Many people fall victim to deals that are too good to be true and can often do little about it when they face large auto dealerships. In this case however, the auto dealership fell victim to their own game and lost close to $10 K and had authorities jail a man.
A Virginia Chevrolet dealership had a Virginia man arrested after they sold him a more expensive car for nearly a $6,000 loss. They told police that the man had stolen the vehicle. Police arrested the man for allegedly stealing a Chevrolet Traverse from Priority Chevrolet in Chesapeake, VA.
Danny Sawyer had been sold the SUV for $5,600 less than the dealership intended to sell the vehicle. When the staff noticed their mistake, they asked Sawyer to sign the new contract with the higher price. He refused and a staff member contacted the police alleging that Sawyer had stolen the vehicle.
Police arrested and booked Sawyer for four hours until the story was straightened out. That was when Dennis Ellmer, president of Priority Chevrolet admitted to owing Sawyer an apology on behalf of the dealership and staff, and that he wanted to do right and legal by letting him have the vehicle at the agreed-upon price.
Sawyer’s lawyer told Autoblog that it is too late for an apology; it was something that the Chevy staff should have taken care of before incarcerating him. The briefly-incarcerated owner has filed two lawsuits against the dealer, accusing the business of malicious prosecution, slander, defamation and abuse of process. The suits seek a total of $2.2 million in damages, plus attorney fees.
“The lawsuit says Sawyer originally purchased a blue Traverse on May 7, but took the SUV back the next day for a black one. The dealer’s sales manager made the swap, allegedly without saying anything about a price differential between the two. Either way, Sawyer signed a final contract for around $34,000 when the vehicle he took home had an actual price of closer to $39,000. On June 15, Sawyer was taken into custody by police, but the Commonwealth dropped the charges after finding insufficient evidence to pursue the case”