When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
So far these low option cars don't really seem like they are pulling in huge bucks. But these Mecum auctions seem to always get a little retarded, so who knows.
I wonder who the seller is.. like if its going to be a no warranty car because its a flipper, or just a dealer selling it at auction.
The Mecum description makes no mention about warranty, which brings up an interesting point. You would think they would have to disclose that before bidding begins.
For those that will watch, Sat the 14th - Lot S71.1
The Mecum description makes no mention about warranty, which brings up an interesting point. You would think they would have to disclose that before bidding begins.
For those that will watch, Sat the 14th - Lot S71.1
It's on the buyer to do their homework. AS IS sale
The Mecum description makes no mention about warranty, which brings up an interesting point. You would think they would have to disclose that before bidding begins.
For those that will watch, Sat the 14th - Lot S71.1
Probably a dealer selling a never titled “Stock” order car.
It's on the buyer to do their homework. AS IS sale
Would be despicable if GM actually enabled these types of practices with their BS policy. Taken from the sales agreement published online prior to the policy being changed to 6 months:
“By signing below, you are acknowledging that you understand these terms. Given the impact on warranty coverage, you are also agreeing that, if you choose to sell this vehicle within one year after you have taken delivery, you will communicate the loss of warranty coverage to the transferee. These changes will not impact product recalls in any way.”
I’m assuming this same verbiage is in the current agreement. Even so, I could see an uneducated buyer getting screwed by an unethical seller and GM not doing much about it but voiding the warranty and banning the seller. Voiding warrantees are in their self interests after all.
Considering the litigious nature of the US, I'd be surprised if they didn't disclose any potential loss of warranty coverage... but as another posted noted, this could be a dealer sending it to auction.
The Mecum description makes no mention about warranty, which brings up an interesting point. You would think they would have to disclose that before bidding begins.
For those that will watch, Sat the 14th - Lot S71.1
I saw a local Facebook ad for a C8 Z06. He didn't even have the car yet. Told they guy that he should disclose that it will have no warranty (he's not a dealer). That got his attention. Said it was already sold and had no idea about the warranty situation. He said his dealer never said anything to him about it. I told him because the dealer doesn't care. They get their money and that's all they care. Man oh man the people out there better watch out.
I saw a local Facebook ad for a C8 Z06. He didn't even have the car yet. Told they guy that he should disclose that it will have no warranty (he's not a dealer). That got his attention. Said it was already sold and had no idea about the warranty situation. He said his dealer never said anything to him about it. I told him because the dealer doesn't care. They get their money and that's all they care. Man oh man the people out there better watch out.
Didn’t he sign something at delivery? Either he did and didn’t read it or the dealer forgot the disclosure letter to be signed at delivery. I’m guessing it’s the former?
Didn’t he sign something at delivery? Either he did and didn’t read it or the dealer forgot the disclosure letter to be signed at delivery. I’m guessing it’s the former?
Not sure. I ended the discussion after he started saying that it should be in writing, etc. I wasn't interested in talking about it any more. At least now he knows.
Would be despicable if GM actually enabled these types of practices with their BS policy. Taken from the sales agreement published online prior to the policy being changed to 6 months:
“By signing below, you are acknowledging that you understand these terms. Given the impact on warranty coverage, you are also agreeing that, if you choose to sell this vehicle within one year after you have taken delivery, you will communicate the loss of warranty coverage to the transferee. These changes will not impact product recalls in any way.”
I’m assuming this same verbiage is in the current agreement. Even so, I could see an uneducated buyer getting screwed by an unethical seller and GM not doing much about it but voiding the warranty and banning the seller. Voiding warrantees are in their self interests after all.
Meh, like any used car, buyer needs to do their homework.
First, I can't tell you how insulting and embarrassing GM's warranty policy is... I dealt with some pretty clueless and unjustifiably arrogant executives in my corporate career... this clumsy attempt to solve a "problem" that doesn't exist demonstrates that despite their admirable progress in purging the systemic incompetence that led to their bankruptcy, some legacy morons still survives.
That said, this whole situation smells of typical Internet BS to me....
01-06-2023, 11:46 PM
Z06 on Mecum Auction
