Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

I've been talking to them about the buy-out price of my car, because the lease is ending in a couple of weeks. I already have a loan lined up, so that's not a problem, but due to the transmission problem, the resale value has taken a hit. So naturally, I wanted the buy-out price negotiated to reflect the market change.

I talked with a representative, then somebody above her, and finally a supervisor. They would not budge at all. I understand that it's a contract and all, but seriously, things have changed that negatively affected the value of the car.

We also financed the other TL through Honda Finance, but that's been paid off already. And I'm glad it is, because I don't want anything to do with them anymore. I will probably buy Honda products again in the future, but I won't use Honda Financial Services. They can seriously suck my exhaust pipe. I'm a bit ticked off right now.

CL Platano

They have to go by the fair market value of the car at this point in time. If you were to go beyond your lease maturity date you would be able to negotiate because you would of made payments beyond that date but for the most part they cannot budge too much because the price you got from day 1 is based on the full life of the lease.

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

No, that's the thing. They don't CARE about the current fair market value of the car.

The buy-out price was decided 3 and a half years ago, based on a projected residual value. Since then, the resale value has gone down lower than projected, mostly because of the transmission issue, in my opinion. Yet they won't negotiate to reflect the market change.

CL Platano

Oh in that case they definately cannot budge or they lose big because they factored all that into your rate when you signed the lease.

paul_huryk

I say you should play hardball and put them in a corner.

Just let them know if you don't get a better price on the buyout you will return the car to them when the lease is up and tell them to have fun selling it at the market price. I know a few people who did that and negotiated a price a lot closer to the market value. Works really well when the resale market in inundated with a particular car. It can't hurt to try.

oulaw29

Threaten to sue them

MichaelBenz

iTrader: (2)

Thats the problem with todays society. It was a contract man...this stuff was decided long ago. Now that things have changed....he wants to change the contract. Now...if the car had appreciated in value...I bet he would be expecting them to sell it to him at the value they said on the contract, right? I mean...it works both ways...its a contract. I would say just return the car and get something else at lease end.

CL Platano

On what grounds, I'm sure if he looks at the lease the buyout price is probably there.

mrdeeno

I think he was being sarcastic about suing.

But anyway...from the manufactuer/dealer/finance company perspective, why should they deal? It is not in their best interest to sell to you at the market price.

They don't lose anything if they take the car back, put it up for sale as a certified used or whatever at the lease-set price, and then sell it at market value. But if they sell to YOU at market value, they just lost all chance that someone may pay closer to the lease-set price.

Hey, my former Acura dealer would trade customer loyalty for $100 anytime...in fact, they did by STEALING it from me! Goes without saying that I am biased AGAINST Acura because of this.

JPritch

Can't you just turn the car back in at lease end, effectively terminating your lease, and then immediately re-negotiate with the dealer for a fair market value purchase price?

mrdeeno

yeah, but techincally the car will be on the used market when you turn it in...so people can test drive and make offers on the car.

If they can't get any takers and they nkow you're still interested, i'm sure they'd contact you back to negotiate a deal...but do you really want to buy a car that is now "used" and test driven without your knowledge?

NSXNEXT

iTrader: (2)

They've been like that forever. I had the same problem when I tried to buy out my Integra back in 96.

Russdaddy

Yeah that's the one thing that I don't like about Honda Financial. I found out how hard-nosed they can be when I called to find out if they could lower my interest rate. I figured that by paying more that what I owed every month, they would be more open about lowering my rate. Right off the bat they told me that they wouldn't do it - no consideration whatsoever. At least I'm forcing them to recalculate my total interest each month by sending them more each month than I owe.

MichaelBenz

iTrader: (2)

Yes...they are hard nosed. I sicked them on one of their title holders once as the guy bought a brand new quad...sold it to me less than 90 days later; never mentioned that it had a lein on it..a matter of fact....stated it was free and clear...I said when he presented a title to the dealer who sold it (friend) that had a lein on it...that he better get me a clear title or else. Well...he staled me for about 8 months...ignored phone calls...left town on weekends...ect. So I called Honda Financial and told them that he had sold the collateral on the loan that he had and that I was SURE that different interest rates applied to loans that had no collateral....and they leaned ALL OVER this guy to pay his loan off in full immediately or else. Final result...I got my title from the guy very soon after that!

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

They said they have a residual value insurance. So if they don't get the buy-out price once they sold it as a used car, then they are covered for it.

Which means they could sell it to me for less than the buy-out price and still be covered, but they wouldn't do that.

