TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Price is Right Lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Price is Right Lawsuit

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
The Story

This woman appeared on TPIR in 2004 and walked away believing that she had won a brand new [never used] Pontiac GTO.

She's suing because some car mechanic saw that it had been in an accident before and looked like someone had tried to conceal it.

OK, I can understand, this could be her first major repair on the vehicle since winning.

Buuuuttt...you won it lady and all you had to pay is the taxes on it. No financing, interest, or down payments were needed. You won it. How much more spoiled can you be?
post #2 of 18
Sounds shady to me. She took the car to the mechanic the next year after she recieved it. Not the next day. That says to me that it is going to be awfully hard to prove her case.
post #3 of 18
it sounds a little fishy to me
post #4 of 18
Yeah if it was a year later, she doesn't have a case unless she can PROVE it was a used car and not a new car!
post #5 of 18
I don't agree with this - cars that have been in an accident before (particularly if they were in a write-off situation) and have been remodelled are extremely dangerous to drive. And any mechanic will be able to see this - so `proof' would be easy. She has a case on two counts:

1) They are in breach of contract for not providing a brand new car. They LIED about it, and are clearly supremely dodgy, if what she is saying is true. Yes, she won it, but that doesn't mean that she should just accept whatever she gets. That's not the point.

2) In a situation where this car is a danger to drive, she has every right to sue because what she believed to be true was not true, and as a result she, anyone in the car with her, or anyone else on the road was in danger.

Now, why on earth would she take the car to be serviced the day after she won it? She thought it was brand new. Why would you waste money on a service for a brand new car? And if it was only a year since she had it, yeah, that's about right for a first major service - particularly if she didn't drive it much. I only take my car once every 12 - 18 months for a service.

If this is true, I think its absolutely disgusting, and they owe her BIG time.
post #6 of 18
But she could have got in the accident and had it fixed off insurance etc by someone dodgy and be trying to get a new car out of it?

If a dealership supplied the car with paperwork new to the show there will be VIN etc to show how old the car is, our truck has a sticker that says the exact day it was made.

I find it strange that her lawsuit also names the company that delivered the car, is it possible that they wrecked it?
post #7 of 18
Well of course - if she did it then she has no leg to stand on. But you're right - there should be paperwork and at least some kind of trail that can be followed back to see where the car came from.

I hope she isn't trying one on - but if she isn't, then I think she definitely has a case.
post #8 of 18
Thanks Sarah for a great breakdown of the situation.

If the car wasn't new, and was in an accident, she definitely deserves a new car.

This puts the show in a really bad light. People should be able to count on getting the prices they win, otherwise, why bother?
post #9 of 18
I also wonder if she won in June 2004, took the car for service in 2005, why is it she waits until December 2007 to file court documents to file the lawsuit.
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
I also wonder if she won in June 2004, took the car for service in 2005, why is it she waits until December 2007 to file court documents to file the lawsuit.
Excellent question. As for finding out if the car actually WAS wrecked, all she needs to do is go to Carfax and run the VIN. It costs a few bucks but is worth it.
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
I also wonder if she won in June 2004, took the car for service in 2005, why is it she waits until December 2007 to file court documents to file the lawsuit.
She didn't need money until this year perhaps?
post #12 of 18
Well she should have filed ages ago then, they will keep her wrapped up in the law suit for ages
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post

This puts the show in a really bad light. People should be able to count on getting the prices they win, otherwise, why bother?
I am sure that the sponsors are taking a good hard look at this case. If it's true that the show was deceptive, then viewers may have trust issues with anyone who advertises with them. And the show, or the car supplier, will owe the sponsors more than an explanation $$$$
post #14 of 18
There are a number of reasons people will wait that long to pursue a lawsuit. I deal with this every day at my work, and really, people are generally more tentative than others assume when it comes to getting the law involved. Not the least reason for which, it can be prohibitively expensive, and is a real financial risk. It's a big decision.

Like I said before, if she is dodgy, then she deserves everything she gets. But if it THEY are at fault, they deserve everything they get!
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katl8e View Post
Excellent question. As for finding out if the car actually WAS wrecked, all she needs to do is go to Carfax and run the VIN. It costs a few bucks but is worth it.
If the dealership did do the damage, then they probably wouldn't have reported it on carfax or touched the VIN...especially if it were a cover up.

I'll probably be wrong, but my gut feeling says she's just being dodgy. IMO if she were honest, she wouldn't be going after TPIR, CBS AND the car dealer. She would have brought this to the attention of TPIR and CBS and all 3 could take a look at the car dealer. That's just my personal opinion though.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunasmom View Post
If the dealership did do the damage, then they probably wouldn't have reported it on carfax or touched the VIN...especially if it were a cover up.

I'll probably be wrong, but my gut feeling says she's just being dodgy. IMO if she were honest, she wouldn't be going after TPIR, CBS AND the car dealer. She would have brought this to the attention of TPIR and CBS and all 3 could take a look at the car dealer. That's just my personal opinion though.
Maybe she did and that's why the lawsuit is being filed now instead of earlier.
post #17 of 18
http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/153284/news/urn:newsml:tv.reuters.com:20071215:price_dc__ER:6207




According to this story she took it in to be repaired because she had been in a car accident, and that is when the alleged previous damage was noted.

Personally I think she's trying to scam.
post #18 of 18
New cars do require service before they are a year old. They recommend frequent oil changes early on because parts of the new engine can rub against enough and create microscopic flecks of metal that can damage the engine if not removed.

Having had family in the car business for many years (dating back to the 1920s), I will tell you that there are some crooked customers. People lie about their trade-ins on a daily basis.
We had a guy come in to test drive a car, a standard, several years ago. His wife was getting in the car as the husband started the car and popped the clutch. The wife fell and broke her hip. They sued the dealership - and won.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Price is Right Lawsuit