Do You Want To Buy This Car?

The House of Delegates voted to allow auto-dealers to sell cars with up to $5,000 in water damage without telling consumers that damage exists. See the vote here- special shout out to Mark Keam, Charniele Herring and Luke Torian, Northern Virginia Democrats who want their constituents to not be told when they are buying damaged vehicles. Hope that check clears from the Auto Dealers!

Comments

[Mr. Jefferson]

Unless it qualifies as a "salvage vehicle" in chich case, that section no longer applies, and it gets titled differently.

Although, I still can't make heads or tails of the actual purpose of this amendment.

[James Young]

Who's da U-boat commander?

[James Young]

Still one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie.

[Not A Virginia State Senator]

The Senate sent its version back to committee

[Steve Vaughan]

NLS,
The auto dealers checks always clear. That's why they get what they want most of the time.

[not anyone in particular]

It was not an auto dealers bill. It was an insurance industry bill

[NoVA Scout]

How very Richmond, how very Virginia.

[Tom Cruise]

I'm sure the presence of this in Lohr's district had nothing to do with it either.

http://www2.manheim.com/locations/HAA/events

http://www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?AID=9613&CHID=11

They are only one of the biggest auto auctions in the state.

[No Sheet Sherlock]

The car may be a metaphor for the Democratic Party.

[Haywood Jablomi]

Is that a Kennedy Porche?

[Let's Be Free]

Mr. Jefferson, I do not know for a fact but it seems to me that this bill is trying to update a woefully outdated number. These days replacing the the floor mats and rugs in the sinking Porsche would use up most or all of the $1,000 trigger.

Serious vehicle damage, such as floodwater infusing the electrical system, the drivetrain, and/or the engine will cause serious financial damage as well, more in synch with the proposed $5,000 trigger.

To make the right decisions, policy makers also have to look at what the standards are in other states, lest jobs be driven away.

Anyone who thinks the trigger should be differently modified, I'd appreciate if they would speak up, identify a different trigger or standard and explain their view.

[Len Bennett]

"Let's Be Free" - The inflation argument is what the insurance industry is relying on. It is true that $1,000 is an old number. But at the time of that number, it took a great deal of damage to seriously endanger the car's operation. Today's vehicles have complex electrical and mechanical components. Even a small amount of water exposure can cause damage to the airbag, electrical systems, brake systems, etc.

Regardless - wouldn't you want to know - even if the rugs and flooring has been replaced?

Lastly - at $1,000, we are in the bottom three. (Bottom being bad for consumers) Most states require disclosure of ANY water damage. However, if we can increase the number to 5k, WE GET TO BE NUMBER #1!!! "Virginia: Best State in the Nation in which to Sell Water Damaged Cars!"

So how about an alternative? Disclose damage to a car when you know of it on sale. Aren't we believers in the effectiveness of the free market to price at actual value assuming full and equal information between all parties?

Regards,
Len Bennett

[transparency]

Would be interested to see how many of the Dems that voted against the bill received money from Mr Bennett or his firm. We know we already bought Robin Abbott's vote.

[Tom Cruise]

That's nice "transparency."

You want transparency on political contributions, but not for car sales?

Dealers should be able to hide information from consumers?

Nice consistency.

[Let's Be Free]

Thanks Len. Nice analysis and very useful information

Frankly I could care less if the carpeting were replaced or the exhaust system for that matter. I would want to know if the engine or electrical system had been under water.

I agree with the objective of seeking full and equal information among the parties, realizing as well (particularly as a long time yard sale buyer) that is an ideal that can seldom be achieved, and is pretty much unenforceable when it comes to the resale of personal property.

My advise is that one should never buy a used car for significant $'s without getting it checked out by a trusted, competent professional. Anyone who relies on state intervention for protection is asking for trouble, no matter what laws are on the books.

Cheers!

[Len Bennett]

Let's Be Free,

Agreed. All we can really hope for is to provide consumers full information if known to the seller of goods or services. To prevent dishonest or unethical conduct. It is not a fair objective to merely shift expense from one innocent to another.

And consumers should ALL take responsibility for their own protection. There are not many consumer protection attorneys available and many - like myself - are not focused on this field (my skill set being in federal consumer credit reporting litigation - ID Theft, etc). And the prefect word in this regard is one where there is zero need for consumer attorneys.

But the difficulty with flood damage vehicles is spotting compromised systems. Many problems do not materialize for some time.

My view is that the disclosures should inform consumers what damage occurred and leave it thereafter to the consumer top investigate the impact of such damage.

Regards,
Len