Deceived by car salesman
The only thing that is important here is the documentation you and your daughter signed. If that documentation states that you were a co-signer and that your daughter was the primary on the loan, and then if the loan is not being reported in your daughter's name, you have a cause for action. If, however, the documentation says the loan is entirely in your name, the mistake is yours. Even in that case, though, your daughter may be able to take over the loan, or she may be able to take out a loan from a separate institution and use that to pay off the current loan. Obviously, this may be difficult if she does not have a credit history, which is what got you here in the first place. :( "At this point there is not much you can do.  The documentation probably points to you being the sole owner and signer on the loan.  Then, any civil suit will degenerate into a ""he said, she said"" scenario.  Luckily, no one was truly harmed in the scenario.   Obtaining financing through a car dealer is almost always not advisable.  So from here, you can do what should have been done in the first place.  Go to banks and credit unions so your daughter can refinance the car.  You will probably get a lower rate, and there is seldom a fee.   I would start with the bank/CU where she does her checking or has some other kind of a relationship.  If that fails, anywhere you can actually sit and talk with a loan officer is preferable over the big corporate type banks.   Car dealers lying is nothing new, it happens to everyone.  Buying a car is like a battle."
I refuse to buy any Groupon vouchers because it would make me feel so *dirty* screwing over the companies the vouchers are for. Just because I am not *personally* the conman ripping them off using dubious sales techniques, it does not make it any better. People say to me that it is their own fault, so tough luck on them. I promise to say the same thing when their mother is ripped off by a pushy salesman at her front door. "The purpose of the emergency fund is to enable you to pay for unplanned necessary expenses without going into debt.  You know that cars don't last forever and eventually need to be replaced. Ideally, you would have a ""car replacement fund"" which you contribute to a little every month. (Essentially, it is a car payment to yourself.)  Then when it comes time to get a replacement car, you have money set aside for this purpose and know exactly how much you can spend.  However, in your case it seems that you don't have enough money in your car replacement fund for the car that you want.  There are a few different causes that might have led to this situation: Due to unforeseen circumstances, you need a replacement car before you thought you would need it.  You find that your planning was not quite right, and you weren't saving as much as you need.  You are trying to buy a more expensive car than you need.  If a replacement car is a necessity, two of these are emergencies, one is not.  If you don't have enough cash set aside for a car, it is certainly better to spend your emergency fund and pay cash than to borrow money to buy the car. Only you can decide if the car you are looking at is appropriate for you, or if you should be looking at a less expensive car. After you purchase the car, build your emergency fund back up first, then start saving for your next car." "Okay... graduation rates along with the number of reported salaries (and virtually every statistic you can think of) are reported in the ones I'm looking it. Have a look for yourself:  Just journalism: http://www.grady.uga.edu/annualsurveys/Graduate_Survey/Graduate_2010/Grad2010MergedB&amp;Wv1.pdf School wide: http://www.unl.edu/careers/survey/salary.shtml  There is NO MISREPRESENTATION of information here. The graduation and retention rates are also reported. Do you seriously think that prospective applicants look at these numbers and think ""Wow, everybody graduates and this is what all of them make!"". If they do, that means they are stupid, not that the university is trying to deceive them. I realize the statistics may be skewed, but why in this case would they be skewed negatively? Why would somebody not report their low salary or unemployment? Wouldn't they, like seemingly everybody posting in this particular article, feel indignant that the school let them down with their education and want to accurately portray their salary/unemployment.  Let's go ahead and assume that the salaries are actually skewed lower. The school puts the numbers right there, you can see how many people responded. All I'm trying to say is that universities are not lying to anybody, at least mine wasn't.   Also, it is possible to make your point without name calling, using ""LOL"" as if what I say is laughable, and accusing me of not understanding things." The average CIO I've encountered is technically incompetent to the point of not being capable of even self sufficiency with e-mail. They have never worked a day in IT in their life. They are generally an accountant or something and slashing budgets is all they know. IT is a cost centre, blah, blah, blah. They do this without being able to understand the significance of their decisions. They get their opinions from Forrester or Gartner reports they barely understand and which are often echo chambers of what other non-IT CIOs are doing, a.k.a. market trends. Add a sprinkle of whatever turds some smooth talking salesman can throw over the wall. They get bonuses for racking up technical debt under the guise of saving money. Support costs eat the savings and then some, which gets hidden under a mountain of bad bookkeeping and robbing Peter to pay Paul. An army of non-technical project managers spring up under them because of the mistaken belief that non-it people should run IT projects.  Costs rise, morale sinks, tech debt skyrockets. People who could provide significant competitive advantage instead spend their days and nights lashing increasingly fragile infrastructures together with duct tape and bailing wire. The solution is obviously labour intensive management frameworks where IT people are made to generate mountains of processes that will amount to nothing when management and the business fail to follow through on their part of the commitment, in the complete absence of any accountability. After they fuck up any advantage to in house IT then it's time to outsource to achieve big savings... for one year, then prices go up, but they already cashed that bonus check. When they've irrevocably screwed up one company then they move on to a better position, to make a bigger mess. Lather, rinse, repeat.  At least I'm not bitter. "No it isn't.  Time is fixed.  On each of those days, the sale ends ""today.""  But tomorrow *becomes* today, and today becomes yesterday.  So, if the sale ended today, then tomorrow the ad would be completely false, because the sale, in fact, ended yesterday.    Come on man, don't be one of those ""time is linear"" people.    Another example.  My IT shop has been saying for 3 years that a certain project will be completed in 6 months.  The problem is that in 6 months, it will *still* be 6 months!  