The above is correct but not the whole story. If you do not have LDW, you are responsible period. If you have LDW then if you break para 9, then you are responsible. It is not having the LDW part that is worrisome because of the new option they have to just sell it than repair it.

Currently, before the rule change, if you dont have LDW, you are responsible period as well. Currently, before rule change, if you have LDW and you break para 9, you are still responsible.

Yes it is true that the new option would allow for a sale rather than repair. My reason for liking this statement has nothing to do with my status at Avis. Under the previous agreement, it had less about the procedure for remittance. The new agreement lays it out in advance, and gives customers knowledge of what they are up against.

Misleading. If a car gets damaged, then the customer (or his insurance company) picks up the tab of the repair. Earlier, they didn't pick up the tab of the reduced value of selling the car. In your comparison, you are comparing the total cost of repair and sell to just sell before repair. This is an advantage to Avis but not the the customer (or his insurance company).

I dont necessarily agree that this is an advantage to avis other than less hassle in dealing with repairs on cars.

Since Avis has the complete control of how much they sell it at and recovering the difference from the consumer, they have no incentive to sell it at a decent price as opposed to having an arrangement with a wholesaler to get it cheap (Avis doesn't lose by doing this, the customer gets shafted). Why would they do it, because there are any number of wholesalers willing to get damaged cars cheap and provide other favors to Avis.


This is where bieng an insider gives me an insight that you and the rest of the public is not privy to. Avis has NEVER just settled for any old price on selling cars. Already avis does sell cars as salvage and does not repair them. In fact, every rental car company does that. They sell each car individually at auction, never at bulk. People who seem to think that Avis will not try harder to get top dollar for its cars because of this new clause simply are not in my position to see what happens in the process. Its an opinion and I will let people have that opinion.
Most insurance companies will not pay for such arbitrary differences.

Actually I am curious to see this myself. I will yield until real world examples come to light. But I will offer up that many rental car companies already have agreeements with Avis on remittance of damages on situations like this, meaning damages greater than the previously-mentioned cap. It happens in the background. Some agreements require that Avis provide best effort in recovery of damages from salvage before payment could be made. Many of the figures for avis' sell is from Insurance standards given to them by the companies. I don't at least right now, see much change in wording/recovery other than the test cases you are citing in your argument

Just because you say it? There is nothing in the language that prevents them from selling a car that has minor bumper scratch to a wholesaler cheap and then recovering the difference from the customer. Why do it? any number of reasons. Late model car... gas guzzler.. not profitable to rent, etc. This would be a scam. If they really wanted to sell it only when the repair costs are more expensive they could have used the same language they used for IL and NY where the AG would be on them quick if they tried to pull such a thing.

Well, avis doesnt sell direct to wholesalers. Avis sells at auto auctions at open market. If a car that I rented had a bumper scratch and Avis decided to "sell" it for that, Id like my chances. At wholesale, a bumper scratch would NEVER reduce selling price more than repair price. I have been to more than my share of auctions and I do believe wholeheartedly that more than naught there would be no difference under this scenario.

This is assuming the car is as rentable after fixing it. Nothing in the language prevents them from selling ("in sole discretion') even if the damge is smaller. This would be preferred if the car was at the end of its rental service life, or it was a car that had gne out of fashion or was a lemon with service probems etc. If the intent was to take the lesser of the price difference and the repair cost from the consumer, then the exception for IL and NY would be the norm not exceptions. Since they have worded it for differently for all other states, I have to assume that they reserve the right to sell it even if it would have been cheaper to repair it. This is a scam.

Your making the assumption that Avis would act in such a manner to begin with. Remember the biggest money grub that ever happened to Avis was Cendant. Cendant will be no more shortly and Avis will be a separate entity free of the Cendant Structure.

I should dig up the Turnback Program for you. Avis at ANY time can give a car back to the manufacturer for more money than they can EVER get at auction, even with customer payment. It is to Avis's best interest to have the car returned to the manufacturer, or "turned back."

Not true. The credit card's agreement with the cardholder is to cover damages to the car and "to make it whole" not provide umbrella indemnity for any arbitrary way in which AVIS computes the damages. The credit card will simply pay for the repair estimates as per their agreement with the cardholder. if the cardholder has agreed to a different term with AVIS to pay them more than the reapir costs, the card company won't need to fight it with AVIS, they will simply limit their liability to the repair estimates for the car and leave the cardholder stuck with stupid rule he agreed to. Credit cards will be OK with the language used for IL and NY. Everywhere else, the customer faces a risk.

Once again, im taking a wait and see attitude on this. you raise valid points. But I still dont see this as a demon of a change to the rental agreement.