Customer Suing New Jersey Dealer After Being Refused A Mercedes-Benz GLS

A New Jersey resident and Indian national is suing a local luxury car dealership for refusing to sell him a Mercedes-Benz GLS.

Surjeet Bassi is suing Prestige Motors for $1.26 million because when attempting to trade in his Mercedes-Benz ML for a GLS500 and paying the difference, the dealership’s manager expressed concerns that Bassi would export the off-roader to the Taliban.

Record Online says the lawsuit reveals that Bassi negotiated a deal with a salesman, passed a credit check and was charged a $1,000 downpayment. Then, unexpectedly, he was called into the manager’s office and bluntly told “I’m sorry I can’t sell you the car”.

The manager at Prestige Motors claimed that Bassi came from a high-risk area, known for having residents who do export vehicles to the Taliban. Despite insisting on signing a document that he wouldn’t export the car, the dealership still refused.

Bassi’s attorney, Michael Sussman, says that this case is just the latest in a large pattern of racial discrimination against immigrants.

PHOTO GALLERY

  • Andrewthecarguy

    That dealership is about to loose some money.
    Maybe Trump can get in on this and save his campaign 🙂

    • Jay

      Save his campain.. All he needs to do is kill someone..

      • ME

        maybe u

        • Jay

          If he gets to be president America will be dead. Or maybe just a lot of people that live there..

          • ME

            You’re paying attention to the wrong media outlet
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lbu1VXZIsI

          • Jay

            No media outlet is telling me this.. Just common sense. That guy is not fit to make America fit again. Neither is the clinton. But shes the lesser of the two evils so…

    • ME

      Better than Parkinson Clinton.

  • Merc1

    This is going to be interesting.

    M

  • lapirk

    Oh murica what would the world do without you

    • jh

      Jep.. only in america… and now he sues them for 1.6 million. How does he come up with that number? Moronic…

      • Jay

        So he could buy a couple of them..

    • Auf Wiedersehen

      Where would you like me to start?

  • Akira

    There’s definitely something more to this story. I don’t know any dealership that would refuse business for this kind of reason even if the guy was wearing a suspiciously large vest and muttering “Allahu Ackbar”.

  • Kash

    What happened to the whole “We have the right to refuse service to anyone” adage? Last time I checked private businesses can still refuse service to people? Pull your wadded up panties out of your arse Mr. Bassi and take your money elsewhere if the dealer won’t sell you the car. That’s one of the greatest thing about America really, the ability to pick and chose who you do business with.

    I understand where the dealership is coming from, if the vehicle leaves the country before it’s fully paid for (especially when financed through Mercedes or the dealership itself) you can’t repo it, so I’m willing to bet the dealer actually told him that if [Mr. Bassi] wasn’t able or willing to pay for the car in full he wouldn’t be able to sell him the car.

    Edit: the dealer refused to extend $83k in credit to the guy but there’s been no mention of whether or not the manager said anything about buying the car without financing.

    • BlackPegasus

      They don’t have the right to discriminate.

      • Kash

        But they didn’t tell him it was because of his skin color, just his country of origin, there’s a massive difference between the two things.

        • KenjiK

          It’s still discrimination.

          • Kash

            Why? Because they’re trying to protect themselves from losing some $83k if the car does get exported and the guy stops making payments? What then? The only clattoral they can reclaim on the defaulted loan is now on another continent. Not to mention the backlash from Mercedes they’ll receive for letting the car be exported. Is the government going to repay them for that and then pay the fine from Mercedes as well? No.

            So what’s to protect them from losing all that money? Nothing because if they do deny someone the opportunity to buy the car they get called racists, but if they let the person buy the car and they export it, stop making payments, the dealership loses money.

            The guy isn’t even suing them for not selling him the car, he’s suing because they wouldn’t extend him the credit to buy the car and he’s saying they violated the Equal Opportunity Credit Act.

          • KenjiK

            Sorry but I stopped reding after the first sentence.
            You should have looked a bit more into that story before making assumptions.
            I’m going to sums this up for you:

            1- That guy is not arab, he is indian. Indians have nothing to do with terrorism. (Yes, some indians do look like pakistanis and afghans, but still).

