I just purchased a brand-new 2008 Suzuki SX4 Crossover from Fox Valley Suzuki in Aurora, IL.  Oddly, the sales agreement says that I bought a used car.  The form has a Warranty Disclaimer section that says, "This used motor vehicle is sold as is without any warranty, either expressed or implied."  The form also has a Rider Disclaimer with some downright ridiculous provisions:

"Vehicle is used and requires parts and restoration."

"Seller disclaims his expertise and claims his knowledge is that of a layman."

Is all of this "normal"?  Is this the standard Suzuki sales contract for new cars?  What are the legal implications of all this?  Is Suzuki trying to circumvent my state's Lemon Law?

Note that the dealership claims that this is indeed their routine sales contract for new cars, and that its only real implication is to disclaim any dealership warranty (beyond the manufacturer warranty).

On the sales tax payment form, the dealership correctly checked the New box.

It sounds like some fraud scam to me.  I think you should have walked out on that one. 

The sales tax return goes to the Secretary of State, so they probably want to make sure that paperwork matches the title paperwork.  Did you get a Carfax report?  It may be one that they accidentally dropped off the transporter, and they are covering their tail if you find out it had "transit damage", so they can claim they told you about it.  The whole thing sounds fishy to me. 

I'd say send a copy of the paperwork to the state's attorney's consumer fraud investigators and just pose the question that the paperwork you were given on your purchase of the new car seems to contradict itself and see what happens.

Carfax shows 0 database records for this car.

If it was a demo rig ait will most likely be sold as a used rig as I think there is a law that says that anything over a certain mileage a new rig has to be titled/sold as a used rig. I know that here in Or. that something close to that is true as the x and I bought a "new" 04 Jeep GC that was sold as new and as we had some issues with the "new" GC, they ended trading the "new" GC we first bought for another one with only about 16 miles on it and it was better equipped. I think that mileage is some where around 1K miles here in Or. but I am not sure about that.

This car had only 11 miles on it today when I took a test drive.

The car is a brand-new 2008.  It can't be more than a few weeks old.

Carfax shows 0 database records for this car.

By the way, don't trust carfax.

If your rig was F'd up and they did the work in house without turning it over to insurance, it will not show up on carfax. But then, how did the DMV paper work end up showing it as a used rig?

Go talk to the stealer and see why they show it as a used rig instead of a new one. Maybe they are the ones that had the brain fart, giving you the wrong paper work.

So here is the Rest Of the Story:

Right after the sale (i.e., Friday night), I tried to contact Suzuki Customer Relations, but they were already closed.  I did fax them my question, along with a copy of my sales contract.  I also sent a question (not a complaint) to the Illinois attorney general.

Saturday morning, I spoke to the dealership's sales manager.  He gave me a copy of the title transfer, which correctly shows the car as New, and also let me watch while an employee entered my car into Suzuki's warranty system as a New car.  With respect to the contract itself, though, he said that he was merely doing what the dealer's lawyers told him to do.  I replied that I still needed to find out what Suzuki Customer Relations would say.

On Monday afternoon--since I had not yet heard from Suzuki Customer Relations despite my Friday night fax--I called them.  They initially started to give me a disheartening line about dealerships being independently owned, but after looking at my sales contract, the rep said:

Although the sales contract has the term "used" in one or two places, that is not crucial; the contract is still acceptable (though unusual, if only because most buyers utilize some sort of financing).  However, the contract has some specific waivers and disclaimers which I should not have been told to sign and initial.  He gave me the name and number of the dealership's owner, and said I should ask for a reissue or amendment of the contract without any signature or initialing of the inappropriate clauses.  He specifically gave the hypothetical example of a new car purchased with a scratch (presumably from transport or lot-sitting) that the dealership should fix.

I called the owner's number, and his assistant took my information.  Within minutes the same sales manager with whom I spoke on Saturday called me back and offered to print a new contract, with no signature or initialing of the disclaimers, and to shred the old one.  I agreed, and that was what we did.

I now suspect that this sales practice may be a reaction to fraud perpetrated on the dealership in the past.  It is, frankly, all too easy for a new car buyer to get a scratch on his car (due either to fault or victimhood), and then come back to the dealer claiming that the scratch was already present at the time of purchase.  Perhaps the long-term solution is some kind of walkthrough as part of the car-buying procedure?

A bit of a run around but good to know it's taken care of.

How is the new Vit?

How is the new Vit?

The car is wonderful.  Of course, it's basically a subcompact wagon with all-wheel-drive, but that's what I wanted.  Because I wanted the Electronic Stability Program, I got the entire Touring Package, which includes a full set of accessories such as keyless ignition, 6-disk CD/MP3/WMA player, etc.

The car is wonderful.  Of course, it's basically a subcompact wagon with all-wheel-drive, but that's what I wanted.  Because I wanted the Electronic Stability Program, I got the entire Touring Package, which includes a full set of accessories such as keyless ignition, 6-disk CD/MP3/WMA player, etc.

Now, no, no.  ASMC says that it has an "aggressive dose of off-road capability" and they say "it is exceptionally capable off-road".  They also say it has "excellent approach, break-over and departure angles" and the "Grand Vitara means business"  What business that is is still up for guessing.

So you don't have a AWD stationwagon.  What you got is an off-road monster.  Prolly better than a Samurai!

I know when Petersons reviewed it they actually liked the Grand Vit.  Their only problem was the lower ground clearance combined with a lack of factory skid plates. 

 
Am I the only one that actually read lgmayka's posts?

He got a loaded SX4 not a GV.  I'm glad you got this resolved.  But I wonder if this was not actually an honest mistake, but that you were the first to catch it and call them on it.  My guess is they've done this for a while and nobody really went back and read the contract.  When I was working at ASMC they were in the process of yanking like 5 dealers franchise certs for commiting frauds.  I'm sure you just put a red flag in the HQ's database for that dealer.  They will be watching their paperwork a bit closer now.

Yea, I don't know what I was thinking... for some reason I got the two mixed up.  :p