At least in California, the dealers will charge you $1.75 for each tire that is on or in the car for a total fee of $8.75. Go ahead and look and you will see it on every sales document.

So whats the big deal? Well if you divide the $8.75 by 5, you get $1.75 for each tire.

Except that on most RX8's there is only 4 tires so the contract is legally null and void since it is incorrect. Most dealers do not realize that on these cars, there is no spare tire. They also screw this up in a Miata MX-5

 

What is it? Some sort of environmental "pre-disposal" fee or something?

 

What if your RX8 has a spare tire? Mazda does offer a spare tire for the 8, even though it is only a donut. And what is the reasoning for charging $1.75 per tire?

 

Spare tire is an option

 

It's the "Tire Disposal" fee; been in effect since about 2001.

 

so how does that affect the contract? or are you just saying they are ripping people off for $1.75? hehe

 

If 1.75 was all I had to worry about getting ripped off by a car dealer, I'd be living in a perfect world.

 

I think his intent is that incorrect information on the contract can void it. To what purpose, I've no idea, as I'd assume having a void contract is bad for you.

 

$1.75 is about a 1/2 a gallon of 91 in Calif. the way gas prices are going right now.

 

How are they charging you for a disposal fee if you haven't disposed of it yet? When you replace your tires you can bet they're going to charge you again.

 

I couild find 1.75 in my couch...

 

He is just trying to say if the dealership charged u 5 tires fee but you only have 4 and you're not happy with your "new" ride, you can Actually void this whole contract and not losing a buck because the contract is all wrong to begin with.

 

Yah, but what I don't appreciate is that I pay that disposal fee again when I buy my first set of new tires. Double tax.

I could have gotten a double cheeseburger happy meal (so I get the toy) and super size it with a vanilla cone and have money for gas.

 

 

The contract is not legally null or void. There is a limit to how far you can take what is written vs. what is implied. Not to mention that typo's or clerical errors do not hold up in a court of law.

As an example. If you bet someone 1 million dollars that Justin Timberlake would expose Janet Jackson's boob on national TV during prime time (The highest rated event actually - the Superbowl) and even had it all written as a legal document and had your unsuspecting victim sign it and date it with witnesses it still wouldn't hold up. The courts would define this as an unreasonable bet with the loser having no intentions (at the time of signing or accepting the contract) to ever pay.

The same thing applies. It is unreasonable to assume that you are going to get out of a contract for a vehicle with MSRP around $30,000.00 for $1.75. The best you could do is get the $1.75 back - you can't even get out of your driveway for a $1.75 in gas.

 

one might get an attorney involved for this stuff.

thread fails hard.

beers

 

Not so fast my friend

We're on a land that some dumb lady can sue McDonalds for serving hot coffee thats "too hot" for her mouth.

yea it sounds stupid but, a judge might not think that way !

I wouldn't be surprise if the whole contract is void like that.

 

precisely.

 

Actually, i'd be inclined to go with Are-ex-eight...the McDonalds thing was more of a punitive issue....I think the coffe was kept well above like 200 some odd degrees, and it spilled, causing 3rd degree burns. In that instance, there is a "reasonableness" issue...which..and i'm sure i'm going to get flamed for saying it, is a bit excessive for the temp to be that high on a cup of coffee, resulting in a liability issue attaching to the whole situation. Also, there are specific legal requirements "leagalees" for a "contract" for such a high monetary amount...and illegal contracts are unenforceable.