Ad in Saturday, 7-24, Houston Chronicle stated 2004 Chevy Cavaliers automatic transmissions (air conditioning, cloth interior, rear defogger, am/fm cd) were on sale for $12,495 with an additional $4000 rebate bringing the price down to $8495. Ad indicated that there were 100 in stock. The fine print did not negate any of the above information.
Visited Bill Heard Chevrolet on the same day, 7-24. Test drove a 2004 Chevy Cavalier with no extra options other than those listed above. Was told by Gary Pipher the price was $11,4—. Asked about the ad, and was told that was for a standard transmission.informed Gary Pipher that the ad stipulated auto transmission. He then consulted with a manager and returned to tell me that the ad was referring to two grounded demonstration cars, but he could lower the cost of the car I had test driven by $1000. I left without a purchase.
Upon return home discovered an early edition Sunday Houston Chronicle in my drive with the same advertisement stating that there were 100 such cars in stock. Phoned a manager at Bill Heard to question what appeared to be false advertising. He stated that the starburst indicating that there were "100 in stock" emblazened on the photo of the Cavalier in the ad was actually from another ad and referred to other cars. Said they did have an orange Cavalier at that price. However, the car I test drove, which was not orange, fit the description in the ad and was not offered at the same price as that indicated in the ad. Is this not false advertising? Isn't false advertising illegal?
0 comments