【女研究生“大闹”奔驰4S店，新车还在店里就“漏油”？4S店：别闹】https://nc.mbd.baidu.com/4ikeup4?f=cp&u=71546d386ea59293
本帖由安卓客户端发布

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。

宝马2百万美元的喷漆，梗，确有其事
给你找出来了，有何感想@filter

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.

真的吗？

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

我觉得吧，这事是1+1>2。

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。

垃圾

吊毛不懂就会装逼的垃圾

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

只要陕西元胜汽车贸易有限公司没有金融行业资质，那还是违法啊，这有什么合法依据吗？如果哪天你说是背后是某某银行、某某信托、某某财务公司收了这个钱，那才合法啊。
收金融服务费这个事，阿猫收了违法，换个阿狗收就不违法啊？只要没有金融资质，谁收都违法。

嘴比粪坑都脏，论坛的垃圾。

百年的老厂什么风浪没见过！大不了就是关了长安的这个门市部，即便这样，在长安不是还有其他两家么！奔驰车出问题也不是第一次了，关键是下一只瓜在什么时候出现，百年老厂还出什么新招，期待着。

奔驰邀请车主去德国的工厂参观，去一人还是去全家？

你是奔驰4S店的吧？

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

刚上网看了看这事，我说女硕士应该趁热度赶紧解决，以他手里的这点东西没什么用，你非很简单，从拿个收据就可以当证据定罪偷税漏税一直转到什么收了金融服务费就是违法，可以结束了？

@央视新闻4月16日消息，据税务部门的工作人员介绍，车主所交的“金融服务费”，实际上是第三方陕西元胜公司派驻在西安利之星4S店的工作人员收取的。

在这份※※女车主与陕西元胜汽车贸易有限公司签订的垫款服务协议上，显示获批的贷款为419160元，其中3%，计12575元，为车主向元胜公司支付的报酬。

元胜公司只留贷款金额的1%，另外2%打入西安利之星汽车有限公司的账户。

而西安利之星汽车有限公司以信息技术服务的服务费为名，为陕西元胜汽车贸易有限公司开具发票。
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端编辑于：2019-04-17 03:01:04

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

你给我找一个有银行、信托或者财务公司之类贷款业务资质的4S出来看看，全国那么多4S，你只要找一家出来。 本帖最后由 goldfish11 于 2019-4-17 02:08 编辑

如果4s有资质的不就合法了？
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端发布

我反对的是你说4S收金融服务费不一定违法，虽然没有直接点出4S这个收金融服务费的主体，但我们本身讨论的就是4S这个事；

如果你说你意思是银行收合理的金融服务费这个事不违法，那我和你争这个干什么？

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

我怎么没仔细看，我干金融行业的，还没你清楚？

金融服务许可是很严格的监管，奔驰金融这样的机构可以放贷款，可以收金融服务费，即便这样，也有很严格的限制，可是他们已经声明他们没有收，已经撇清自己了，保险公司和这个事没有关系；在汽车销售这个链条上的其他企业都不是金融机构，都没有资格收金融服务费，只要收了，就是违法犯罪，任何理由收都是违法犯罪，告不告知，都是违法犯罪。4S唯一能撇清自己的是，他们是代其他金融机构收取的，可是这一点，在一开始，奔驰就否定了。

车轱辘话来回说你不累吗？ 本帖最后由 goldfish11 于 2019-4-17 01:28 编辑

法律不同，不做评价。
本帖由 HUAWEI 客户端发布

用户已注销，历史内容不予显示

趁着热度在先把自己的事解决了，做的好
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

嗯，比如没有金融服务许可不能收金融服务费，中国法律关于金融的我不知道。

不过服务费正常收取是合法的。
本帖由 HUAWEI 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

你真牛，监管机关都说收取金融服务费是违法违规的行为，你还能说不违法，墙都不服就服你。