            2- The dealer said that he refused to sell because he was concerned the car might go the talibans. That’s racial profiling , and it’s unlawful.
            And when did they make the switch from ultra reliable Toyota to luxury Benz?

            3- That guy have been living in the US for 30 years.

            4- That guy isn’t on the federal database of people banned from exporting from the USA. The dealer looked for it.

            What more can I say?
            The law is the law. They had absolutely ZERO reason to refuse him.
            They are not protecting sh*t, this is pure discrimination, racism and bigotry.
            Stop acting like the USA wasn’t filled of people like that dealer.

            http://www.autoevolution.com/news/new-jersey-dealer-sued-after-refusing-to-sell-a-mercedes-benz-gls-to-customer-110236.html

          • Kash

            They still have the right to refuse service to anyone because they are a private business, and the guy is suing because they wouldn’t extend him the credit, not because they wouldn’t sell him the car.

            Did you know that? That the lawsuit is over extending him $83k in credit, they’re saying the dealership violated the Equal Opportunity Credit Act, not a thing about not selling him the car, other than he couldn’t buy the car without the credit.

            You wanna talk about doing research, you admitted to not even bothering to read my entire comment, what do you call that?

            P.s. i read at least 6 other articles, all from different sources about this, not counting the half baked one from recordonline, i didn’t make assumptions, i gave very plausible explanations about what probably happened because this entire case screams of frivolous because no one makes a single mention about buying the car outside of using credit and again, the suit is centered around the EOCA and nothing else.

          • KenjiK

            “They still have the right to refuse service to anyone because they are a private business”

            No, they don’t. That would be true if they were some sort of private club selling/dealing online through some sort of invitation or membership.
            They are a PRIVATELY OWNED business for the general PUBLIC, therefore, they don’t have the right to discriminate or refuse to sell to anyone. This is the law, whether you (and they) like it or not.

            “the guy is suing because they wouldn’t extend him the credit, not because they wouldn’t sell him the car.Did you know that? That the lawsuit is over extending him $83k in
            credit, they’re saying the dealership violated the Equal Opportunity
            Credit Act, not a thing about not selling him the car, other than he
            couldn’t buy the car without the credit.”

            They refused to extend the credit because they didn’t want to sell him the car. He was not able to buy the car because they refused to extend his credit. It’s prety clear for me.

            “You wanna talk about doing research, you admitted to not even bothering to read my entire comment, what do you call that?”

            You tell me.
            Why would you want me to go through the whole length of your comments when it’s only full of assumptions and not FACTS?

            “P.s. i read at least 6 other articles, all from different sources about
            this, not counting the half baked one from recordonline, i didn’t make
            assumptions, i gave very plausible explanations”

            Why are your trying to give explanations while completely overlooking FACTS? You said in your first comment (yes, i ended up reading the whole thing), that the man might export the car and stop paying payment. So you seriously believe someone who’s owning a company and has been living for 30 years in the USA is suddenly going to ditch all that away just to be able to make some cash selling a GLS abroad?
            Like, seriously?

            “no one makes a single mention about buying the car outside of using credit and again”
            Why would anyone do that? Why should he be ok with being forced to pay cash for the car when he is perfectly eligible for a credit (at least according to the law)?

          • Kash

            They’re a private business doing business with private citizens, they’re not an entity of the public government, they don’t receive money from taxes being collected from private citizens, and the business pays taxes just like private citizens thus they are allowed to refuse service to anyone they chose to. There’s a difference between doing business with the public and being a public entity and you don’t have to be a public entity to do business with the public.

            Just because they refused to let him buy the car on credit he received from them, specifically, doesn’t mean they didn’t let him buy the car, he could’ve just as easily attained credit from a bank and bought the car that way, the only difference would’ve been who he had to repay at the end of the day. All they did was tell him he couldn’t buy it on credit.

            What about people with bad credit, no credit, or don’t make enough to make the payments? If the dealer told someone who had a sub 500 credit score they weren’t able to give them the credit to buy the car, is that discrimination? No. That’s business. You don’t extend credit to people who may not pay back the loan because they have large amounts of unpaid debt, people who don’t make enough to pay for the car, or come from high-risk areas like this guy.

            What facts did I overlook?

