Quote:
Originally Posted by laborsmith
I. F. Stone! How about Emil Mazey and the Reuther brothers.
I admit I have not understood your complaint although it appears I am a minority but when anyone who refers to their self as a Lord invokes IF Stone, I can only ask: Have you no shame?
Correct me if I am wrong, and I know you will, my understanding is you ordered a car that was to be sold to a dealer than re-sold to you. After you ordered, the dealer cost was raised but because you ordered, the dealer cost was, in the long run, not changed and as a result the dealer was reimbursed the difference and then the dealer reimbursed you for the exact amount of their reimbursement. Accurate so far?
So, was GM supposed to reimburse the dealer for more than the dealer would have paid if there was no price increase? Or did the dealer NOT reimburse you for the specific amount they received from GM?
This inquiring mind wants to know.
Laborsmith
|
I truly have enjoyed your responses. My last name is Lord and my mother's maiden name was Church, as in F.E. Church, and I am a member of the Dickenson Family Association, as in Emily, and I come from a long line of New Englanders where "kicking-against-the-pricks" is a tradition and expected.
That said, let's be clear here, what should have gone down, and what should have my dealer done. My expectation was that I should have been charged at the original price. My dealer and GM says that had my ddealer charged me at the original price, it would been reimbursed $2,768 by GM, and it would have lost $432. How is my dealer and GM wrong? How would have my dealer not been out by that amount? The Forum consensus is that my dealer would not have been out $432. So, what do you say to someone else who is price protected when its dealer says the same thing?