I'm not going to sue them. A contract is a contract. I was just asking them to be lenient and reflect the market change in the buy-out price, but they won't reason with me. This time, I have no choice, but there won't be a next time with Honda Finance. I just can't see myself dealing with a company that refuses to accommodate a repeat customer, when the problem (transmission affecting the resale value) was through no fault of my own.

Oh, and they told me to call Acura Customer Relations, who promptly told me that they have nothing to do with me and won't even listen to my case. So I got the typical corporate run-around, which I really appreciate. I had a lot of fun.

CL Platano

That's a shame but that's what happens when you lease, believe me that's what I do all day at work

mrdeeno

Just because they have insurance doesn't mean they want to use it.

do you go driving around carelessly getting into accidents because your insurance will cover it? No, because your premium will go up.

I'm sure its the same thing here...they claim enough "losses" on their insurance and their premiums go up or drops them altogether. If they lose money when selling the car on the used market, insurance will cover them. If they sell it to you at the market price, then they did not sell the car on the used market, which is probably a precondition for insurance to cover them...ie they have to try to prevent a loss in order to be covered.

And i don't think you can justify that the market price is lower because of Acura's fault with the tranny. That's just speculation because it can be any combination of reasons such as the market's affinity for SUV's over sedans, or the fact that the current TL is so much more of an improvement over the last TL than anyone expected, or gas prices too high, or anything else...also through no fault of your own or Acura's.

If they aren't willing to deal, just return the car. If you want to buy it at the market price, then you gotta go to the market.

micvog

That's not necessarily true. When I worked for Lexus (I was the lease term manager), our residual value insurance specifically stated the car had to be sold at an approved auction. In other words, the insurance company wants to know the true market value, not just some rep's opinion at the finance company. The only time the dealer kept the car is when they were willing to pay the residual value.

That being said, we didn't have insurance on most of our cars but we weren't willing to negotiate anyway so if the question ever came up, we always claimed to have insurance.

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, but I'm sure they factored all of that into the contract. If not, then I'm giving them way too much credit as a finance company.

You may be right, but I'm sure they have a margin of safety built into the buy-out price. And similar cars are selling for somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-17k around here, even less at auctions. So why not take off like a thousand dollars and meet somewhere in-between? That's what I don't get. My family has had two cars financed through them already, and chances are very high that I would buy Honda cars again in the future. Over a mere thousand bucks or so, they lost a lot more than that.

Meh, they probably realize that since my lease is up in 2 weeks and I haven't done the inspection, they know I would buy it out, anyway.

And to think that this car was just supposed to get me through college. With all the mod money, I could've had this car pretty much paid off already. But it's been fun, and I still love the car.

CL Platano

It's all factored in and you being a long time customer they should be willing to deal but you really can't play too much hard ball since your lease is up in a mere 2 weeks. No leasing company wants the equipment back, they rather have you buy it out or re-finance it.

schen72

The solution is to never lease again. It's always a losing proposition, unless you are able to amortize the cost of the lease, by having a small business, etc.

MichaelBenz

iTrader: (2)

Part of the issue probably is that they have to prove that they at least tried to get X value out of it before they claim it on their insurance and get reimbursed...or it just looks like they took the easy way out..sold it to you for whatever...and then made a claim against them. Fair market value/Current Market Value and what a car actually sells for are often two totally different numbers...sometimes more....often times less....sometimes on the money...depends on car/demand/ect.

snorman

Hmm, sometimes your car is worth more than the residual, they still sell it to you for the residual value. When you car is worth less, well I guess you could turn it in and hope that it shows up on the lot with a lower price, or go buy another one. Seems to me though that they should sell it to you for a lower price since they will have to do that anyway.

Just think of it this way though if you had financed the entire purchase price of the car originally this would be a moot point

bdturbo

phipark

It's a contract. Black and white. All auto finance companies will be that way.

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

Mmm, not according to my research. It seems that plenty of financial institutions are willing to negotiate on the buy-out price of a leased vehicle. Honda Finance is just an exception.

I understand that it's a contract. That's why I'm no longer pursuing the matter. I've given every effort and tried to reason with them. It's their policy, and I understand that. I'll pay the full asking price. But next time, well, there won't be a next time.

Moving on... I have the check sitting right next to me. Tomorrow I'm gonna send it out and it's sayonara Honda Finance. Welcome, MSU Federal Credit Union. (yay for being in debt!!) At least they listen to me and try to help me out.