The point in time on the horizon may be fixed, but the horizon itself is NOT.  If you see a point on the horizon, then walk toward it, when you arrive at that point, did you reach the horizon?  NO!!  The horizon is still as far away as it was before." I do disagree.  You're representing marketing and advertising as a form of deceit (you referred to it as manipulating), I see it an example of framing.  Making M&amp;Ms colorful or making commercials about anthropomorphic candies, or putting them in front of people doesn't strip those people of the ability to walk by without buying.    I also disagree that there is such a thing as the common good.  That idea necessarily implies that there are innate human needs that are objectively knowable.  There can be a *probable* common good, for example, the idea that doing drugs is harmful, but that isn't guaranteed to be the case.  There have been plenty of bright and productive people who have used one substance or another (Steve Jobs, Michael Phelps, Sigmund Freud, and many others), but not a *certain* common good.  When we start talking of forcing people or companies to behave one way or another, but cannot be certain that the course of action to be enforced is going to be beneficial to 100% of people, we have to address the ethical issue of who is responsible for any harm caused to innocent people in the process.    Will the scientists who published the studies take responsibility? Or the legislators?  I doubt it. "One of those companies *actively conspired* against the US government (*and others* - don't forget that Brussels *also* fined VW), to defeat testing procedures intended to help keep the air breathable *for us all* (even Europeans).  The other is (possibly) ""guilty"" of marketing a bit more aggressively than is in good taste.  I *hope* you could confidently tell me ""who's the worst offender""..." "I read a really good tract that my credit union gave me years ago written by a former car salesman about negotiation tactics with car dealers. Wish I could find it again, but I remember a few of the main points.  1) Never negotiate based on the monthly payment amount. Car salesmen love to get you into thinking about the monthly loan payment and often start out by asking what you can afford for a payment. They know that they can essentially charge you whatever they want for the car and make the payments hit your budget by tweaking the loan terms (length, down payment, etc.)  2) (New cars only) Don't negotiate on the price directly. It is extremely hard to compare prices between dealerships because it is very hard to find exactly the same combination of options. Instead negotiate the markup amount over dealer invoice.  3) Negotiate one thing at a time A favorite shell game of car dealers is to get you to negotiate the car price, trade-in price, and financing all at one time. Unless you are a rain-man mathematical genius, don't do it. Doing this makes it easy for them to make concessions on one thing and take them right back somewhere else. (Minus $500 on the new car, plus $200 through an extra half point on financing, etc).  4) Handling the Trade-In  5) 99.9999% of the time the ""I forgot to mention"" extra items are a ripoff They make huge bonuses for selling this extremely overpriced junk you don't need.    6) Scrutinize everything on the sticker price I've seen car dealers have the balls to add a line item for ""Marketing Costs"" at around $500, then claim with a straight face that unlike OTHER dealers they are just being upfront about their expenses instead of hiding them in the price of the car. Pure bunk. If you negotiate based on an offset from the invoice instead of sticker price it helps you avoid all this nonsense since the manufacturer most assuredly did not include ""Marketing costs"" on the dealer invoice. 7) Call Around before closing the deal Car dealers can be a little cranky about this, but they often have an ""Internet sales person"" assigned to handle this type of deal. Once you know what you want, but before you buy, get the model number and all the codes for the options then call 2-3 dealers and try to get a quote over the phone or e-mail on that exact car. Again, get the quote in terms of markup from dealer invoice price, not sticker price. Going through the Internet sales guy doesn't at all mean you have to buy on the Internet, I still suggest going down to the dealership with the best price and test driving the car in person. The Internet guy is just a sales guy like all the rest of them and will be happy to meet with you and talk through the deal in-person. Update: After recently going through this process again and talking to a bunch of dealers, I have a few things to add: 7a) The price posted on the Internet is often the dealer's bottom line number. Because of sites like AutoTrader and other car marketplaces that let you shop the car across dealerships, they have a lot of incentive to put their rock-bottom prices online where they know people aggressively comparison shop. 7b) Get the price of the car using the stock number from multiple sources (Autotrader, dealer web site, eBay Motors, etc.) and find the lowest price advertised. Then either print or take a screenshot of that price. Dealers sometimes change their prices (up or down) between the time you see it online and when you get to the dealership. I just bought a car where the price went up $1,000 overnight. The sales guy brought up the website and tried to convince me that I was confused. I just pulled up the screenshot on my iPhone and he stopped arguing. I'm not certain, but I got the feeling that there is some kind of bait-switch law that says if you can prove they posted a price they have to honor it. In at least two dealerships they got very contrite and backed away slowly from their bargaining position when I offered proof that they had posted the car at a lower price. 8) The sales guy has ultimate authority on the deal and doesn't need approval Inevitably they will leave the room to ""run the deal by my boss/financing guy/mom"" This is just a game and negotiating trick to serve two purposes:  - To keep you in the dealership longer not shopping at competitors.  - So they can good-cop/bad-cop you in the negotiations on price. That is, insult your offer without making you upset at the guy in front of you.  - To make it harder for you to walk out of the negotiation and compromise more readily.  Let me clarify that last point. They are using a psychological sales trick to make you feel like an ass for wasting the guy's time if you walk out on the deal after sitting in his office all afternoon, especially since he gave you free coffee and sodas. Also, if you have personally invested a lot of time in the deal so far, it makes you feel like you wasted your own time if you don't cross the goal line. As soon as one side of a negotiation forfeits the option to walk away from the deal, the power shifts significantly to the other side. Bottom line: Don't feel guilty about walking out if you can't get the deal you want. Remember, the sales guy is the one that dragged this thing out by playing hide-and-seek with you all day. He wasted your time, not the reverse."