Caroline wrote:

> "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
>
>>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>
>>>How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a
>>>whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort
>>>of deception.
>>
>>
>>
>>Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
>>entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
>>someone else.
>>
>>Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...
>
>
> Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not committing
> illegal fraud?
>
> That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be claiming
> it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I thought
> I'd point out: it cuts both ways.
>
> Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then the
> dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions.
>
> I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in business
> deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why the
> law will on occasion punish lying in business deals.
>
>
Hi,
The problem is the guy's verbal statement. If it were in black and
white, no problemo. Even if he initialed the contract to that effect.
When something is said, you can't prove it(one mouth against another)
unless there is witness or it's been duly recorded. We're living in a
world, they cut your nose off with your eyes open. It used to be when
you closed your eyes, LOL.
Tony

 

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:36:32 GMT, Harry *** <***@SomeDomain.com> sayeth:

>But as a practical matter, we can't always read everything that we are
>signing, and if we did, we would not always be able to understand what
>is says. Instead we rely on what we are being told.

If you sign something without reading it, no matter what the
circumstance, you are a fool and will eventually be burned badly.
When it happens, do not blame anyone but yourself.

>Example: signing a car rental agreement. Or a flight insurance document.

Never rent a car or buy flight insurance unless you are either (a) willing
to read and accept the contract, or (b) skip reading the contract and
take all liability on yourself personally by not blaming others if the
contract doesn't meet your expectations.

>The point is, agreements work mostly on trust.

That is patently false, at least in the United States, where presumably
the author's original exchange took place.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

 

"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
> > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
> > > someone else.
> > >
> > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...
> >
> > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not
> committing
> > illegal fraud?
> >
> > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be
> claiming
> > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I
> thought
> > I'd point out: it cuts both ways.
>
> Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't matter
> what you were "told".

You're wrong.

> > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then
> the
> > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's
> actions.
>
> Fraud by inducement only exists when the written contract is vague and
> purposely left "open to interpretation".

No, this is not FbI.

FbI is a very broad category, incidentally.

 

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:36:32 GMT, Harry *** <***@SomeDomain.com> sayeth:

> >The point is, agreements work mostly on trust.
>
> That is patently false, at least in the United States, where presumably
> the author's original exchange took place.

It's patently true.

How could anyone think agreements rely enormously on trust as well as the
written or spoken word?

 

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%xJGc.972570$Pk3.569543@pd7tw1no...
> Caroline wrote:
>
> > "Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote
> >
> >>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> >>
> >>>How did you manage to buy a home, anyway? My guess is that there's a
> >>>whole story behind that one--which you, no doubt, are claiming some sort
> >>>of deception.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
> >>entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
> >>someone else.
> >>
> >>Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...
> >
> >
> > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not
committing
> > illegal fraud?
> >
> > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be
claiming
> > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I
thought
> > I'd point out: it cuts both ways.
> >
> > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this, then
the
> > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's actions.
> >
> > I sure hope Conservatives don't think it's okay to go around lying in
business
> > deals. Commerce would fall apart if that were common practice, which is why
the
> > law will on occasion punish lying in business deals.
> >
> >
> Hi,
> The problem is the guy's verbal statement. If it were in black and
> white, no problemo. Even if he initialed the contract to that effect.
> When something is said, you can't prove it(one mouth against another)
> unless there is witness or it's been duly recorded.

I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he said/he said
situation.

For example, suppose this or something like this was reported to the state's
Consumer Protection Office before. Same dealer, different customer. That's a
pattern that would help Bob's case.

There may have been a witness, for all we know.

Plus, as Bob wrote, it doesn't make sense to have disability insurance on his
wife when she's already disabled.

 

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:y1MGc.4819$sD4.4423@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
> > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:36:32 GMT, Harry *** <***@SomeDomain.com> sayeth:
>
> > >The point is, agreements work mostly on trust.
> >
> > That is patently false, at least in the United States, where presumably
> > the author's original exchange took place.
>
> It's patently true.
>
> How could anyone think agreements rely enormously on trust as well as the
> written or spoken word?

Post-o.

That should read:

"How could anyone think agreements DO NOT rely enormously on trust as well as
the written or spoken word?"

 

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g0MGc.4818$sD4.662@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > > Yep, you're dealing with the product of the liberal inspired, "I'm
> > > > entitled" generation where the fault is *always* laid at the feet of
> > > > someone else.
> > > >
> > > > Personal responsibility is not part of the equation...
> > >
> > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not
> > committing
> > > illegal fraud?
> > >
> > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be
> > claiming
> > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I
> > thought
> > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways.
> >
> > Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't
matter
> > what you were "told".
>
> You're wrong.

In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over
written.

> > > Fraud in the inducement is illegal. If the dealer is guilty of this,
then
> > the
> > > dealer will have to assume personal responsibility for its people's
> > actions.
> >
> > Fraud by inducement only exists when the written contract is vague and
> > purposely left "open to interpretation".
>
> No, this is not FbI.
>
> FbI is a very broad category, incidentally.
>
>

 

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:43:37 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:

> I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he
> said/he said situation.

What he/she said has nothing to do with this. As a matter of contract
law, the contract rules supreme. The contract most likely also states
that any prior verbal agreements are void.

Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action)
that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the
intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that
is a whole different matter entirely, and fraud would require
intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the
poster's description admittedly did not occur, since the customer
was not coerced into signing.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

 

Chris Bradley wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:43:37 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:
>
>
>>I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he
>>said/he said situation.
>
>
> What he/she said has nothing to do with this. As a matter of contract
> law, the contract rules supreme. The contract most likely also states
> that any prior verbal agreements are void.
>
> Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action)
> that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the
> intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that
> is a whole different matter entirely, and fraud would require
> intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the
> poster's description admittedly did not occur, since the customer
> was not coerced into signing.
>
Hi,
One reason I hate buying cars.
Tony

 

"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > "Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote

> > > > Where is the personal responsibility of the dealer's people in not
> > > committing
> > > > illegal fraud?
> > > >
> > > > That is a possibility here. Not a strong one, but since you seem to be
> > > claiming
> > > > it's okay to lie to someone in order to get them to sign a contract, I
> > > thought
> > > > I'd point out: it cuts both ways.
> > >
> > > Verbal is always trumped by written. If its in writing, it doesn't
> matter
> > > what you were "told".
> >
> > You're wrong.
>
> In what state? According to NY State, no judge will take a verbal over
> written.

(Note: "Oral contract" is the preferred phrase for a contract achieved by
speaking.)

From dictionary.law.com:

oral contract
_____
n. an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially
written. An oral contract is just as valid as a written agreement. ...
_____

You can google and also find other supporting statements like:

1.
"As a general statement of law... oral agreements can modify written documents."
[This site goes on to discuss the possibilities for a specific, real situation.]
http://www.rha-ps.com/q_and_a/oral_a...y_binding.aspx

2.
"Proof of an oral agreement that modifies a written contract should be by clear
and convincing evidence. Lambe-Young, Inc. v. Cook... "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...als2004/&invol
=030231-1

3.
"See Stoddard & Son v. Vill. of N. Troy, 102 Vt. 462, 468 (1930) (oral agreement
may modify written contract not under seal or required by statute of fraud)."
http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/unpu...03/eo02375.htm

I suspect in NY that only certain types of contracts must be in writing to be
valid and trump an oral agreement. If you feel otherwise, provide a citation
that says oral contracts may not amend written contracts.

Despite this, let me say again that I am not optimistic for Bob. As we all seem
to agree, written contracts are preferred, if only because they better document
the terms of an agreement.

People should avoid relying on oral agreements. The turmoil Bob is facing
explains why.

Still, I am not utterly without hope that Bob might have a case. It will depend
on the rest of the facts of the matter.

 

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
Caroline wrote
> > I don't think we have enough facts to conclude this is simply a he
> > said/he said situation.
>
> What he/she said has nothing to do with this. As a matter of contract
> law, the contract rules supreme.

A contract may be oral or written.

If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.

> The contract most likely also states that any prior verbal agreements are
void.

When we know this is true, then I'll be happy to discuss this point.

> Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action)
> that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the
> intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that
> is a whole different matter entirely,

No it's not.

> and fraud would require
> intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the
> poster's description admittedly did not occur,

He admits nothing of the sort.

> since the customer
> was not coerced into signing.

Bob claims he was misled into signing. The law does not at all necessarily
accept contracts signed by using deception.

 

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:31:16 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:

>A contract may be oral or written.
>
>If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.

You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.

>> The contract most likely also states that any prior verbal agreements are
>void.
>
>When we know this is true, then I'll be happy to discuss this point.

Even if it didnt say it, the writeen contract always trumps any verbal
agreement unless there is ambiguity in the contract.

>> Now, if the original poster can prove (as a criminal or fraud action)
>> that the dealer intentionally tried to mislead the customer with the
>> intent to defraud, then he might have a legitimate action. But that
>> is a whole different matter entirely,
>
>No it's not.

Yes it is.

>> and fraud would require
>> intentional, calculated acts on the dealers part, which from the
>> poster's description admittedly did not occur,
>
>He admits nothing of the sort.

Yes he does. He admits signing the contract on his own accord, and
admits that he signed it because he wanted to get the deal over with,
not because it was a required part of the purchase of the car.

>Bob claims he was misled into signing. The law does not at all necessarily
>accept contracts signed by using deception.

He was not coerced into signing, and the poster admits this.

Stop posting this uneducated drivel, and go get an education.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

 

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
Caroline wrote
> >A contract may be oral or written.
> >
> >If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.
>
> You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.

Fraud in the inducement.

 

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:25:01 GMT, Caroline <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> sayeth:
>"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
>Caroline wrote
>> >A contract may be oral or written.
>> >
>> >If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.
>>
>> You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.
>
>Fraud in the inducement.

There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
into signing the contract. The details of the agreement were available
to the original poster at all times, and the poster admitted that
he willingly chose not to read the contract, and then signed his
acceptance of the WRITTEN contract as a willing participant.

There was no inducement.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

 

"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
C wrote
> >"Chris Bradley" <furrier@iglou.com> wrote
> >Caroline wrote
> >> >A contract may be oral or written.
> >> >
> >> >If it was oral, then what he said/he said has everything to do with this.
> >>
> >> You twit, the contract was written. There was NO ORAL AGREEMENT.
> >
> >Fraud in the inducement.
>
> There was no fraud in the inducement if the customer was not coerced
> into signing the contract.

We disagree about what is required for fraud in the inducement.