FILE NUMBER: 08-70688

HEARING DATE: November 26 and December 9, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTOR DEALER ACT R.S.B.C.1996 C.316 AND
THE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT S.B.C. 2004 c.2

COMPLAINANT: CHRYSTAL LEA HARMAN

MOTOR DEALER and/or SALESPERSON: PRIDGE PONTIAC BUICK GMC LTD. (Dealer #8214)

ISSUE:

• The consumer went to Dealer A and purchased a vehicle subject to financing.
• Financing was approved the following morning.
• After financing was approved, the consumer went to Dealer B and asked for their assistance in getting out of the agreement with Dealer A.
• Dealer B made inquiries about the first sale, but the consumer provided inaccurate and incomplete information.
• Dealer B represented they could return the car to Dealer A and sold the consumer another car.
• There was a binding contract with Dealer A and the consumer was now liable for two cars.
• The allegations were that Dealer B misrepresented the consumer’s right to return the first car. Alternatively, that Dealer B exerted undue pressure during the deal.

• The claim against Dealer B should be dismissed
• Dealer B made all due inquiries about the agreement with Dealer A.
• Dealer B’s representation was consistent with the information the consumer provided Dealer B.
• It would be unreasonable for a consumer to rely on a representation by a dealer, which is based on inaccurate and missing information provided by the consumer.
• The consumer failed to confirm it had an agreement with Dealer A before entering into an agreement with Dealer B.

COMPLETE DECISION: File 08-70688 Hearing Decision Harman v Eagle Ridge

Top