In 37 pages of Fiat Chrysler Automobile’s consent order with the government, the unprecedented action mentions little about what life will be like for the cars re-sold by the automaker after being repaired.
At issue are thousands of trucks and SUVs — Ram 1500s, 2500s, 3500s, Dodge Durangos and Dakotas, and Chrysler Aspens — that could be eligible for buyback from the automaker. FCA spokesman Eric Mayne told us in July that FCA has the ability to buy, repair and resell those cars under the order.
The recall order doesn’t address whether those cars would need to be identified as “buyback” cars, which the manufacturer isn’t obligated to disclose. But already, the consent order asks FCA to go above and beyond what the law requires for a while.
Unlike Lemon Law cars, which receive “manufacturer branded” titles, buyers may be relying on the dealer to tell you if the car was purchased and repaired by the manufacturer as part of the large-scale recall. And in the U.S., used car dealers are required to disclose only what they know about the vehicle’s history, including recalls, which may not be much.
FCA has (rightfully) said that the cars it buys back, repairs and re-sells would comply with all applicable safety standards outlined for the cars, and in theory wouldn’t be much different than any other successfully recalled and repaired vehicle.
However, it would be incumbent upon buyers (and even more so, dealers) to uncover their vehicle’s history — if they’re curious — and we all know CarFax is hit or miss.
So the question I have for the B&B is: Should titles reflect whether cars were purchased from manufacturers as part of a non-lemon “buyback?” Would buyers want to know recall history? Should the automaker or dealer be compelled to disclose its history?
The post QOTD: Should ‘Buyback’ Cars Carry a Branded Title? appeared first on The Truth About Cars.
Best Deals today in www.freepromotoday.com
