SoCalDesertRider
SanDiego, CA, USA
Senior Member
Joined: 12/14/2003
View Profile
|
Geewizard wrote:Wow! I'm impressed with Toyota all over again. Yup, let's see GM make that kind of deal. Won't happen. I'm impressed with Toyota too! Compared to how Ford and GM are handling their problems, Toyota sure makes buying Japanese look better and better with service like that!
92F350 CrewCab 4x4 351/C6
LoadNGo service body
69Bronco ATC250R CR500
20' BigTex flatbed carhauler
B&W TurnoverBall g-neck Curt Magnum rr DrawTite ft
HD springs Rancho9000s Bilsteins poly sway bushings
285/75-16E BFG AT on 16x8 Stocktons
4.56's & Lock-Rite rear
|
traxtermax
UPSTATE NEW YORK
Senior Member
Joined: 05/26/2004
View Profile
|
Mike Tassinari wrote:Hello Everyone...
I confirmed with my Brother-in-Law that as this was happening,they had actually poked according to him
about 8 holes in the weakened frame and would not
let him drive it. Even though it's for his own safety, by what authority can they do that? While they were removing
his Tags and doing the paper work on the
rental, Was signing over the title a prerequisite for the rental and order for the new truck? Exactly when did he sign over the title (if he did)--before or after he decided to buy a new truck? He ordered a new Truck on the spot. It sounds like they made him an offer that he couldn't refuse and therefore, the truck wasn't really confiscated but voluntairly turned over to the dealership to get what he wanted from Toyota.
This was not the state but the Toyota
Dealership that took the vehicle.. That's worse. By what authority can they consfiscate private peroperty WITHOUT THE OWNER'S CONSENT unless they somehow represent the State? Did he agree to allow the dealership to remove his tags by signing the title to them? Doesn't the title have to change hands or something? Theoretically, what would happen if he wanted to keep the vehicle? Could he charge the dealership with theft? The situation implies that your brother-in-law had no choice but something doesn't sound legal.
Yes he could have took the money and run
but like he said,for about 7 grand he got a
brand new Truck and the warrenty that goes
with it... I can understand that Toyota wants to make the deal so attractive that people voluntairly relinquish posession--that makes sense. Offer enough money so there are no hard feelings generated by taking the vehicle off the road. I DON'T DOUBT YOUR STATEMENT, just the mechanics and legality of the situation as presented. Mike Tassinari
I don't know what I can do to make this post look better.
|
horton333
Newmarket (Ontario)
Full Member
Joined: 11/08/2006
View Profile
 Offline
|
Kenneth wrote:--quote--
we’re extending the rust-perforation warranty covering these trucks for a period of 15 years from each vehicle’s original date of purchase, with no mileage limitation, for corrosion damage that results in perforation of the vehicle’s frame material. Owners of these Tacomas need not be the original owners. Even if you bought your Tacoma second- or third-hand, it’s covered by this extended warranty. Note--true factory warranty extension, not a so-called extended warranty service plan.
If frame corrosion damage is confirmed by an inspection at a Toyota dealership, at Toyota's option, we will either repair the vehicle or repurchase it. No matter the vehicle’s actual condition, it will be valued as a vehicle in excellent condition. If the inspection reveals no rust perforation, the 15-year warranty will remain in force.
- Mike Michels, Corporate Communications
http://blog.toyota.com/2008/03/living-up-to-ou.html
Hum - I wonder if the Ford fans will compare this what to the 'rusty Ford' coverage was from Ford them back in the early 70s ...
|
Zig
Indiana
Senior Member
Joined: 09/15/2002
View Profile
|
Rusty frame,...... Must be the UAW's fault.
|
BiGG
MI - WI - FL
Senior Member
Joined: 05/24/2002
View Profile
|
SoCalDesertRider wrote:Geewizard wrote:Wow! I'm impressed with Toyota all over again. Yup, let's see GM make that kind of deal. Won't happen. I'm impressed with Toyota too! Compared to how Ford and GM are handling their problems, Toyota sure makes buying Japanese look better and better with service like that!
I sure don’t get some of the thinking here! GM, Ford or any other company would do the same if they had opened themselves up too such a liability.
Toyota is not buying these trucks back as a feel-good gesture or to garner good public relations, they are buying them back because they know it will save them untold billions when the lawsuits start rolling in. I can see the lawyers with gigantic dollar signs in their eyes right now just waiting for one of these to have a catastrophic failure.
Looking for any information available on Del Rey "Sky Lounge" and Kamp King slide-ins for preservation/restoration projects.
|
|
|
trapperdick
Bridgton,Me.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/26/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
I don't think they can confiscate the truck, they have no authority to do that, but what kind of a fool would turn down a deal like that. I know someone that took all the extras off his truck and brought it to the dealer. They gave him 150% of book value.......and no they won't part them out.....TD
OLDER AND BOLDER,,,,,N1ATF
|
DSeckt
Northern Ohio
Senior Member
Joined: 10/26/2003
View Profile
 Online
|
I like the way this thread got around to slamming GM, Ford, Chysler and the UAW. Toyota in a attempt to save money put out a vehicle with junk steel that could kill people when the truck folds in half. What the heck did they think was going to happen in the rust belt.
06 Ford F350 Dually PS / SB
Lance 820
|
BiGG
MI - WI - FL
Senior Member
Joined: 05/24/2002
View Profile
|
trapperdick wrote:I don't think they can confiscate the truck, they have no authority to do that .....
I’m not positive on this but I think they can confiscate the truck if they have a certified mechanic deem it as unsafe for travel.
|
Sportsman Matt
Blackstone, MA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/16/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
They can't confiscate it, but the can remove the plates and hand them to you and park it if it's unsafe for transporting a person. Just picture what you would do if you inspected something and let it go in an unsafe condition and the person who left in it was in a serious or fatal accident? I know that I wouldn't want to be the person responsible for contributing to someone else's injury or death. Actually this is similar to Subaru back in the early 90's, if your car's rear axle supports were rotted out, they would repair or replace the vehicle as part of a deal with the Federal Department of Transportation. The DOT has a way of doing things, either the company voluntarily does the recalls and repairs or replacents and avoids fines and further restrictions, or they are forced to recall and do the same thing as abouve with lots of profit going to the DOT in fines.
Life is short, Play harder.
2002 GMC Sierra 1500 Regular Cab Long Bed 4.3L V6 Automatic 2WD
1989 Sunline C-750 Slide In Truck Camper
7'6" Floor, 11'6" OAL
Fishing and Hunting New England and eventually the world
|
traxtermax
UPSTATE NEW YORK
Senior Member
Joined: 05/26/2004
View Profile
|
BiGG wrote:trapperdick wrote:I don't think they can confiscate the truck, they have no authority to do that .....
I’m not positive on this but I think they can confiscate the truck if they have a certified mechanic deem it as unsafe for travel. If so, that's a State affiliated action--that I understand. Without some sort of State sanction, I don't think a dealer can legally confiscate the truck but they may have State sponsored power to inspect it and immediately and declare it unsafe; thereby rendering it unfit for road use. I still don't understand the confiscation concept and I hope Mike responds to my post.
|
|
|
