Audi dealer acts like douchebag...but I agree with them

[GoCougs]

Rupert isn't entitled to use the bailed property, so he can't park it anywhere.

His standard of care will depend on the situation the bail arises under, as well as the jurisdiction in which the event occurs. Which is why I said "depending on the circumstances."

I think leaving the car unlocked and the garage door open over the weekend while he's out of town would probably get him in hot water, depending on the circumstances.

But your question is pointless, because the dealership likely owes its customers a much greater duty than Rupert owes his friends. Check yer premise.

Your "premise" of you making this something beyond what it is should be rechecked - there are no other "circumstances" to consider.

[Tave]

Think about - your girlfriend leaves her car in your driveway for you to change the oil for $20. You change the oil and leave it be. You wake up in the morning and the car is stolen. LOL - of course you're not responsible.

Did you have her keys? Did you leave the door unlocked? Did you tell her you would keep it in the garage?


If I have to write "depending on the circumstances" one more time, my fingers are going to fall off.

The dealer already met a higher standard - a locked lot, likely tons of lighting, and the like.

Like the security cameras that weren't working?

[Tave]

Your "premise" of you making this something beyond what it is should be rechecked - there are no other "circumstances" to consider.

Aww, buck up little camper.

[GoCougs]

My hunch is the de-facto deciding factor will be the insurance companies.

For example, in my state, if I borrow Tave's car and I cause a wreck, Tave is responsible for the damages to whatever I hit. I am only responsible for damage to Tave's car itself. Sounds f'ed up, but that's how it works here. No one has any say about it - not I, not Tave, not the people I hit, and not the insurance company of any of us three. This is all detailed in state law as are pretty much any and all claim situations concerning cars.

Here I suspect the A4's insurance company knows what has happened and if they have room to deny the claim be sure that they will - as in, if they know the law about these kinds of things and who has responsibility. Not sure if that's how it would/could go down, but I wouldn't be surprised. That it's implied that the A4 owner's insurance company will cover the cost (as there was already mention of his deductible) the dealer is on solid footing by denying responsibility.

[GoCougs]

Did you have her keys? Did you leave the door unlocked? Did you tell her you would keep it in the garage?

If I have to write "depending on the circumstances" one more time, my fingers are going to fall off.

Like I said, you're inventing circumstance - my oil change example is 100% equivalent to the situation. Of course you're not responsible for your girlfriend's stolen car - even if you have the keys, left it unlocked, and left it outside when you said you'd keep it in the garage.

Be sure in the paperwork one signs at the dealer there is some legalese regarding all this. The only way I see the dealer legally on the hook is if there was an actual contract - i.e., if there was a storage fee as part of the repair bill.

Like the security cameras that weren't working?

Did the thieves know that?

[Jon?]

Did the thieves know that?

They did if they worked for the dealership.

[Minpin]

Legally? Who the fuck knows or cares?


Making a good business decision? The dealer probably already regrets their decision to not pay. This guy seems to be stirring up quite a stink between jalopnik, the forums, etc. It also says at the end that Audi is investigating it. If they had just paid the extremely minor 500 dollar deductible they would have lost MAYBE 1 customer (if that happened to me, I would be weary of their operation, regardless of how I was treated after the fact), but who knows how many people have made a personal not to never shop at XX dealer from now on?

It's just an all around bad business decision to not fork over a piddling 5 bills.

[GoCougs]

They did if they worked for the dealership.

The point being, security cameras don't deter crime whether they're working or not. They only help with the aftermath. The thieves would have stolen the wheels and damaged the car regardless.

My hunch is that it was an inside job. Just sounds odd that thieves would bother with a car lot, which is a heckuva lot higher risk than a car on the street or in a driveway. That risk turns to an advantage however if you know how the place operates.

[Tave]

Like I said, you're inventing circumstance

No, I'm pointing out that your hypothetical does not provide enough information to reach a sound conclusion. Neither does the article, for that matter.

my oil change example is 100% equivalent to the situation. Of course you're not responsible for your girlfriend's stolen car - even if you have the keys, left it unlocked, and left it outside when you said you'd keep it in the garage.

I wouldn't bet on it.

[Minpin]

The point being, security cameras don't deter crime whether they're working or not. They only help with the aftermath. The thieves would have stolen the wheels and damaged the car regardless.

