lr_adap asked:


I purchased a new car a week ago, and I was called on Friday to come back in to the dealership. I knew that meant that I wasn’t approved for the financing, and that i was returning the new vehicle. I was prepared to return it and get my trade-in vehicle back, but when I got there they said I didn’t have that as an option. They misled me and basically forced me into a car that I didn’t want and had me sign a new contract, even though I expressed my dislike in the new car and that I wanted my old car back. I am wondering what, if anything, am I entitled to do. They were in such a rush to get me out the door, that they asked me for my signature on the new contract that was still dated with the original contract date from the week before. Is this even legal?

Shannon Long

advise please asked:


i am in the midst of a chapter 7 bankruptcy…keeping this in mind i have a question. i previously had a 2003 pt cruiser, which i was told by my lawyer that i could give back or keep in my bankruptcy..here is where it gets interesting. i had a dealership “approve” me for a car loan on a 2010 ford focus…drove the car home and have had it for 8 days as of today. i keep recieving calls from the dealership telling me i need to provide them proof that i will not have to repay a debt included in my bankruptcy (this debt being to the state of michigan) according to my attorney its completely included and he mailed them a letter stating such…now the fun begins, the dealer is basically telling me my financing fell through and they need the car back…i have already insured the vehicle and am left wondering what the heck, do i take the car back and be left vehicle less or i mean what can i do./….they did make me sign some form of an addendum stating that if the deal fell through they would charge me $30 a day as a rental fee…i feel as if i am being prayed upon, what do i do and is this even legal?

Freddy Pennigton

asked:


or some kind of law requiring you can 100% pay for the collision into another vehicle?

if so why are people pissed about a law that require health insurance if you get sick and not make big gov ER pay for your broken legs an pay ur own way

Refugio Hibbs

Tourang B asked:


Instead of all the expenses going to cops trying to check speed limits, traffic tickets, court costs for speeding, speed related traffic accidents, and billions of dollars spent on this cat and mouse game, why not pass laws forbidding the auto industry to build cars that exceed certain speed limits? This is very possible What’s your take on this?
I know that some will say this is the way to generate revenue for the city but imagine the revenue saved by fewer cops who only have to chase after criminals rather than waiting an intersection to see who goes at what speed.
As far as speed limit goes, I was thinking of a small receiver device that is installed in every car that regulates the speed limit. The police would mount a small transmitter device in each street in order to communicate with your car and tell it what the speed limit for that street is and your care speed limit is then set for that street. You cannot go any faster than that in that particular street.
By the way, many people talk about lack of acceleration and it’s dangers. But speed and acceleration are two different animals. Everything is relative. If you want to accelerate to pass a car, you can still do that at below the speed limit speeds. Remember that the car you are trying to pass is not going 110 miles per hour anymore.
Someone said that it’s not possible to have laws that force older cars to have this device. But howcome older cars are forced to go through the emissions test and install catalytic converters? So it is legally possible to have these devices installed on every car out there.
Also remember that catalytic converters are already reducing the speed and acceleration of the cars. Your cars could go alot faster if it wasn’t for that device. So what’s the difference here?

Micheal Rieske

an_angel_lrmo asked:


I agreed to a 36 month lease, for 36,000 miles and the set monthly payment. The car dealership told me a mistake of some sort was made, but refused to tell me what. Basically they were saying oh, just initial here. I noticed that they reduced my mileage allowed to 30000. I didn’t agree to that so I did not sign it. The only thing I signed was what I had initially agreed to. I am still in the right since I did not sign the new contract right?

Molly Albriton

mommy of 3 baby boys asked:


meaning how old do they have to be or weight/height requirements to be out of a carseat/booster seat by federal law?
I Live in PA if that helps

Keenan Masella

James S asked:


Im looking at two electric cars. the Transporter and the GEM. Both have lites, turn signals and seat belts, and are considered street leagal. What are the laws governing the use of these vehicles?

Greg Bedoya

Kimberly C asked:


i’ve been having blackouts for a while and have even totalled my ex mom in laws car because of one.i saw my doc today and she is setting up an e.e.g. to see if i’m having seizures.wouldn’t i or someone else have known?

Iesha Guignard

samantha asked:


My sister Just move to california, and they have a truck that has a back seat. The problem is that the seat in the back is not wide enough to hold the bottom of the car seat so She has been putting her 1 year old in the front and turning off the air bag. Does anyone know, if she can get pulled over for having the baby ride in the front of the truck. Thanks in advance!

P.S. She will still be in her car seat, just up front. Is a child riding in the front seat, in a car seat, with the air bag off, cause to get pulled over.

Nigel Councilman

Patrick B asked:


My state just approved a law that bans people from smoking in their cars if children are present. You can be pulled over and fined if a cop sees you. I totally disagree with smoking on principle and I don’t like people smoking around kids, but I think that a law like this is extremely unconstitutional.

It allows the government to step in and tell people how to raise their kids. I understand that second hand smoke may be harmful to children, however it is the right of the parent to decide how to handle the health of their kids. This opens up the gateway for quite a few other laws as well.

What about obese children? Should we fine the parents for not feeding them properly? Should the same apply to children who are too skinny or are being fed a vegan diet (the Surgeion general recomends 4 oz of meat a day). What about parents who allow their kids sugar (diabetes is on the rise) or who allow their kids to drink soda (sugar, corn starch and caffeine are toxins to the system). Anything other than an organic diet is actually allowing posions into the body.

Why stop at physical risks? What about fining parents that don’t allow their children to wear the latest fashions? They’ll be teased at school and that will hurt their self esteem. What if the parents don’t get a computer for the kids? They’ll fall behind in their studies, and won’t get accepted into good schools. I know those examples are ridiculous, but how many ridiculous cases are pushed through every year in the court systems? All it takes is for someone to believe in it, and push it into law.
Congogalls, my other examples show other ways in which a parent can damage the health of their child. Improper diet and excess sugar leads to diabetes, that has been proven. Why is it okay to regulate smoking because it hurts the child, when not regulating something else that hurts the child as much (if not more)?
Droobey, then you agree we need to ban parents from feeding their kids anything except a government approved diet. After all, a snackers right doesn’t supercede the protection of a child.

It’s not the villages place to tell a parent how to raise a child. Keep your laws out of my family.

Jerrod Quitugua