03CoupeV6

Do you mind sharing what that full amount is? I understand if not Rob.

njzprettyboy

i think PA understands the fact he signed a contract...he states that a couple of times.

fast-tl

Sounds like he may have done an open-ended lease, which is a no-no. with a closed-end lease, the residual is decided up front and if you're smart, you walk away at the end, unless the car is worth a ton more than teh residual and you can buy it off then cheap and sel it at a profit. If the value is lower than teh residual, again count yourself lucky and move on to the next vehicle! Don't waste time arguing a contract you both thought was good 3 years ago.

optomos

That sucks.

oulaw29

[QUOTE=mrdeeno]I think he was being sarcastic about suing.

QUOTE]

I was. I'm an attorney who hates companies who fuck with the little guy. If it is still under warranty, I would take it out on the highway and drive it in 1st gear @ 80 mph till the tranny drops, then call them and bitch them out for leasing you a car with that problem, and tell them to get your damn car fixed and give you a loaner. If you are still pissed when they fix it, go out and do it again. But seriously for people who are not savy enough to understand that there is no such thing as a "frivolous lawsuit problem" and can see how he has a cause of action, here is a bit of what I would write to Honda:

At the time that American Honda Corporation (hereinafter AHC) sold my client his motor vehicle, AHC knew or should have known that the tranmission on the acura TL was defective in design or prone to failure. AHC knew that the XXX type (whateveritsofficalcalled) transmission was prone to failure before the motor vehicle was sold to my client, yet failed apprise my client of the defective nature of the transmission. Clearly had my client known that the tranmission was defective and prone to failure, my client would not have purchased the motor vehicle for the agreed upon price.

Clearly, AHC, through XYZ dealership, fraudulently induced my client into contracting to purchase the Acura TL for XYZ price. My client relied on AHC representations that the Acura was a reliable motor vehicle. At the time of purchase, he was told that the motor vehicle was in fact on of the most reliable motor vehicles on the road.

My client has now suffered damages as a result of AHCs fraudulent inducement. The resale of the Acura has now been adversly effected due to the defective transmission, a transmission which has in fact be recalled by Acura. Now AHC seeks the benefit of the bargain, the agreed contract price, despite the act of AHCs fraudulent inducement of contract.

My client seeks either a release from the lease agreement, or a reduction the contracted purchase price, both of which were procured by AHC through fraudulent inducement. (release from release??? whatever you are seeking) If this matter cannot be resovled, my client will have no choice but to file suit for fraudlent inducement, common law fraud, and all other remedied availble under (your state) law. Additionally, my client will seek recovery of all court costs and attorney fees, which as you know, are fully recoverable in a cause of action for breach of contract.

Anyway just threw that up, but thats just a rough draft of what I would send to them, I can get them to release you from the lease or lower the price.

MichaelBenz

iTrader: (2)

[QUOTE=oulaw29]Please...let him send it...I would LOVE to see what AHC lawyers do with that one. They would probably have a good laugh over lunch anyway?

oulaw29

You would be really suprise what Honda will do to keep Acura customers, didnt he have a 2nd Acura b/4 this one. I would add some stuff, like that he has been a loyal buyer of Acura/honda and would like to continue to buy. That if he just let the car go, they would take the same hit on the resale they are asking him to take, ect, ect. The bottom line is they will get the letter, know if I sue them they will have documents I would seek in discovery showing they knew about the tranny issue at the time of the sale. Basically you sold my client an acura car with a kia quality tranny and you knew it and sold it while professing it as a acura with acura quality tranny. I would also agree that my firm would forgo pursuing a class action lawsuit for all other acura owners under a fraudulent inducement class action, if they would help resolve this one clients problems.

micvog

AHFC is essentially buying the car back at the residual value, which in this case is much higher than the market value. How is that a losing proposition? Additionally (1) most of the subvention money goes towards leasing, which means that the cost of money is usually lower with a lease, and (2) in many states you save the sales tax on the unamortized value of the vehicle (such as in California).

It would be nice to say leasing is always a "losing" proposition, or always a "winning" proposition. But reality isn't that black-and-white... it depends on the terms of the lease program relative to the loan programs, and your intentions regarding the vehicle.

oulaw29

The goal of automakers leasing is to fuck the buyer and get them back into a lease again. They get to sell a car, and make it more likely you will come back and roll over mileage or damage they do not consider normal wear and tear back into another lease. I have not met one single person who has left a lease and told me they did not get fucked.