            Who’s to even say he passed the credit check? The guy says he did but we have no proof of that either.

            Who’s to say he hasn’t exported cars under his wife’s name, or his kids before? All we know is that he hasn’t used his own name?

            And because the GLS is a lot cheaper in America than anywhere else and they’re scarce in the Middle East surprisingly. It happens every time a new car like this comes out. The Model X had like 1,500 units exported from America to China alone when it first came out and people were making bank because in China the car cost 7x more than it did here.

            The base Cayenne is $60k here, you can sell them for $150k in China right now. So you can essentially take that $83k and turn it into $150, 200, maybe even $250,000 selling the car on the cheap. Not to mention manufacturers don’t like that being done, they fine the dealership thousands of dollars if the car gets exported, even if the car is paid off when it’s exported.

            So, yes, seriously. There’s big money in this kind of thing.

            Google “Automotive Consultants of Hollywood” and read the story autonews did in 2014 about this very kind of thing. It’s not illegal, so the only thing that can be done is for manufacturers to crack down on dealerships to do this very thing: refuse service to customers who they think might export the car.

            Because there’s a difference between being told “we won’t sell you this car at all” and “We’ll sell you this car, but we, personally, can’t give you the credit to buy it.” Credit is not a right, it’s a privilege, and just because you don’t get the credit to buy something it doesn’t mean you’re being discriminated against. Being told someone won’t do business with you, isn’t even discrimination unless that person is something like a public utility or something contracted/operated by the government, which this dealership is not, and no it doesn’t matter if anyone from the public can just walk in and do business with them, they’re still a private business.

            We don’t even know if the guy actually got told he got denied because of his country of origin, it could be complete BS and the guy could’ve failed a credit check, the dealership’s only statement has been they don’t comment on active cases. Yeah the guy and his lawyer have been saying he passed a credit check, but we’ve seen no evidence of that.

          • KenjiK

            Jeez…
            One more time : a business can refuse services/sales for a number of reasons: health and safety issues (the famous no shirt no service), dress codes on certain cases/in certain places, etc.
            A business CAN NOT refuse service to someone based on race/country of origin, religion, sexual preferences…
            This is THE LAW, and it has a name : the Federal Civil Rights Act. They refused to sell the car to this man because he looks arab (which he is not). This is against the law, period.
            If he was a white caucasian male with blonde hair and blue eyes they would have asked no questions.

            “Just because they refused to let him buy the car… –>… on credit.”

            They had no right to do it. Which is why, if that guy have a half decent lawyer, they will lose that case.

            “What about people with bad credit, no credit, or don’t make enough to make the payments? If the dealer told someone who had a sub 500 credit score they weren’t able to give them the credit to buy the car, is that discrimination? No. That’s business. You don’t extend credit to people who may not pay back the loan because they have large amounts of unpaid debt, people who don’t make enough to pay for the car”

            Exactly.It’s not against the law to refuse a sale to someone who has a very bad credit/has no credit/doesn’t make enough to make the payments. BUT! In this case it’s irrelevant. They did not refuse because he has bad credit, they did not refuse because he has no credit , they did not refuse because he doesn’t make enough money. They refused because he looks afghan (while he is indian).

            ” or come from high-risk areas like this guy.”
            Nope, as long as that person is complying with all the above, you can’t. Dude, this is THE LAW, the L-A-W. I don’t make laws, and neither do you. So don’t even try twisting things like you see fit. In that very case, the law is crystal clear. If you don’t like it that’s your problem. Changes nothing to the fact that what they did is illegal.

            “What facts did I overlook?”
            Hmmmm… the fact that he is INDIAN, not AFGHAN? You’re still refering as him coming from a “high-risk area”…
            The FACT that it is against the law to refuse service to someone based on race/country of origin.

            “Who’s to even say he passed the credit check? The guy says he did but we have no proof of that either.”

            Who said he didn’t? Are you drunk or something? Do you seriously believe that the dealer wouldn’t have explained (and proved) it by now if he did not?

            “Who’s to say he hasn’t exported cars under his wife’s name, or his kids before? All we know is that he hasn’t used his own name?”