My hunch is that it was an inside job. Just sounds odd that thieves would bother with a car lot, which is a heckuva lot higher risk than a car on the street or in a driveway. That risk turns to an advantage however if you know how the place operates.

You contradicted yourself. You can't claim that security cameras aren't a deterrent if you think it was an inside job. Duh.

[GoCougs]

No, I'm pointing out that your hypothetical does not provide enough information to reach a sound conclusion. Neither does the article, for that matter.

I think they both do.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Then no one would ever want others' cars on their property for fear of being responsible for a very expensive asset (for which there is no standard insurance for) - not very realistic.

[Tave]

Then no one would ever want others' cars on their property - not very realistic.

Parking your car at someone's house, and getting paid to work on someone's car and keep it for the night, are two totally different things.

[GoCougs]

Parking your car at someone's house, and getting paid to work on someone's car and keep it for the night, are two totally different things.

Nah, if but for nothing else who is benefiting more in either case - the car owner or the homeowner?

Using the insurance industry as a barometer once again - comprehensive claims are very easy to file and they do not raise your rates. If it were so easy to assign responsibility to an external party I don't think they'd be so quick to pay comp claims.

[Tave]

Nah, if but for nothing else who is benefiting more in either case - the car owner or the homeowner?

It's not an all or nothing inquiry.

Using the insurance industry as a barometer once again - comprehensive claims are very easy to file and they do not raise your rates. If it were so easy to assign responsibility to an external party I don't think they'd be so quick to pay comp claims.

Which of the two scenarios is more common--your car gets stolen off the street, or your car is stolen while under your friend's supervision (while he's benefiting financially off the arrangement)? It's not easy because it doesn't happen often.

[Secret Chimp]

Wow, Cougs is hijacking another thread by being a bullheaded douche, film at 11...

[Onslaught]

I don't keep up with laws so this could be off. But at my shop I was told that the original owner wouldn't put up a fence because if he did and something happened he'd be held responsible for it. When the new owner took over he put up a fence and when things like this happened he paid for them.

[sportyaccordy]

The point being, security cameras don't deter crime whether they're working or not. They only help with the aftermath. The thieves would have stolen the wheels and damaged the car regardless.

My hunch is that it was an inside job.

Lol... if it was an inside job... don't u think they could/would have disabled the security cameras?

[sportyaccordy]

Then no one would ever want others' cars on their property for fear of being responsible for a very expensive asset (for which there is no standard insurance for) - not very realistic.

Nah.... people trust other people with their expensive assets because they figure the risks of something happening to them are close to zero. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore... by not helping dude out the dealership made the wrong decision from a business standpoint. They're getting shitted on from all angles with the wave of bad press.

[SVT_Power]

If this happened on their property (especially inside a gated compound), doesn't the dealership's insurance cover this kinda thing?

[GoCougs]

Nah.... people trust other people with their expensive assets because they figure the risks of something happening to them are close to zero. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore... by not helping dude out the dealership made the wrong decision from a business standpoint. They're getting shitted on from all angles with the wave of bad press.

I'm arguing because I'm right (as is the dealership).

Nah, the dealership made the right business decision - a business is a business - it can't go around reinforcing decisions outside the bounds of responsibility and otherwise setting a precedent of poor business practices. This time it's a white A4 owner - what if next time the A4 owner is black, doesn't have insurance, and the damages/loss is $6,500? The dealership finds itself in a real pickle.

The only "bad press" with whom this carries weight are people who don't understand how this stuff works who coincidentally are the same people not likely buying a new Audi anytime soon. The dealership would be stupid and cowardly to cave - a decision that would likely cost them significantly in the future. This guy needs to stop being a sissy whiner and buck up IMO.

[GoCougs]

Lol... if it was an inside job... don't u think they could/would have disabled the security cameras?

Uh, don't-let-yourself-get-distracted-by-shiny-things-in-the-corner PROTIP - cameras weren't working (or so says the article)

[sportyaccordy]

This time it's a white A4 owner - what if next time the A4 owner is black, doesn't have insurance, and the damages/loss is $6,500?

Wait... so black people don't have insurance? Are you kidding me?

And yea the cameras weren't working.... but if you acknowledge it was PROBABLY an insider job, why not acknowledge the simple possibility of the insiders disabling or breaking the cameras before doing the crime?

