Rewritten contract backdating
While state lemon laws and federal warranty laws offer legal remedies to many consumers, there are situations where our law firm will use other consumer protection laws.
While many car dealers and salespeople are honest and ethical, the auto sales industry reputation for high-pressure sales and shady tactics is not entirely undeserved.
Despite decision could put the brakes on at least a half dozen similar lawsuits against dealers throughout the state as legal analysts wait for the Fourth District to provide further guidance.
Meanwhile, the General Manager of Raceway Ford has created a website attacking the plaintiffs’ law firm, the Rosner Law Firm of San Diego.
These are just a few forms of vehicle fraud that might entitle consumers to pursue fraud claims.
Ken Stern’s extensive experience handling vehicle fraud and lemon law claims furnish aggrieved vehicle owners with the resources, expertise, and experience to take on large auto retailer and vehicle manufacturers.
This should cover the majority of cases that come across corporate counsel’s desk.
Depending on the precise type of auto fraud, you might have a valid legal claim against automakers, service contract companies, car dealerships, finance companies, and extended warranty companies.
On December 15th, the California Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated decision in the Raceway Ford Cases, holding that the practice of backdating second or subsequent contracts did not violate the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Cal. known as “ASFA”) and that the disclosure of inaccurate smog fees did not entitle buyers to the remedy of rescission under ASFA where the error was an accidental or bona fide error in computation.
In so doing, the Supreme Court specifically overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in the 2010 case of , which held that the backdating of contracts violated ASFA because it resulted in an illegal finance charge, and also violated ASFA’s “single document rule.” Importantly, the Court also affirmed the large award of attorney’s fees to Raceway Ford on the backdating claims.
The primary claim asserted by the class plaintiffs in the Raceway cases was that Raceway Ford’s practice of backdating contracts resulted in an illegal finance charge, namely, the interest which accrued between the first contract and the date the second contract was signed.
The plaintiffs relied on the ’s ruling, holding that the interest which accrued before the second contract was not an illegal finance charge.