            There it comes, the infamous “blame the victim” american sickening mentality… You have facts under your eyes, but you’d rather go “maybe this, maybe that”.

            “Credit is not a right, it’s a privilege, and just because you don’t get the credit to buy something it doesn’t mean you’re being discriminated against.”
            You might want to study your own law a bit more seriously.

            “Being told someone won’t do business with you, isn’t even discrimination unless that person is something like a public utility or something contracted/operated by the government”
            Ditto.

            “We don’t even know if the guy actually got told he got denied because of his country of origin, it could be complete BS and the guy could’ve failed a credit check, the dealership’s only statement has been they don’t comment on active cases. Yeah the guy and his lawyer have been saying he passed a credit check, but we’ve seen no evidence of that.”

            Then stop making assumptions! Plain and simple.

          • KenjiK

            Sorry but I stopped reding after the first sentence.
            You should have looked a bit more into that story before making assumptions.
            I’m going to sum this up for you:

            1- That guy is not arab, he is indian. Indians have nothing to do with
            terrorism. (Yes, some indians do look like pakistanis and afghans, but
            still).

            2- The dealer said that he refused to sell because he was
            concerned the car might go the talibans. That’s racial profiling , and
            it’s unlawful.
            And when did they make the switch from ultra reliable Toyota to luxury Benz?

            3- That guy have been living in the US for 30 years.

            4- That guy isn’t on the federal database of people banned from exporting from the USA. The dealer looked for it.

            What more can I say?
            The law is the law. They had absolutely ZERO reason to refuse him.
            They are not protecting sh*t, this is pure discrimination, racism and bigotry.
            Stop acting like the USA wasn’t filled of people like that dealer.

          • Kash

            Then you’re an idiot if you’re not going to even bother paying attention to other people in discussions and you’ll just end up talking out of your arse, which you did.

            1) Never said he was, no one in this entire situation ever said he was either.

            2) no the dealer said the man came from a “high-risk area” where people buy cars and export them to the taliban, never said he was apart of it, and you don’t have to be apart of it to export to them, you also don’t have to be arab either, only Muslim really. The media has just been making it seem like the dealer accused the guy of being apart of the taliban.

            3) And? Russians had people living in the US for years during the cold war as sleepers, some still alive today and still living in the US.

            4) What about his family members? His kids, wife, business partner (who went with him to buy the car by the way, did you know that?)? Why would someone go to buy a car to export if if they were banned from exporting? You wouldn’t, you’d export it under someone else’s name or have someone else buy the car for you. They didn’t check anyone else’s name but his.

          • KenjiK

            1-2) Since when , and according to who did India become a “high risk area”?

            2) “you don’t have to be apart of it to export to them, you also don’t have to be arab either, only Muslim really.” I hope that was some kind of joke. If not , I don’t know what you’re smoking, but you might want to stop ASAP.

            4) That’s a lot of “if, maybe, they could, they might…”. You forgot his father, mother, grand-parents, nephew, mistress, dog, cat, turtle …
            Now let’s make this easier for you and focus on facts: from what we know, from what have been said, the dealer decision is AGAINST the law. Period.

            I’d rather be an idiot focusing on facts than a smartass of your kind going “maybe this, maybe that”.

          • Kash

            When the specific area in India has become so well known for exporting cars to the Taliban/Middle East, this is something governments track and know very well. It’s not just because he’s from India, but the specific region in India which he comes from.

            This case is super confusing and I had to ask my god father for his input, he’s a corporate lawyer who deals with discrimination suits all the time so he gave some interesting tidbits. I had the facts a little backwards, or sort of as well, I’ll admit that.

            So the guy is claiming they violated the EOCA, saying they denied him credit, but he’s also saying he passed a credit check and was extended the credit at first which is contradictive. The EOCA deals with being given credit, so denying someone credit because of race or whatever is in violation, but telling someone they can’t buy something in general whether they pay cash or use credit isn’t violating it.

            Now if they’re telling him he can’t buy the car on credit because of his country of origin and has to pay cash for it, then they’re violating the EOCA. If he was given the credit the buy the car, but they’re not selling it to him at all even if he paid for it in full in cash, they didn’t violate the EOCA. That’s simple refusal of business which can be done so long as the reason is consistent among all groups of people (i.e. you can’t refuse business to people because of race, but you can refuse service if they’re not wearing a shirt).

