收款就不麻烦啦？就退下款就麻烦的不行了？4S店这点做的真不应该，换谁也无法接受。

https://www_nytimes_com/1995/10/14/opinion/bmw-s-2-million-paint-job.html
BMW's $2 Million Paint Job
At first glance, the case of Dr. Ira Gore Jr. and his black BMW, argued on Wednesday in the Supreme Court, would seem to provide impressive support for the campaign by business interests to win a cap on "absurdly excessive" punitive damages. Dr. Gore, after all, was content with his luxury vehicle until he learned that the BMW he bought "new" had been repainted to cover undisclosed damage in shipping.

The Alabama jury, finding fraud by the company in failing to disclose the touch-up, awarded Dr. Gore $4,000 for the decrease in the value of the car and a whopping $4 million in punitive damages -- later reduced to $2 million by the state's top court.

The lopsided ratio between the punitive damages and the actual injury invites easy parody. Some call it "the case of the $2 million paint job." Yet the verdict is not nearly as troubling or indefensible as critics contend. The concept of punitive damages originated in cases where there was little compensable harm but a perceived need for punishment and deterrence.

The undisclosed damage to Mr. Gore's BMW may not be as reprehensible as, say, secret toxic dumping. But it was not unreasonable for the jury to take offense at BMW's unsavory policy of selling damaged vehicles as new, and to impose the amount of punitive damages it thought needed to stop the company from continuing to cheat Alabama consumers.

The high court, in recent cases, has indicated that the constitutional guarantee of due process of law places some limit on punitive damages, though it has not yet offered any standards. Given the uncertainty in the justices' questioning on Wednesday, their search is unlikely to end with this case.

When it reduced the award from $4 million to $2 million, the Alabama Supreme Court took into account evidence that over a period of 10 years BMW had sold nearly 1,000 touched-up cars nationwide. But it found the lower court jury had erred in using a precise formula that multiplied the $4,000 in damage suffered by Mr. Gore by 1,000 cars, since some states where the cars were sold had laws specifying that minor repairs need not be disclosed.

At first glance, the case of Dr. Ira Gore Jr. and his black BMW, argued on Wednesday in the Supreme Court, would seem to provide impressive support for the campaign by business interests to win a cap on "absurdly excessive" punitive damages. Dr. Gore, after all, was content with his luxury vehicle until he learned that the BMW he bought "new" had been repainted to cover undisclosed damage in shipping.

The Alabama jury, finding fraud by the company in failing to disclose the touch-up, awarded Dr. Gore $4,000 for the decrease in the value of the car and a whopping $4 million in punitive damages -- later reduced to $2 million by the state's top court.

The lopsided ratio between the punitive damages and the actual injury invites easy parody. Some call it "the case of the $2 million paint job." Yet the verdict is not nearly as troubling or indefensible as critics contend. The concept of punitive damages originated in cases where there was little compensable harm but a perceived need for punishment and deterrence.

The undisclosed damage to Mr. Gore's BMW may not be as reprehensible as, say, secret toxic dumping. But it was not unreasonable for the jury to take offense at BMW's unsavory policy of selling damaged vehicles as new, and to impose the amount of punitive damages it thought needed to stop the company from continuing to cheat Alabama consumers.

The high court, in recent cases, has indicated that the constitutional guarantee of due process of law places some limit on punitive damages, though it has not yet offered any standards. Given the uncertainty in the justices' questioning on Wednesday, their search is unlikely to end with this case.

When it reduced the award from $4 million to $2 million, the Alabama Supreme Court took into account evidence that over a period of 10 years BMW had sold nearly 1,000 touched-up cars nationwide. But it found the lower court jury had erred in using a precise formula that multiplied the $4,000 in damage suffered by Mr. Gore by 1,000 cars, since some states where the cars were sold had laws specifying that minor repairs need not be disclosed.

仔细看看下面怎么写的，是以什么方式结算的，只负责介绍，合同是你签的。

他手里的那些东西，下面已经说的很清楚了，剩下不是他手里的那些东西起的作用，是舆论的作用，趁热先把自己的事情办了，这才是对的做法。
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端发布

怎么和车行撇清了关系？金融服务费车行拿走2/3，而且是在车行的场所收的，推销也是车行的人推的。
至于她手头的这点东西有没什么用，反正现在银监会介入了，工商也介入了，4S店也停业了，你说有没有用。这其中的主要原因还是这个金融服务费吧，一个车辆质量问题没有这么大能量吧。

元盛有没有资质不重要，也没关系。
首先和车行撇清了关系，第二如果是找一个有资质的合作那？

还是那句话，先处理自己的事，他手头的这点东西没什么用。事实也证明了女硕士是这么做的。
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端编辑于：2019-04-17 18:20:07

嘴比粪坑都脏，论坛的垃圾。

奔驰邀请车主去德国的工厂参观，去一人还是去全家？

结束了。

换车，退金融费，送个VIP加送生日礼物。
本帖由安卓客户端发布

找有资质的合作，指派专人在店办理。我不信中国4s店没一个合法的。
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端编辑于：2019-04-17 02:18:32

如果4s有资质的不就合法了？
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端发布

奥，别忘了，你反对的是我说的收金融服务费不一定违法。

贴了这篇文章，说什么收取金融服务费就是违法，下面就有。

车轱辘的话是你一直在这里说。

本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端编辑于：2019-04-17 01:36:16

法律不同，不做评价。
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端发布

已经和解了，公关很给力。
本帖由安卓客户端发布

牛的是你，刚刚仔细看了下你贴的那个文章。

你还加粗了，第一句就写了在未告之的情况下。并且后面还写了理由，一是没有金融服务许可，这个我不不知道，关于中国法律的金融服务费收取还要有金融服务许可，不过也不影响，除了这些不就是可以收了？

自己贴的东西就不仔细看看的？
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端发布