Pure Adrenaline

iTrader: (2)

oulaw29, those thoughts have crossed my mind.

I was told that the transmission problem was fixed during model year '03, and that's why my car did not receive the extended transmission warranty.

As it is today, I have learned a considerable amount of knowledge on this car, along with the transmission and its defective nature. But you have to remember that at the time I got the car, the words of the salesperson that "The transmission problem has been fixed" played a huge role in my decision, and my decision to sign the contract based on those figures.

But those contract figures have not upheld their end, because the transmission problem was NOT fixed. My car has already suffered a failure at 51k miles, and we just don't need any more proof than that to realize Acura of Troy, and furthermore Acura for not providing the extended warranty, flat out lied to me. As someone mentioned above, sure, a car's value may go down because a new model came out, etc. But everybody knew that the 3G TL was coming out in August of 2003. I bought my car in January of 2003, and Acura of Troy specifically told me that the lease rates were lowered to clear inventory in preparation of the 3G TL.

The only unforeseeable (from a customer's point of view) factor that may have contributed to the lower resale value than the projected residual value is the transmission problem. Consumer Reports magazine black flagged the transmission and the LA Time ran an article on it. NHTSA opened an investigation, but unfortunately with no success.

But the fact of the matter is that the industry watches out for this type of things. And these negative publicity have obviously impacted the resale value. So I don't think it was unreasonable for me to ask them to reflect the market change in the buy-out price.

I have been wronged, but I have never sued anyone in my life. I hate stupid lawsuits. But do I have a case here or what? For all of us in a situation like this, do we all have a case?

MichaelBenz

iTrader: (2)

Which is why I NEVER lease!

mrdeeno

In playing the devil's advocate...if I were honda, I'd just bring up evidence that the Accord/oddy/etc. uses the same tranny and has the same tranny problem, yet the residual vs. market value difference isn't there (anyone know if it is?), so therefore the market value of the TL being lower than the residual was not due directly because of the tranny problem, but because of many other factors.

Or on a broader scope, I'd bring up examples of MB, BMW or any other make with reliability problems and show how these cars still enjoy high market value in order to demostrate that poor reliability or "defects" does not correlate directly to lower market values.

But in the end, why even bother suing to save a couple bucks on the buyout? The "value" of the car is what someone is willing to pay for it. If HFC values the car more than you or anyone else is willing to pay, it's not your job to "enlighten" them. Let them screw themselves.

mrdeeno

I totally disagree with that. It's hit or miss, depending on the dealership because we deal with the dealership, not directly with Honda/Acura (and they make this pretty clear when you call in complaining about a dealership and are fed "They are independent business and we have no control").

I bought a Honda from a dealership family that sold Acuras. I moved up to Acuras and bought from the same dealership family. The whole buying process was great, until it came down to the little things. They promised me 2 free navi updates (applied to hard drive navi, not the DVD based one). I told them I understand that they could have mistakenly promised me that because this only applied to the hard drive navi, but instead of admitting they made a mistake the dealer said he never promised it to me and called me a liar.

When I bought the Honda, I got a $100 coupon if I bought from the same dealership family. They took it and said they would issue a check, which I planned on using for all season mats or whatever. Never received the check, and when I complained, they said (and i'm quoting the sales manager), "We gave you a good deal, there's no way in HELL we're giving you $100 back."

And complaints to Acura corporate were met with the above excuse. So much for customer loyalty.

oulaw29

First you are not suing anyone. A simple demand letter direct to honda and acura of america, and the dealer, cc the atty general and bbb, and set up a claim with the bbb, better business bearu in your area. By bringing a claim you are setting up a lawsuit. If you give me your contact info and the dealership you purchased from, along with your vin and the salesperson, and get me dealerr adress and fax#, honda american and acura corp adress and fax #, I will shoot off a demand letter. My representation is limited merely to the letter and directing them to call me directly. Let me know what you want as the outcome, what price you want to buy out the lease at, and of course I will start @ a lower price b/c they may negotiate.

Second, suing is not a bad thing. You dont think Honda and Acura sue poeple? The file thousands of lawsuits a year for everything from patent violations, to the lawsuits against individuals who break contracts. They are probobly in negotiations with the manufacturer of the defective tranny as well.

Bottom line is they want repeat customer, dont want bad press, dont want this to turn into a class action, and dont want to spend $5,000 on attorney fees when they can lower your contract price by $3K---5K.

eamil this info to aaron_herbert@yahoo.com