Hacker News Reader

Comment by RijilV | Hacker News Reader

While I'm no legal expert, I believe the crux of the issue is in this case the dealership had already signed over the title, meaning the had no legal right over the car. Bad on them for demanding a $200 fee to remove it which wasn't clear upfront (though the dealership never responded to the reporters so all we have is the one sided story)

That being said, I think you're referencing the more common cases where these devices are used to disable vehicles on lease to customers. In that case the lease holder is not the owner, so yeah tampering with someone else's car is probably not legal. atleast on the surface that seems reasonable, I wouldn't want someone messing with my vehicle.

I'll agree that leasing agreements are often predatory and there is confusion over who's vehicle it is, but if you want ownership you really need to have purchased the title.

View on HN

I'd be very surprised if the buyer didn't sign something upon purchase that gives the dealer the right to disable the car on lack of payment.

Sure.. but that didn't happen here. He paid off the car. And they still disabled it.

But he didn't pay all the fees they requested of him.

Whether they had a contractual right to request the fee for removal of the tracker is a different matter.

Which is completely irrelevant if the buyer owns the car outright? Want your fees? Take it up in small claims. They have no rights over your property.

It's quite plausible that payment of this fee was a condition of title being transferred.

Also, even once the title for the car is transferred, the tracker remains the property of the dealer and they will have some rights to recover it.

It was mentioned that the fee was not part of the contract.

I'm inclined say the tracker is part of the car, and the dealer has no rights over it (unless mentioned in the contract), similar to how a furnace, thermostat, or water heater is part of a house (because its nailed/bolted to the house).

(IANAL)

Nonsense. The tracker is removable and remains the property of the dealer.

Removability is not the applicable criterion. It is whether the device is permanently affixed or not.

If the dealer left a ballpoint pen in the glove box, sure, you could make an argument that they retain ownership of it. But the lockout device is exactly as removable and as permanently affixed as the car stereo, or the headlights, or the transmission.

If you replaced the original manufacturer's car stereo with an aftermarket model, and wanted to keep it and swap it back out for the original stereo, you would have to mention that in the purchase agreement. The same goes for any other fixture or appurtenance on the vehicle. If it isn't removed before the papers are signed, or mentioned in those papers, ownership goes with the title to the vehicle.

It's not permanently affixed. It's removable.

So are the bricks which hold up my home. Don't pretend you're a legal expert.

Everything is removable with a sledgehammer. Many things are made of constituent parts that can be removed, but that doesn't mean that the original owner has rights to it.

But it wasn't removed. Nor were arrangements made for it to be removed. So all parties involved should have been able to expect that it would remain affixed to the car for the foreseeable future--the future in which the entire car, and everything in it, changes ownership.

There are two different legal regimes at play: property law and contract law. You can put whatever you want in a contract, and if the buyer breaches the contract you can sue them for breach. But as a general matter, there are no "self help" remedies for breach of contract. Remedies like repossession are the domain of property law. You can leverage property-law interests in a contract (e.g. providing in a contract that buyer retains title property until payment for goods), but as a general matter you can't mess with peoples' property to enforce a contract.

I'm not sure how Canadian law works, but in most U.S. states, an auto lender holds a lien, which is an encumbrance on your car title. Liens cease to exist when the debt obligation they are tied to is repaid. (Your lender will send you a letter or notice of satisfaction, but that is merely evidence of the fact that the lien has been extinguished.)

Because property law has its own mechanics, you can't just assume that the dealership can give itself arbitrary self-help rights in the contract. It's possible that the dealership has clever lawyers and set things up to allow it to lock out the car even after repayment. But it seems more likely that the dealership simply fucked up, and tried to collect a fee using a self-help remedy it was no longer entitled to use after repayment of the loan.

Not an expert on Canadian law, but common sense suggests it's more complex than that.

You cannot simply throw money at a lease provider and gain title of a vehicle.

The lease provider can impose other conditions on title transfer (e.g. early repayment fees)

If you're throwing large sums of money at them, they should probably perform some anti-money laundering checks before accepting the money.

If you're paying cash, they may justifiably not want to handle large amounts of cash.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that return of the dealer's GPS tracker (and possible payment for removal) could also be conditions on them transferring the title.

The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker.

> The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker.

Yes, the article is abundantly clear. You're getting downvoted because your position is counter to available facts, and your logic is faulty.

He owned the car. They had no legal right to disable it. As the article says:

Quebec's Consumer Protection Bureau said it is illegal to charge fees not included in a signed contract.

The office also said a lender has to furnish a borrower with notice of 30 days before acting in such a way. Immobilizing a car could amount to a form of intimidation, which is also prohibited under consumer protection laws, they said.

Your position is essentially that illegal behavior is fine, because, well, it's not "clear" that the behavior is illegal. Despite oodles of evidence that it is.

Where in the article does it say he owned the car at the time of the disagreement over the GPS tracker?

It's literally the third paragraph.

>There are two different legal regimes at play: property law and contract law. You can put whatever you want in a contract, and if the buyer breaches the contract you can sue them for breach.

Are you saying if you signed a contract with a clause that read something like "If you owe us money we can shut off your car after 90 days" it would be illegal for them to actually do it? That seems odd to me.

No, the contract would say "if you don't pay for OUR car, we can shut off OUR car after 90 days".

If you're making rental payments on a car like he was, the title is still with the dealer. And the dealer can do what they want with their car. You have to follow their rental agreement in full, or else.

If he had bought a car with a bank loan, title would be with him. But the bank would have a lien on the car. And the bank (not being stupid) would get a court order before repossessing the car after missed loan payments.

Contracts say whatever they say. What I was asking is if the wording I specified would make shutting off the car legal.

Again, read what I wrote, and read the article.

They can shut off THEIR car, if THEY own it, and if THEY have title.

If he owns the car, Quebec law is clear that it is ILLEGAL for them to shut off the car, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS.

And yes, ALL CAPS is necessary here, because the information you're asking for has already been explained repeatedly.

If you find yourself shouting at people, it probably means you haven't been listening. My question was more general than this specific case.

My answer was general. What part of that was unclear? Or do you think that this guy has a law which applies only to him, and no one else?

If you find yourself unable to understand simple English, it probably means you haven't been listening.

The article clearly states that the law prohibits that. The contractual rights don't supersede the law.

Yeah, but he paid off the car and now they want their immobilizer back and to charge him for them to remove it.

$200 to remove a tracker seems a bit steep, and were I him I'd be inclined to either remove it myself or tell them they were welcome to remove it on their dime. Assuming, of course, he's correct in his assertion the fee wasn't in the contract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com