Easier for you to be an _ _ _ and repeat to them the paragraph you just
wrote here. I guess I'm glad you got the car you wanted, that IS great but
sh.t, you just dodged a bullet almost landing in a car you feared you'd
seriously dislike and all you care about is getting your 200 back even
though you yourself knew it to be 'non-refundable'. Now all you have to live
with is yourself.
Enjoy the car,
Chris
>>> >> Now I have to
>>> >> get £200 deposit back off the dealer he was going to buy the 530D
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> they had asked me to make a payment for their inconvenience.
> pete
turtill@hotmail.com - 25 Feb 2006 00:07 GMT
>Easier for you to be an _ _ _ and repeat to them the paragraph you just
>wrote here. I guess I'm glad you got the car you wanted, that IS great but
>sh.t, you just dodged a bullet almost landing in a car you feared you'd
>seriously dislike and all you care about is getting your 200 back even
>though you yourself knew it to be 'non-refundable'. Now all you have to live
>with is yourself.
I do not understand your problem. The £200 is my sons money and it was
paid as a token of commitment. It was, at the time, but things changed
before anything could happen that would cause the dealer loss. I
actually went there to look at a 530 but that hadn't got Zens and so
he showed me a 530 diesel which I thought I was going to have. If I
wasn't serious at the time I would have waited until the car had been
prepared and had another look. The dealers trade on the fact that they
are RAC accredited and after 2 days when I changed my mind they had
suffered no loss so I want the £200 back. As I said before I would
have given the salesman a good drink for his trouble but the company
wanted to make an issue of it and that is it.
pete
Dean Dark - 25 Feb 2006 00:42 GMT
>Easier for you to be an _ _ _ and repeat to them the paragraph you just
>wrote here. I guess I'm glad you got the car you wanted, that IS great but
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Enjoy the car,
You need to understand that Peter Turtill is a well known whack-job
and serious net kook, and that you are wasting your time with this
kind of logic.
You don't need to take *my* word for it, a little research will give
you all the information you need.
Next up, he'll threaten more lawsuits against the car dealer, and then
anyone else he thinks is disagreeing with him. He's nearly as bad as
Tony Bourne, though it's fun to watch those two yelling at each other,
each accusing the other of faking disabilities, dodging income tax,
and so on.
HTH, HAND, YMMV, etc.

Signature
Dan.
turtill@hotmail.com - 25 Feb 2006 01:09 GMT
>Next up, he'll threaten more lawsuits against the car dealer, and then
>anyone else he thinks is disagreeing with him. He's nearly as bad as
>Tony Bourne, though it's fun to watch those two yelling at each other,
>each accusing the other of faking disabilities, dodging income tax,
>and so on.
You are misguided to say the least. Anthony Bournes has been caught
making hundreds of silly posts about me and has twice lost his
connection for this and for posting in my name through ReadFreeNews.
Even google allow me to remove his posts when I care enough to do so.
pete
Chris D'Agnolo - 26 Feb 2006 20:44 GMT
Pete, Suffice it to say that you remind me of an interview I recently heard
with Colin Powell on the BBC. The BBC guy was doing his best to try to get
CP to apologize to the world for misleading them on Iraq. CP refused to
admit that he'd deceived anyone, saying over and over the same old dribble
drabble about everyone thought, everyone thought........
The fact of the matter, CP did mislead my country (and the world). This is
an established fact only arguable by the looniest of loonies. The point that
CP could have argued was only whether or not he had 'knowingly' misled.
You argue that the deposit WAS a commitment when it was made. The term
commitment used in this fashion is not a temporary thing that you give and
take based on your perception of the current situation. Nowhere in the fine
print does it say that 'your deposit is nonrefundable only if we have
incurred some loss or expense since you made such commitment'. The simple
fact that you spent time with a salesman and such means that it is a FACT
that you did cost them something. Oh ya, I forgot, you were 'willing' to
'buy him a drink', I'm sure that would have made it all better.
Chris
>>Next up, he'll threaten more lawsuits against the car dealer, and then
>>anyone else he thinks is disagreeing with him. He's nearly as bad as
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Even google allow me to remove his posts when I care enough to do so.
> pete
turtill@hotmail.com - 26 Feb 2006 23:55 GMT
>You argue that the deposit WAS a commitment when it was made. The term
>commitment used in this fashion is not a temporary thing that you give and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>that you did cost them something. Oh ya, I forgot, you were 'willing' to
>'buy him a drink', I'm sure that would have made it all better.
It is my sons money and he probably couldn't care less. The law says I
should have the money refunded and that is good enough for me. That is
what laws are for, to obey.
pete
Chris D'Agnolo - 27 Feb 2006 05:18 GMT
you're a funny guy! Take care.
Chris
>>You argue that the deposit WAS a commitment when it was made. The term
>>commitment used in this fashion is not a temporary thing that you give and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> what laws are for, to obey.
> pete