What are the positives for the dealership? Not spending $500. What are the negatives? Being known as negligent and completely indifferent to damages of customer's property on their premises. The rims are not even THAT valuable- the only other cars they fit are other VWs/Audis, meaning the thieves would have to know the value of the wheels within that community. So it definitely looks like an inside job, and the fact that the dealership "has no camera footage" and doesn't seem interested in investigating anything just makes the whole thing look suspicious. $$$ wise, the dealership came ahead, but reputation-wise I'm sure they're being slammed in the VW/Audi enthusiast community... and I am sure the value of that exceeds $500

[GoCougs]

Wait... so black people don't have insurance? Are you kidding me?

Please stop being obtuse - you know perfectly well what I was trying to get across.

And yea the cameras weren't working.... but if you acknowledge it was PROBABLY an insider job, why not acknowledge the simple possibility of the insiders disabling or breaking the cameras before doing the crime?

Please stop obsessing about the cameras. It's a non-issue on every level.

What are the positives for the dealership? Not spending $500. What are the negatives? Being known as negligent and completely indifferent to damages of customer's property on their premises. The rims are not even THAT valuable- the only other cars they fit are other VWs/Audis, meaning the thieves would have to know the value of the wheels within that community. So it definitely looks like an inside job, and the fact that the dealership "has no camera footage" and doesn't seem interested in investigating anything just makes the whole thing look suspicious. $$$ wise, the dealership came ahead, but reputation-wise I'm sure they're being slammed in the VW/Audi enthusiast community... and I am sure the value of that exceeds $500

Like I said, it sets a precedent that it will pay for all claims when not responsible, and like I said, the few fanboys masturbating themselves into a frenzy over this don't buy new Audis, and certainly not from this one dealership. This is a non-issue for the dealership on every level.

[2o6]

Don't mess with the internet, that scandal with the Mazda dealer scamming a mentally challenged lady, that sunk their business.

[Atomic]

I think sometimes you do things to maintain good relationships with your customers. Even if the dealership isn't legally responsible, it may be in their best long-term interest to take care of a customer who just dropped $50,000 in their place of business.


Because I can guarantee he won't be buying another Audi from them any time soon if they don't try to make it right.

i agree with you 100%! in fact, loving audis as i do, i would have put this dealer #1 on my list if in the market and if the dealership was fairly close by. my parent's honda-acura dealership has done some amazing things for friends and family - way beyond the call of duty without charge. this has led us to keep marketing them. you get the sense that it is out of sheer kindness, as it seems genuine in that way - while assuming that it "has to be" just great business.

[sportyaccordy]

Please stop being obtuse - you know perfectly well what I was trying to get across.

I'm not being obtuse. White owners have insurance. Black owners don't (and spend $6,500 on rims). If that's not what you were saying, what were you saying?

[AutobahnSHO]

Like I said, it sets a precedent that it will pay for all claims when not responsible,

ONLY if that payout is publicly advertised.
If they had just quietly thrown him the $500 he would have went his way and next time someone's car gets seriously jacked, they don't have to pay anything. If 2nd car owner says, "hey, but you paid so and so!"  it still wouldn't matter. The dealership could do whatever they like.

Maybe this guy IS guy#2.

And methinks if the cameras had been working the police could at least put a decent case together.
I was victim to cameras not working when someone stole more than $1k from the Tacobell I was a shift manager at.  Magically the tape for that day Started at 12noon, the manager who replaced me (who I suspect of the theft) said he realized it wasn't running and hit "record" then. (During lunch rush at a fastfood joint?!!?!)       (Oh and that guy got fired a few months later for giving his girlfriend a raise using another manager's computer password.)

[Xer0]

Fault or not, not putting forth a measly $500 deductible to keep a possible repeat customer that drops $50,000, or possibly more in the future, at your dealer is just stupid.

[sportyaccordy]

Fault or not, not putting forth a measly $500 deductible to keep a possible repeat customer that drops $50,000, or possibly more in the future, at your dealer is just stupid.

Nah... tossing a potential lifetime customer + all his family and friends + whatever members of the online community who saw this article as a matter of principle = a win. After all, you gotta figure customer's cars are getting damaged left and right on their premises, and they shouldn't set a precedent that would make them responsible.[/Cougs]

[GoCougs]

Fault or not, not putting forth a measly $500 deductible to keep a possible repeat customer that drops $50,000, or possibly more in the future, at your dealer is just stupid.

#1 rule about car dealerships is they aren't ever in it for repeat business.