Can You Sue a Dealership for Selling You Cars With Maintenance Problems

[D-town]

My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: Tx,

I bought 3 vehicles from the same dealer. The first had speaker issues and was brand new off the lot. The 2nd had problems with the turbos and transmission upon which was covered under warranty(luckily). The third vehicle was dealer owned and purchased the extended warranty upon which the vehicle had less than 45k miles on it and the radiator blew out(assumption here is that it wasn't maintened). I know I have the right to order the maintence records on the cars. My mother authorized the radiator to be fixed and had no ownership in the last car. Do I have a potential lawsuit?

[Mr. Knowitall]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times?

If you purchase a used vehicle with a warranty, the warranty covers repair of anything covered by the warranty. For non-warrantied repairs or as-is sales, the cost of repair falls on the buyer.

[D-town]

I'll assume yes, they can't fix the vehicle without my consent. The morning of I called the dealership to not authorize the work, I was told that the radiator was already in and to come and get almost 4hrs later so that proves they lied.certainly that's admissible as evidence.

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you don't want your car repaired by the dealership that sold it to you, take it somewhere else for repair.

If you have a new question about unauthorized repairs, and whether you have to pay for them, you will need to share the relevant facts.

[D-town]

At this point I can get the reports on the 2nd and 3rd car to show they don't maintain them. Your correct because I didn't authorize the repairs, am I liable to pay that? The 2nd vehicle calls into question legal misrepresation of fact. That I'm 100% certain they are liable for.

[Mr. Knowitall]

At this point I can get the reports on the 2nd and 3rd car to show they don't maintain them. Your correct because I didn't authorize the repairs, am I liable to pay that? The 2nd vehicle calls into question legal misrepresation of fact. That I'm 100% certain they are liable for.

You have shared no information pertinent to the repair. If you want people to comment, you will need to give facts.

If you are 100% certain of something, and choose not to share any of the relevant facts with us, why are you even here? Besides, if they supposedly misrepresented something that was covered by and repaired under warranty, how would that benefit them?

[D-town]

I've shared all the facts. I literally have no more. How it would benefit them is that they would garnish customer loyalty to keep people coming back, like the poor mistake I made with the pos car. In my mind it's as simple as they didn't maintain the vehicle while it was dealership owned which was why it sustained damage. It's really as simple as them being careless imo. So am I liable to pay for the work I didn't authorize?

[budwad]

Yes, you are going to have to pay if you want your car back. Is there a signed work order for the repair? You say your mother authorized the repair. Did she bring the car in for repair?

The rest of your theory about dealership liability is just nonsense.

[D-town]

She authorized the work. Had no OWNERSHIP in the car. Anything else your incapable of understanding? This is going in circles and it doesn't seem like your getting it.

[budwad]

She doesn't have to own the car to bring it in for service. She authorized the work. Get the money from your mother if you are so inclined.

You're a snot.