Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu rec.autos:103162 misc.consumers:67945 misc.legal:60975
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!cs.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!oregon.uoregon.edu!dreitman
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: rec.autos,misc.consumers,misc.legal
Subject: Re: legal car buying problems
Date: 20 Apr 1993 20:31 PDT
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 41
Distribution: ca
Message-ID: <20APR199320314602@oregon.uoregon.edu>
References: <9285.27317@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> <1993Apr20.143930.13144@chpc.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Apr20.143930.13144@chpc.org>,
 rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes...
>In article <9285.27317@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>
> bob@runway.swdc.stratus.com (Bob Hutson) writes:
>>After agreeing to terms I signed the contract and drove home in my new
>>car.  Later that same night I noticed that the terms in the were
>>different from the terms I had agreed to.  (I made the stupid mistake
>>of not checking everything on the contract).  This all happened last
>>Saturday.

>>I have heard that there is a "cooling-off" law allowing me three days
>>to reconsider the contract.  Is this true?  Can anyone point me to the
>>law?  The transaction happened at the dealership, if it matters.

>This cooling off period applies only in certain situations - lik ewhen
>you are solicited at home.  I also think the cooling off period ends
>if you actually accept the merchandise.

>If this were not the case, any car buyer would have the right to return
>a slightly used, highly devalued, car 2 days after buying it.  Yeah - 
>that's the trick - if I want to buy a new car, I'd have a firend buy 
>& return one, then go in and negotiate a better deal on a pre-owned
>used car.

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

On the other hand, if it can be proven, it's possible the changed 
terms could be thrown out.  The question will be whether the 
agreement contains a merger clause.  See UCC @ 2-202 (parol 
evidence).  If we're talking about warranties, then, of course, 
UCC @ 2-316 should be looked at.

But we have so little information that none of us can say anything 
conclusive.

						Daniel Reitman

"The Uniform Commercial Code protects the innocent purchaser, but it is not a 
shield for the sly conniver, the blindly naive, or the hopelessly gullible."
Atlas Auto Rental Corp. v. Weisberg, 54 Misc. 2d 168, 172, 281 N.Y.S.2d 400, 
405 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1967).
