Thanks for the food for thought, TJ.

My first inclination upon reading about this case is to commend Mazda for doing the right thing, both by their consumers and their shareholders. My reasoning for this is as follows:

Even with full disclosure and a signed waiver, a problem could potentially arise that could be linked to a pre-existing condition of the vehicle, and that problem could ultimately be shown to be an example of company negligence. By not allowing this possibility, Mazda is protecting their shareholders' future interest in the company.

Furthermore, while scrapping the vehicles will inevitably show up on company ledgers as a loss, Mazda stands to recoup some of that loss come tax time. Although I am no tax-law guru, there are many deductions available to corporations should they suffer a fate such as this.

On the consumer side, Mazda is removing the temptation for a customer to drive a car off the lot which might potentially fail them in some way in the future due to its pre-sale condition. The customer would be likely to lose a lot of their warranty rights on a vehicle that had some damage disclosed through a waiver. It might also be harder to get loans financed on these vehicles, as well as present a problem for insuring the vehicle. Additionally, the potential exists for a more difficult sale or trade-in when it comes time for a new car. Many of these issues might initially be ignored by the consumer in lieu of a less expensive vehicle up front. Mazda is displaying sensitivity toward many emerging consumer-side issues by not simply waving the "Buyer Beware" flag and unloading these flawed vehicles.

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

Show Last Reply