Stacey and I FINALLY splurged and bought a 52" TV, surround sound speakers, and a tv stand on Sunday. I resisted my temptation to be cheap. We went to a local place that negotiates deals and it was well worth it - we got a ridiculous deal on all of it. Watching football is SO different. I found myself watching a repeat of the PSU vs. Coastal Carolina just to watch a football game. By the way, Lou Holtz is SCARY in HD.
I bring this up not to gloat, but because we had an interesting conversation while we were buying said TV. Stacey just got her full time job at the zoo (yay Stacey!) and that's partially why we're getting the TV now. It's also our Christmas present to each other (Merry Labor Day!). I mentioned to her how this is each of our first big purchase, but then realized my car would have actually been that first big purchase. Stacey argued that since I am leasing my car, it couldn't count as a "big purchase". I need your help with defeating her in this argument.
I feel it is a purchase because I decided to get a new car, did research on different models, and signed an agreement for 2 years on a car. I feel like for those 2 years, I own that car. I am responsible for anything that happens to it and nobody else is allowed to drive it. Stacey argued that under that logic my rent should be considered my first big purchase. I said that if I wanted to live on my own, it is a necessity to pay rent and that I share the building with other people. She doesn't think any of that should count as my first big purchase. I need your help - now argue!
14 comments:
According to dictionary.com, the definition of purchase is to "acquire [something] by the payment of money." So in that respect, you acquired a car with payment of money.
Except I agree with Stacey. When you purchase something, it's yours. Forever and ever. At least that's my own personal definition of purchase. If you can't keep your car after two years, not a purchase. Again, I'm thinking with Stacey here, it's more like renting.
Sorry Adam, I have to agree with Mike and Stacey. A lease is not a purchase.
But if you really want to argue the point, you could say that you purchased the lease. Maybe you didn't purchase the car, but you did purchase the exclusive right to drive the car for two years.
This is different from renting an apartment for the reason you mentioned: exclusiveness. The landlord has keys to your apartment, and can come and go whenever he wants. The dealer doesn't have keys to your car...
...jsut remember, your car is essentially under the control of the dealership. So while the dealer may not physically have the keys, that car is still theirs. Using the argument "the landlord has keys to your apartment and the dealer doesn't" is a little shoddy to me, because while the landlord has keys, they do not come and go as they please. They only enter the picture when you have a problem (much like if your car needed repair, you'd take it to the dealership) or to talk dollars (rent versus lease agreement). And they can both take what they have away from you if you're a shitty renter.
And if you were going to argue exclusiveness, why not argue that you are exclusively renting your apartment as well? If I were Stacey, that's what I'd play back at you =).
Let me rephrase that last part:
You should argue that you are paying for the RIGHT for exclusiveness of your apartment.
Man I suck at posting tonight
The landlord also comes in to do preventative maintenence. Check the furnace/air conditioner, etc...
The dealership doesn't come in and give your car an oil change. The analogy between renting an apartment and leasing a car is tenuous, and I think it would be a good strategy to hone in on the differences.
But of course it's a shoddy argument. We both agree with Stacey. I'm just trying to help Adam come up with potential arguments.
Haha, I know I know.
Well let me ask this question: If you had the option (if you were leasing a car) of a dealership stopping by your house every three months and checking your car and doing "preventitive maintenance", would you let them?
I think I would.
Well, I'm not sure I would want that or not. I guess it depends on a few questions: Do they take the car to their dealership to work on it? If so, do I get a loner car? Is there any flexibility in the date of the maintenence, or do they come every 3 months, ready or not? Do they charge you for the work, or do they pay for it themselves?
No, they don't charge you.
Like last summer my apartment complex sent out a flyer a week in advance saying they'd be in my apartment on a given day to change the filter.
So no loaner car, no extra charges, just precisely what an apartment complex would do- advance warning and they come to you.
Well then, yeah, I would take free oil changes, tire rotations, etc. etc.
But what if I'm driving the car at the time of the appointment? Can I reschedule, or do I miss out? Or do they force me off the road and take the car?
I think you're missing the point.
They give you advance notice...so you have time to prepare, like an apartment complex.
Right. So they tell you they are going to take your car at 9am on a tuesday. What if you need that car to go to work? Or what if you forget and are driving at that time?
In an apartment complex, they can do the maintenence whether or not I'm using the apartment. It's different for a car.
No. They come to you can DON'T take your car. They just check it to make sure if everything is okay. They're not doing major repairs, just preventative maintenance ones. If your car wasn't there, they'd just come back a day that you were there. Again, they'd schedule a time with you in advance, or tell you in advance when they were coming.
But yes, they'd come into your car without using your keys, much like an apartment maintenance guy. Which is why I asked the question: Would you mind that?
If it worked the way you described, I would be all for it. Free oil changes, and I don't even have to get in my car. I'm definitely OK with that.
Well, that would be a part of your lease agreement. Some dealerships actually include free oil changes as part of their lease agreement.
Since you agreed that a service like that would be welcomed, would that hinder your argument for exlusivity? You are, by my reasoning, saying that exclusivity is not what you're purchasing when you lease the vehicle if you would allow a dealership to have your car keys on hand to do preventative maintenance. By accepting this hypothetical service, it proves are willing to give up your right to exclusivity. So to argue you are purchasing a lease vehicle primarily on the basis for exclusivity would be false. And thus you are back to square one, where you are not "buying" anything.
Except none of this matters, because you, Kevin, aren't leasing the car. If Adam feels exclusivity is important and would not allow such a service to occur, then he could argue he is buying the exclusive right to have the car.
Post a Comment