Mazda Likes To Screw Us

[highwaypizza]

My understanding of the law is that it applies to dealers and it is a $10k fine for no thaving hte sticker on the car at all. Other than that it seems a little vague.

Plus you have not seen any official word from Mazda so everyhting is hearsay right now anyway.

 

[GDorris]

I called the Local Mazda sales Mgr. today to discuss the issue briefly. He said they had been notified about one week ago of the mistake on the sticker by MazdaUSA and that MazdaUSA had decided against doing anything about it because the sticker contained a disclaimer that protected them from any liability. I repeat, these are the words of the dealer. I do not see any such disclaimer on my sticker and I am guessing that level-headed persistence will result in them making good on the sticker. We shall see. I will wait to see what the response from MazdaUSA is to the letter I sent today and post the results here.
Gregg

 

[Kansei]

the daelership should at least re imburse you the money spent on it if the coorporation was notified.

It isn't a part of the MSRP for the sport model, so no money was spent on it.

 

[Foolish]

It isn't a part of the MSRP for the sport model, so no money was spent on it.

Well, that's kind of a slippery issue, his sticker lists many items, without individual prices for each, and at the bottom of the sticker is the price. The way these things usually work is that you pay that price and you get that stuff.

The sticker says his car comes with a 2.3L DOHC 16-valve 4 cyl turbocharged and intercooled DISI all-aluminum engine. If he bought it without a test drive, and then tried to pull off the lot to discover a .25L Briggs & Stratton lawn mower engine under the hood, no one would have any doubt that he'd been wronged.

The sticker says his car comes with a 7-speaker BOSE audio system and 6-disk changer. It didn't. Why is this ok just because there's no unit price on the sticker for the stereo? There's no unit price for the motor.

 

[Kansei]

Yeah but they can show him a normal MS3 Sport window sticker, with the car equipped just as his was, but without the mistake, and the price would be the same.

 

[Foolish]

That's irrelevant. Prices change, specs change, special deals occur, the price and list of equipment on a car apply to that car. His car says it came with that stuff, for that price. This will likely hold up in court.

 

[Hughes412]

Yeah but they can show him a normal MS3 Sport window sticker, with the car equipped just as his was, but without the mistake, and the price would be the same.

Dude, that doesn't matter. They have the resposibility to double check the sticker. Not only that the system was listed as a standard option. The customer isn't going to know if that is true or not. They can only go buy what's on the sticker. If it's not on the car and you don't disclaim it then you are liable for it. If you can't see that then before you post again and look bad I would go ask someone.

 

[BKK Jack]

Yeah but they can show him a normal MS3 Sport window sticker, with the car equipped just as his was, but without the mistake, and the price would be the same.

It doesn't matter. If the item is on the Monroney, it is a legal requirement that it must be in the car. If Mazda made a mistake across-the-board on the Monroneys for that particular model and trim, then I see class-action lawsuit in the future and some sort of court approved BS settlement that will net the class a dealer gift certificate for oil changes and fuzzy dice.

 

[SeanMSIII]

Mazda has announced that they shipped about 50-60 of them over with the messed up sticker.

That's most likely BS. I got one and another guy on the other forum got one. We just happen to be among the 50-60?

 

[SeanMSIII]

It is the law for that exact reason. Before, when there was no sticker law, people would get ripped off by paying for "hidden" fees or paying for features they didn't want or features they thought they were getting.
So now that the sticker always has to be on the window, there is no mistaking what you're getting in your car. As well, there is no discrepancy on your MSRP.

State or federal law? Seems unlikely that there would be a federal law on this type of thing. Any citation?

 

[elderlycoffee]

That's most likely BS. I got one and another guy on the other forum got one. We just happen to be among the 50-60?

ther are only 5k of them...

 

[Foolish]

State or federal law? Seems unlikely that there would be a federal law on this type of thing. Any citation?

Actually, that's exactly the sort of thing there would be a federal law for. You know, preventing high-level fraud on a national level by some of our country's largest companies on most people's second largest purchase. Seems like federal law to me.

 

[highwaypizza]

The Monroney (not Moroney) act was introduced to protect the consumer from the dealerships, not the manufacturers.

 

[SeanMSIII]

Actually, that's exactly the sort of thing there would be a federal law for. You know, preventing high-level fraud on a national level by some of our country's largest companies on most people's second largest purchase. Seems like federal law to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the fraud (undisclosed charges) was at the manufacturer level, but rather at the dealer level. Dealer level usually means state law. But, apparently it was so widespread that Congress did pass a law back in 1958:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/15/chapters/28/toc.html.

