Toyota Lawsuit Actions

breaker, that's their choice and their risk. And, yes, a sales person will cite resale value as an asset but they're not about to guarantee anything of the kind. The same goes for other investments. These come with disclaimers. If someone wants insurance against loss of value based on such nebulous criteria, they can call Lloyds of London.

It's a sales point. All other things being equal, why not buy based on the perceived higher resale value? It's a big purchase, so it makes sense for the consumer.

Maybe sales people should be prohibited from using it. I see such claims made in car commercials too. Truth in advertising?

Would you buy 80K mile tires and then decide to get a new set at 40K and expect a trade in value on them? Yes, you could keep the older tires when you got a new set, but did you buy those 80K tires with an eye toward their resale value? Why should buying a car be any different? Or take real estate. Lately people are discovering the resale value of their home is much less than they'd hoped for. Should they blame the builder for that, especially if there were some repairs needed and the builder made good on them? The used items market is mostly separate and distinct in valuation from the primary new market items. Look at clothes. Fashions change and suddenly what was hot one year is considered old and passe the next year. Sue the clothiers?!

People DO take resale value into account when buying a car, and car sellers encourage that by citing resale value.

I intend to sell it but because I hope to keep it. High resale value goes hand in hand with high quality and longevity. That some or all Toyota models have taken a hit because of these latest recalls does not affect the useful life of these cars by a single day. Those folks who trade in for a new car when the payment book is empty or those who lease will have a different viewpoint. I'd think that some who lease with the option to buy at market price when the lease terminates might do well.

When a recall is issued and any product problems fixed, the buyer has the true value of what he bought restored to him. He's buying a car, to drive, he's not buying an "investment" and he's foolish to think of it in such a manner, most especially with automobiles. Just because buyers in the after market choose to avoid certain cars for various reasons, (sometimes due to the ugly factor, or gas guzzler in times of high fuel prices) doesn't give the buyer of a car the right to blame the dealer or manufacturer. When you buy a car, you pay what it's worth at that point in time in the market. If you want a guaranteed depreciation value, then use it for business and take a tax writeoff on it instead, because that's the closest you will ever get to an guarantee of value when you want to swap cars again.

It is a ridiculous lawsuit. The car was worth what you paid when you bought it. Toyota isn't responsible for everyone's change in perception anymore and maybe less than the reporters who write the stories about current problems. The recall, if it fixes the problem, makes good any requirement on the part of the company to "make good" on their product. What of cars that consumers start to disfavor due to looks alone? Should they have a right to sue for loss of resale value? Think Pontiac Aztek. Think Avalanche. Think any of the names being retired like Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Saturn, etc. Resale value of a car is based on many factors.

But the resale value of a Toyota Camry is going down specifically because of the actions of Toyota. Camry has historically had great resale values. It was entirely reasonable to expect that trend to continue.

I think they're great cars. We've leased two of them and bought one. But if I were in the market right now I'd hesitate to buy one, partly because of the problems, but also because of the lower resale value.

The drop in resale value can be directly linked to recent Toyota reactions and fear the problem has not been properly identified and resolved yet.

Still, to answer something you mentioned, I'm not one of those who buys with an eye toward resale value, usually. I'll admit we didn't even consider an Oldsmobile when looking for the last car and it was between a Buick or Toyota Camry. Why? Because I know Oldsmobile was going bye-bye and any car brand that disappears causes loss of value quickly in the ones still on the road.

More often than not however, I look for 1-2 year old vehicles that have already lost enough resale value, but still have good mechanical value to make it a bargain. Such was the Buick. They had a good performance record, but the resale prices had dropped beyond what I felt the true value was, so bought it.

My main aim is a used car that won't need as many repairs, have less than 30K on them, and will run past 150K normally with no big problems.

I think it's a bit ridiculous for those who buy a new car to complain about loss of resale value since it loses the most and the quickest the day they drive it off the dealer's lot.

Our Camry is an '04 (I think) , probably too old to be a factor, and we're planning to keep drive it for many years to come. But If I had a newer, more expensive model that I was planning to trade in I think I'd be plenty ticked off.

Who knows if the suit will succeed. But I don't see it as stupid or frivolous at all.

I feel sorry for Toyota as well. They are victims too, to an extent. Other car companies have had more recalls with nary a peep from the media.

Maybe I'm seeing more than is really there, but the timing of all this suddenly greater govt attention by NHTSA coincident with the CARS "Cash for Clunkers" which actually enriched Japanese car makers more than American has me wondering.