>
A Yan woman in Fuzhou called the police, claiming that she had been deceived by the 4s shop, and that a Mercedes-Benz car she bought had become a rent. After the police rushed to the scene, the person in charge of the 4s store was very excited to tell the police that she was renting a car at the time, and saw Ms. Yan with an innocent attitude in front of the police, and the person in charge of the 4s shop rolled her eyes in anger.
So what is the truth of this matter? This starts with a Mercedes-Benz car, in May last year, Ms. Yan wanted to buy a car in order to travel to and from work. According to a friend, Ms. Yan chose to choose the form of an installment loan at a Car Dealership in Fuzhou and bought a Mercedes-Benz car.
However, when Ms. Yan was driving to talk to customers about business recently, in less than two hours, Ms. Yan's Mercedes-Benz car disappeared. At first, Ms. Yan thought that she had been dragged away by the traffic police for illegal parking. However, when the phone called the traffic police to confirm, the traffic police denied it.
Ms. Yan thought about it, if it wasn't for the illegal parking and being dragged away, then there was only one possibility that the car purchase company drove away. Because the car company also keeps a car key. Ms. Yan called the car company to confirm. Car companies also admitted that they towed the cars away.
When Ms. Yan asked why she dragged the car away, the car purchase company responded because Ms. Yan did not repay the loan, and when the loan was overdue, they towed the car away as collateral. However, Ms. Yan said that she suspected that she was pit by the car dealership and did not repay the loan on time.
Because the property rights of the car after the purchase of the car are not in her own name, even the car purchase contract and the spare key herself have not been obtained, Ms. Yan said that she was very uneasy, which stopped paying the monthly payment, and hoped that the car dealership would return the car to her and give her a statement.
With the intervention of the police, Ms. Yan finally got the car purchase contract she had always wanted, but Ms. Zhang was dumbfounded when she saw the contract. It turned out that this car purchase contract was not the car purchase contract that Ms. Yan thought, but a lease contract. This made Ms. Yan feel very confused and aggrieved.
So what is the truth? The police came to the car dealership to inquire about the details. However, a sentence from the person in charge then made Ms. Yang, who claimed to be a victim, panic. The person in charge said that when Ms. Yan bought a car at the car dealership at that time, she could not make a loan at the bank due to insufficient credit information. So Ms. Yan chose the car purchase model of renting on behalf of the buyer.
The car dealership is a lease procedure handled with ms. Yan's consent, and Ms. Yan is aware of this. However, Ms. Yan did not agree with this, and then the staff in charge of sales at the time also came forward to tell the police that she clearly informed Ms. Yan in the process of car purchase that the car was purchased by rent.
However, whether it is the car dealership or the sales staff, Ms. Yan said that she resolutely disagreed, because she only saw the car purchase contract and did not see the lease contract when she signed the contract. The person in charge of the car dealership clearly told Ms. Yan that the reason why the leasing company took the car was because of overdue repayment, and if Ms. Yan had any problems, she could negotiate with the leasing company.
Accompanied by the police, Ms. Yan came to the leasing company, paid off the overdue loan to get back his car, and the staff of the leasing company said that he repeatedly called Ms. Yan to communicate before driving the car away, but in the case of notification, it was still overdue for three months, and they had to recycle the car.
Ms. Yuan said she wanted to pay off the remaining loan and transfer the car to her name. However, after asking the leasing company to tell Ms. Yan the remaining amount, Ms. Yan disagreed, because her final payment was originally 290,000, why it suddenly became 330,000.
This price has exceeded the amount that should have been repaid, the staff said that it is because Ms. Yan's late repayment also needs to pay a 5% liquidated damages, the current issue of the repayment amount has not been agreed between the two sides, Ms. Yan said that she will protect her legitimate rights and interests through legal means, what do you think about it?
The pictures in this article are from the Internet, if there is infringement, please contact to delete