It helps to solidify the whole "used car salesman" image, to the detriment of the honest ones....it is my understanding that those who placed orders with them for MSRP were led to believe that, not only were they going to be able to purchase their car from them at MSRP, but also that there would be only one list, and they would not be skipped over (have to wait longer to receive their car). So, not only was price important, but the delivery schedule was as well.
Based on that, their move to then offer multiple lists is something which I feel is not complete transparency in business practices from the beginning.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few attorneys on the original "list". They know the legal system, contract law, and breach of contract litigation. Lawsuits likely were threatened, along with much negative publicity.It also says to me that it took arm twisting from many folks to get this fixed. If something were to go wrong in an individual transaction, I would not have the power of many people helping me push. I would have to go it alone. That is not a place I would want to be in as an individual.
As such, if I were a newbie shopping for a dealer, I would choose someone else other than them.
What "used car salesman image" are you talking about? This incident has not changed my view of any other dealership or salesman. For example, I still have the highest regards for Mike at Criswell. Every business is responsible only for their choices.It helps to solidify the whole "used car salesman" image, to the detriment of the honest ones.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few attorneys on the original "list". They know the legal system, contract law, and breach of contract litigation. Lawsuits likely were threatened, along with much negative publicity.
The legal costs alone (ignoring punitive damages) would have easily exceed whatever $5000/car gain they would have received. The negative publicity? I don't think you can put a price on the long term cost of that.
Thankfully, for all involved, the situation has apparently been resolved.
Based on what John explained and the other posts in this string, I am a little confused about how MacMulkin was anything but honest. So they started a list....took deposits....and realized that they needed to close the deposit list to ensure they did not overcommit. Then, based on a lack of knowledge on what their allocation would be, started a second list but did not require a deposit since it was unknown to them how deep into that list they could get. Sor far....no problem that I can see. Now if MacMulkin starts knocking people off their deposit list because of "other" customers (like long-standing customers who have waited to make a deposit) then that would be a flagrant foul.
I did not see anything here that seems to indicate that MacMulkin would charge beyond MSRP....however, they are not locked in in case GM decides to increase the MSRP. This was basically the same situation that i was in with respect to my Z-51 order.
I actually think MacMulkin would be further in the wrong if they just took your $2,000 and placed you on their list....and while they would abide by the list, their list would clearly outstrip their allocation. Maybe I am confused here, but I just do not see how MacMulkin has not been "transparent". Stopping their first list seemed like a fair action.
While I am not on any Z06 list nor plan on buying one, I have ordered my 2015 Z51 from MacMulkin and they have been tremendously transparent.