            The two things are so intertwined it’s hard to distinguish between the two because they’re so commonly found together. You can have a black guy get told he won’t be served because he’s not wearing a shirt, but that’s not racism because they’d tell anyone not wearing a shirt they won’t be served. The guy’s race makes no difference here if he’s not wearing a shirt.

            The dealerships reason is simple: they’re afraid he’ll export the vehicle (Doesn’t even matter where it goes or what they see in the background check as to why they think he might export it, it’s just simply “afraid he’ll export it out of America” and nothing else). That would be the equivalent of the guy not wearing a shirt in the above analogy.

            Then there’s the specific to him “Why are they afraid of him doing that?” the thing they see in his background check that makes them think he might export the car: Because of the specific region in India where he was born and raised is a high-risk area for exporting cars. That’s not something they have to tell you, it’s more like being told why you didn’t get the job you interviewed for. They told him why they were afraid of him exporting the car out of pure courtesy. That would be the equivalent of them saying they can’t serve the guy because not wearing a shirt violates health codes in the above analogy.

            You can have multiple people told they won’t be sold a car because they might export it, but all 3 can have different reason as to why the dealer thinks they might export it. The “why they might export it” makes no difference so long as all 3 people get told they won’t be allowed to buy a car from that dealership because they might export it.

            That’s not discrimination, that’s legal refusal of service. All they have to do is show where they turned away at least one other person out of fear that the car will be exported, which I’m sure they can do in multiples. That gets rid of the discrimination part.

            Again, it’s a very thin line, that’s easy to cross.

          • KenjiK

            You’re starting to get the point. Just a couple of things:

            “When the specific area in India has become so well known for exporting cars to the Taliban/Middle East”
            According to who? I tried making a quick research about that, with zero results. Indian have never been known to work with the talibans. And even if that was the case, let me remind you that the kind of cars those guys (the talibans) are looking for are Toyota SUVs and Pickups. Or other cheap easy to maintain cars, NOT luxury super expensive Benz SUVs.

            “So the guy is claiming they violated the EOCA, saying they denied him credit, but he’s also saying he passed a credit check and was extended the credit at first which is contradictive.”

            If the story went exactly as he depicted it, there is nothing contradictory here.I see it that way: he probably made the deal with a saleman (like in most dealerships) but then someone who’s above that saleman (his boss) decided to cancel the credit because he looks arab/indian.

            “but telling someone they can’t buy something in general whether they pay cash or use credit isn’t violating it.”
            It is, unless you have a clear reason not to : selling alcohol to someone under legal age, selling a firearm to someone banned to buy one…
            You need a LEGAL reason to deny service/sale to someone, if you can’t find one, it’s discrimination.

            ” You can have a black guy get told he won’t be served because he’s not wearing a shirt, but that’s not racism because they’d tell anyone not wearing a shirt they won’t be served. The guy’s race makes no difference here if he’s not wearing a shirt.”
            Exactly.

            “The dealerships reason is simple: they’re afraid he’ll export the vehicle (Doesn’t even matter where it goes or what they see in the background check as to why they think he might export it, it’s just simply “afraid he’ll export it out of America” and nothing else). That would be the equivalent of the guy not wearing a shirt in the above analogy.”
            Actually, it’s not equivalent at all. In your exemple, the black guy is not wearing a shirt. The business refuses to serve him for something he already did : coming to their restaurant without a shirt.
            In our case they are refusing him a credit for something he MIGHT do. That’s crazy, and illegal. That’s the very defintion of discrimination.
            Are you caucasian? How would you feel if some dealer refused to give you credit for a van for the sole reason that you might use it to abduct and rape children, or to shoort people in a mall ?

            “Then there’s ——-> dealership because they might export it.”
            If that guy exported a car in the past without making full payment for it, he would be banned to it again. Multiple people checked if he was. He is not. Whatever the dealer might be affraid of becomes irrelevant to the law. Again: you can’t refuse service to someone because of something he might do.

            “That’s not discrimination, that’s legal refusal of service. All they have to do is show where they turned away at least one other person out of fear that the car will be exported, which I’m sure they can do in multiples. That gets rid of the discrimination part.”