Penalties are only for failure to affix or endorse by the manufacturer and for removal, alteration, or having illegible labels by anyone. Not sure how this all ties into the contract aspect. There are no disclaimers anywhere on my label. Maybe they actually mean some clause in the sales contract. Merger clause or some such. Relying on something like that would defeat the purpose of the federal law, though, which is to have accurate information provided to the consumer about the standard equipment and options included by the manufacturer and the retail price of those options.

 

[highwaypizza]

Here is all the sticker NEEDS to have to be legal.

Make
Model
Serial or Identification Numbers
The final assembly point
The name, and the location of the place of business, of the dealer to whom it is to be delivered
The method of transportation used in making delivery of such automobile, if driven or towed from final assembly point to place of delivery
The Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP or "sticker price") of the base vehicle
The MSRP of optional equipment installed on the base vehicle
The transportation charges for delivery of the vehicle to the dealer from the manufacturer
The TOTAL MSRP of all the above.
The EPA mileage estimates are also normally included on this sticker

The actual United States Code is Title 15, Chapter 28, Sections 1231-1233.

 

[elderlycoffee]

Here is all the sticker NEEDS to have to be legal.

Make
Model
Serial or Identification Numbers
The final assembly point
The name, and the location of the place of business, of the dealer to whom it is to be delivered
The method of transportation used in making delivery of such automobile, if driven or towed from final assembly point to place of delivery
The Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP or "sticker price") of the base vehicle
The MSRP of optional equipment installed on the base vehicle
The transportation charges for delivery of the vehicle to the dealer from the manufacturer
The TOTAL MSRP of all the above.
The EPA mileage estimates are also normally included on this sticker

The actual United States Code is Title 15, Chapter 28, Sections 1231-1233.

I have this, But I need to know what binds them to fix my problem.
I googled Monroney for an hour last night and couldnt find anything.

 

[highwaypizza]

I will try to explain this as clearly as possible.

Your issue is not covered by Title 15, Chapter 28, Sections 1231-1233 and it doesn't appear the the good folks of Texas saw any reason to go above and beyond the Federal requirement.

It would appear that they are not legally bound to fix your 'problem', but I could be wrong.

 

[elderlycoffee]

I will try to explain this as clearly as possible.

Your issue is not covered by Title 15, Chapter 28, Sections 1231-1233 and it doesn't appear the the good folks of Texas saw any reason to go above and beyond the Federal requirement.

It would appear that they are not legally bound to fix your 'problem'.

*sigh* I think ethically a Judge would have to rule otherwise...
Maybe I'm getting my hopes high but every person I've talked to period says it should be an in and out sort of thing IF IF IF IF IF it goes to court.

 

[mazdadude]

This is not far off from other problems MNAO has had in the past.

Now correct me if I am wrong...

In 2004 when RX-8 first came out, the final HP #'s did not match up to what was on the window sticker. MNAO gave the owners of these early RX-8's the option to give the car back to the dealer for refund, or if they wanted to keep the car, they were given a 500$ Amex card, and also given free recommended service during the warranty period.

In 2006 when Mazda 5 First came out, they had a major recall, and Mazda5 owners received a loaner car, a warranty "extension", and a $500 Amex card.

Why would they not be proactive, and send the 50-60 people who got the "error window sticker" on their Mazdaspeed3 Sport, a letter apoligizing for the error, and offer several methods of customer satisfaction as they have done on other cars.

This will get bigger if MNAO does nothing to fix, and if so, I am sure that we will do our best as a Mazda Forum to track down every one of those MS3 Sport owners and make them aware of the problem.

Is it wrong that I am steaming mad and I don't even have an MS3 yet?

 

[Kansei]

I wouldn't at all call the Mazda5 recall "major". Wasn't it just something that had to be redesigned/reworked with the exhaust system? It's not like the cars needed new engines or any major replacement.

How would you people like Mazda to handle this? Seems like nothing is good enough. Mazda could offer a free warranty extension and $500 dollar Amex gift card, and people would still complain because 500 dollars can't buy you the bose system.. because it can't be bought. The fact of the matter is, with the sport model you didn't actually pay for the Bose system, and we all know that.

The anti-theft system, on the other hand, can be installed for pretty minimal cost to Mazda. From Mazdastuff.com, I bought the factory anti-theft system for just over 110 dollars, shipping included. Install took 20 minutes, a nice plug and play install.

If Mazda gave you a year or two of free oil changes, a $500 dollar amex card, and gave you the anti-theft system, would that shut people up?