? Is this post supposed to be somehow related to this thread? If so, it requires a little history on what you're talking about.


Do recall loyalty credit at the time had to go through BMWFS regardless of purchase or lease(ours was purchase). The F&I said there was no issue signing the contract and taking delivery without credit approval from BMWFS. At that time our decision was to sign the purchase contract and wrote off the loyalty credit(and avoid potential issues similar to OP's), so that the details were finalized with no surprise. This also ties in to the other poster's comment of absorbing several hundred dollars as merchant's cost, in our case our write-off was from customer's perspective.


----------



## Lionnutz (Jul 24, 2014)

Hey OP any resolution yet?


----------



## Vitacura (Jul 22, 2005)

Very curious to find out how this turned out.


----------



## mclaren (Jan 5, 2005)

After reading the entire thread I would tell them you will sign a new lease with corrections but the drive off and lease payment must be the same as the original lease. In the 1st place it's amazing to me that F&I that does hundreds of these would make this mistake. I have had mistakes in F&I _*always in their favor*_ that I pointed out. In the 2nd place it is important that they pay a substantial penalty for this so that someone may wake up to the fact they have a problem. Finally, this is not that much money, they probably wholesaled the trade at a nice profit and they're making money marking up the money factor etc.


----------