            There is nothing legal about that. Unless they can provide a very legal proof , like having a very bad credit, or having exported another car in the past without making payment as i said above. And we already know that he doesn’t.Thus, this is a case of discrimination.

            Even if they had an identical case in the past, they can’t use that in court : they just got away with that one time, probably because whoever they denied service to the 1st time did not sue them. Sorry but they can’t win that case. And I’m ready to bet they will end up negociating with him.

            From what what we know, this is a blatant case of racism and bigotry. Nothing new in America.
            Seriously,i never thought i could be so hard to explain discrimination to someone.If you can’t understand something that simple, I can’t help you.

          • Kash

            It’s not something you find from a google search because it’s not something news articles are written about. It’s something manufacturers track via governments tracking what leaves and enters their countries via the ports and border checkpoints. All that data gets assembled and then you have to dig for it or contact the government for it. Google can find a lot, but not everything. Dealerships get sent that kind of info from manufacturers, but never being told outright “Don’t sell to people from here” more like “try your best to investigate people, but here’s something that might help figure out if the person will export the car.”

            If they approved him for credit that’s not violating EOCA, even if they still refused to sell him the car at the end of the day regardless of how he offered to pay. So saying they approved him for credit but refused to sell him the car is contradictory to his suit, which is over credit. The two things are different and not mutual.

            I’ve literally told you what a corporate lawyer who’s been one for the last 30+ years is telling me about this situation. He’s talking from experience, i think he knows a little more than you.

            They didn’t get away with anything, they legally denied someone service, like you’re allowed to do so long as you deny people on things other than race, gender, etc. so denying people because you think they’ll export the car is totally legal regardless of why you think each specific person might export the car.

            Google “Legal right to refuse Service” then read the LegalZoom article written by another lawyer about the difference between discrimination and you’re right to refuse service. So long as your reason is consistent and across the whole spectrum of people and you’re not picking and choosing when to apply it (i.e. telling a tieless black man he can’t enter, but letting the white guy without a tie in), it’s not discrimination because you’re not singling out a single race. Refusing to sell a car to someone because you think they’ll export it, is a legal reason so long as you refuse service to any and everyone you think might export a car.

            It’s legal because you can refuse service to anyone so long as you’re consistent among all groups of people and not just telling middle eastern/arabs you think they’ll export it. It’s not discrimination, just because the guy isn’t white.

            The baker who refused to make a cake for the gay couple was wrong because she only turned away gays. There was another baker who turned away a guy who wanted hateful/derogatory religious texts on a cake, he sued saying he was being discriminated against because of his religion, the baker said she had a policy of not putting derogatory words on cakes, she won because she told everyone that and refused service to everyone who wanted that regardless of what they looked like.

            The key here is consistency. So long as you’re consistent among all groups of people you can refuse service to anyone.

            Yes they can use an identical case in court especially if it’s being used to show where they refused to sell other people a car because they were afraid they’d export it as well. It’s done all the time in court cases.

            I cannot explain this any easier and I’m pretty sure at this point you’re not even trying to understand what the law actually says or have any kind of understanding of it. I’ve dumbed this down so much it’s starting to hurt my head.

          • KenjiK

            I’ll leave this here:

            “-When You Apply For Credit, Creditors May Not…Consider your race, sex, or NATIONAL ORIGIN, although you may be asked to disclose this information if you want to. ”

            “-When Deciding To Grant You Credit Or When Setting The Terms Of Credit, Creditors May Not…Consider your race, color, religion, NATIONAL ORIGIN, sex, marital status or whether you get public assistance. ”

            Took straight from the FTC website.

            A business can deny credit to someone, therefore refusing to sell (at credit) to that person if they have any legal reasons. The moment that person is approved for credit, it means you (as a dealership) don’t have any reasons to refuse to sell that product/service to him anymore. If you APPROVE him for CREDIT, you HAVE to sell him the car AT CREDIT. If you don’t wan’t to sell him the car AT CREDIT, you need a LEGAL reason not to.
            A business can’t APPROVE someone for credit then REFUSE to carry on the sale, especially not for a reason as frivolous as “he comes from a high-risk area.”. That’s against the ECOA!! It’s crazy to see you still can’t get something so simple.

