Click To Print By Bob Dyer, Beacon Journal Columnist

Click To Printby Bob Dyerbeacon Journal Columnistpublished August 7

Identify the core assignment question or prompt, then clean it by removing any extraneous instructions, rubrics, point allocations, submission guidance, due dates, repetition, or meta-instructions. Retain only the essential task and context.

The core assignment prompt is: "Analyze the ethical and legal issues involved in Arthur Krause’s car purchase and subsequent attempts to undo the sale, considering the roles of the dealership, salesperson, and consumer rights."

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Arthur Krause's impulsive purchase of a Porsche convertible after a routine oil change highlights complex ethical and legal considerations within automotive sales practices. This scenario underscores the importance of understanding consumer protection laws, ethical sales conduct, and the responsibilities of dealerships towards vulnerable or elderly buyers.

From an ethical perspective, the dealership’s approach to Krause’s purchase raises questions about the integrity of their sales practices. The salesperson, Al Struharik, reportedly encouraged Krause to buy the vehicle despite Krause’s evident physical limitations and memory lapses, conditions that could impair decision-making. Ethical sales practices emphasize transparency, honesty, and safeguarding the best interests of the customer. Here, the dealership appeared to prioritize profit over the buyer’s well-being, especially considering Krause’s age and health issues.

Legally, the situation intersects with consumer protection laws governing automobile sales. In many jurisdictions, buyers are protected against high-pressure sales tactics and misrepresentations, with certain laws providing rights to rescind sales within a cooling-off period—though such periods generally do not apply to automobile transactions. Nonetheless, the question arises whether misrepresentation or undue influence was involved. Krause’s apparent lack of full capacity to consent due to age-related cognitive issues could invoke statutory protections or invalidate the sale under laws designed to protect vulnerable consumers (Friedman & Kahn, 2010).

The dealership’s refusal to undo the sale for a fee, citing the finality of the transaction, may conflict with principles of good faith and fairness. The attempt to charge $10,000 or $5,004 to rescind raises ethical concerns about exploiting a customer’s confusion and physical limitations. Moreover, whether the purchase was a result of undue influence, misrepresentation, or coercion remains pertinent. Krause’s mental state and the apparent pressure exerted by the salesperson strongly suggest that the dealership may have engaged in practices that are ethically questionable and potentially legally actionable.

Furthermore, the dealership’s management attempts to justify the sale by emphasizing the salesperson’s effort and the dealership's reputation, which reflects a common challenge in balancing profit motives with ethical sales conduct. Consumer protection agencies increasingly scrutinize such practices, especially when elderly or cognitively impaired individuals are involved. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), deceptive or unfair practices in auto sales can lead to legal consequences (FTC, 2015). This scenario exemplifies the importance of ethical oversight and the need for stricter regulation to prevent exploitation.

In conclusion, the case of Arthur Krause emphasizes the necessity for ethical integrity in automotive sales and the significance of consumer rights protections. Dealerships have a responsibility to ensure that their customers are making informed, voluntary decisions—particularly when vulnerable populations are involved. Legally, consumers should be aware of their rights to rescind purchases under certain circumstances, and dealerships should honor these rights without imposing excessive penalties. This case serves as a reminder that ethical and legal considerations must remain central in sales practices to prevent exploitation and uphold consumer trust.

References

  • Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (2015). Automotive Sales Practices and Consumer Rights. FTC.gov.
  • Friedman, M., & Kahn, R. (2010). Consumer Law and the Elderly: Protecting Vulnerable Populations. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(3), 407-418.
  • Jones, T. (2013). Ethical Sales Practices in the Automotive Industry. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 251-273.
  • National Consumer Law Center. (2018). Auto Sales and Consumer Protections. NCLC.org.
  • Smith, J. (2017). The Impact of Cognitive Impairment on Contract Validity. Law and Psychology Review, 41, 123-139.
  • United States Department of Justice. (2014). Consumer Protection Initiative: Automobiles. Justice.gov.
  • Williams, S. (2016). Elderly Consumers and Consumer Law. Elder Law Journal. 24(4), 301-330.
  • American Bar Association. (2012). Principles of Ethical Auto Retailing. ABA.org.
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2019). Protecting Vulnerable Consumers: Elderly and Disabled. CFPB.gov.
  • Zimmerman, L. (2019). Legal and Ethical Concerns in Auto Sales to Seniors. Journal of Consumer Law & Practice, 8(1), 45-62.

Related Assignments