            You should ask your corporate lawyer a 2nd time, and this time present him the case exactly as it is depicted above. There is no way he would have told you that with 30+ years of experience with the fact as depicted in the story. Even a student should know that.

            “They didn’t get away with anything, they legally denied someone service, like you’re allowed to do so long as you deny people on things other than race, gender, etc. so denying people because you think they’ll export the car is totally legal regardless of why you think each specific person might export the car.”

            “So long that you deny people on things other than race, gender, etc.” You do know that this “etc” includes NATIONAL ORIGIN, right?
            Denying someone because he comes from a high-risk area IS ILLEGAL. You’re considering national origin : THIS IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL.
            I don’t say it is, the LAW do.

            “It’s legal because you can refuse service to anyone so long as you’re consistent among all groups of people and not just telling middle eastern/arabs you think they’ll export it. It’s not discrimination, just because the guy isn’t white.”

            Read that loudly, maybe you’ll end up noticing how contradictory you are and how dumb it sounds. Isn’t that exactly what that dealership did? How can they be “consistent among all groups of people” when they denied him for his national origin in the first place ?

            Your exemple with the bakery is completely out of place. That dealership would be consistent if they refused to sell at credit to EVERYONE, not only some people based on their NATIONAL ORIGIN. This is where you will find the discrimination. You are discriminating people coming from that specific region.

            Seriously dude, if you can’t get something so simple, I give up. I’m sorry but i feel like talking to a kid who doesn’t want to admit that he was wrong about something. Keep twisting things like you want, that dealer isn’t going to win that case. They can’t. I can even bet that by now, their lawyers are already trying to negociate something with that guy, unless they don’t know what they are talking about like your so called 30+ years corporate lawyer above.

            Don’t bother answering anymore. Cheers!

          • KenjiK

            This is going to be my last message for you on this topic, since you don’t seem to be able to understand what discrimination is and how the law works (or you pretend not to).

            – You can’t refuse service to someone based on country of origin or race. No explanation needed here. That guy could be the brother of the Taliban’s leader, it would still be illegal to refuse him service based solely on that fact. He only needs a half-decent lawyer and you can be sure that this dealership is going to lose BIG in court.
            This is why the Ben Laden family is still doing business in/with the USA.

            – You can’t refuse sale/service to anyone because of something they might do. Only for something they did already. That’s why it’s legal to refuse service to someone with bad credit…
            That’s why you can refuse service to someone who’s not wearing a shirt, but not because someone might not wear a shirt.
            Yes, he might export the car. Yes, he might be buying the car for someone who could not do it by himself (wife, son, business partner…), but as long as he is buying the car under his own name, and was credit-approved, and isn’t banned to do so, a dealership has no legal ground to refuse. They will lose in court.
            Business is risky by nature, if you’re going to refuse to sell something to someone because he may do this or that, do yourself a favor and don’t do business.

            For the very last time, this is the law, whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

            Have a very nice day.

  • eenymac

    If someone wanted to buy an off-roader to export to the Taliban, they’d be up the road at the Toyota dealership!

    This just smacks of blatant racism by the dealership manager.

  • roy

    I can understand the sentiment and concern but being ignorant or a complete douchbag is not the way out of this

  • Ameer Hassan Tajaldeen

    haha shyt that happens in the US, nothing gonna change trump or hilary, actually i would rather choose trump over that corrupt kannt hillary n hope for the best , good thing im not a US citizen n i dont have this to deal with

  • Simple_Logic

    Actually he is incorrect… The GLS is a popular unit to export for the Middle East an Asia as its not offered in the same levels of trim or motors there. Plus the tariffs are very high for a new car versus a near new car imported directly. More importantly MB, LR, BMW, Jaguar and some other brands restrict the sale of units to exporters in the US. A dealer can loose inventory allotment, face fines and loose their franchise for this as well. This is all part of their dealer agreement. Also a person who is known to purchase and export can be thrown on a export list in the US dealer network. That person can NEVER buy from that brand or like brands again. Its a pretty big list believe it or not. I suspect that one of two things happened here.

    1. The customer has purchased and exported a vehicle before and thus the refusal which is well within the dealers right. They do not have to sell anyone a car if they choose not to.

    2. This gentlemen name crosses with a like/similar name and they rebuffed him

    I find it hard to believe they specifically mentioned the Taliban and I also wonder if the customer is a US Citizen with regard to the export concern only. Clearly the customer is a current MB owner & customer.

    • winnerx741

      That makes planty of sense

  • U8INIT

    Wonder how it feels…..hmmm

  • Alex Stoyanov

    He loses this any day. I worked as a manager at a BMW dealership. As soon as the latest X5 came out I guess everyone in China had to have it. The car was still not available there. We were slammed by people who wanted to buy base X5s in black or bronze. Days after the transaction has taken place the car is in a container and on it’s way to China. nearly 1,200 US spec cars were exported in the first month alone. So manufacturers have dealers between rock and a hard place forcing them to do investigative work and prevent exports like that. Don’t forget – these cars cost 2-3 times more in other markets compared to the U.S. market. Dealers are not trained investigators but if they make a mistake and sell cars that get exported they can lose their franchise or get fined massive amounts of $$$ by the manufacturers. Signing a “no-export” form does absolutely nothing because export is not illegal. It is against a manufacturer’s policy but not illegal. I’m sure the manager of this dealership has done his homework in order to determine it’s in the best interest of the company to pass on a sale of a car like that. Don’t forget, these are cars that are big money makers because of the lack of availability and high price. I’m sure there is a lot that we don’t know but this person most likely has no case.

    • TheHake

      And if he buy’s it on credit (as seems to be the case since he had a credit check done), then they have nothing to reposess once the car is in Mammawhamalabad and he stops paying for it.

  • Tumbi Mtika

    Disgusting.

  • ck

    This man may also be a straw buyer for someone else. Wonder if he purchased his trade from the dealership? If not, this raises more suspicion. Anyway, the dealer acted appropriately based on the information they had and can counter sue and recoup legal expenses which will help thwart future frivolous lawsuits.

  • d’Aforde

    When he gets through with them, he should get the $1 million and the most loaded to the gills Benz GLS500 for free.

Google Maps Updated To Alert Drivers Of Speed Traps

The update was first launched on Android, and now iOS device users can also report speed traps to other motorists through Google’s app.

GM’s Baojun 530 Gets Updated For The 2020MY In China

Pricing for the 2020 Baojun 530, which sports a number of design changes and new tech, starts from $11k.

Volvo S60, V60 And XC60 Polestar Engineered Launched In The UK

Priced from £56,105, the 399 HP S60 Polestar Engineered is Volvo’s fastest accelerating car yet, sprinting to 62 mph in 4.4 seconds.

Former Mitsubishi Executive Tipped To Replace Linda Jackson As Citroen CEO

Jackson took over as Citroen’s CEO in 2014 and, although the company did confirm hiring Mitsubishi’s ex head of production, didn’t comment on any leadership change.

McLaren 720S Stood No Chance Against Hennessey’s Corvette ZR1

The tuned Corvette ZR1 has 1200 hp while the McLaren makes do with 710, at least officially, but even so, it managed to put up a good fight.

A Pagani Owner Just Drove Coast-To-Coast In His Huayra Roadster

This Huayra Roadster traveled for three days, adding 3,000 miles on its odo – more than what most others will in a year, if not longer .

Turn Heads With This 2011 Audi R8 Spyder And Enjoy Its V8 And Six-Speed Manual

This R8 V8 Spyder only has 8250 miles on the clock and, with three days left in the auction, the highest bid is $63k.

Alfa Romeo Montreal Vision GT Concept Is Pure Sex On Wheels

The stunningly designed concept brings the styling of the original Montreal into the 21st century in spectacular fashion.

2020 Mercedes GLS: Luxurious And Comfortable, But Not As Cool As An X7 Or Range Rover

The 2020 GLS 450 is powered by a new turbocharged inline-six and costs $76,195, yet it might be too conservative for its own good.

The 2020 BMW M235i Gran Coupe Is Already Out And About

The new M235i Gran Coupe is fitted with a 2.0-liter turbocharged four delivering 301 HP to all four wheels.