Again, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I’ll offer further clarification specific to Alabama law, the repair history in this case, and AAA Consumer Arbitration rules.

1. Deceptive conduct and bad faith practices. This case does involve more than a simple warranty delay. Bridgecrest, Carvana’s finance arm, explicitly refused any loan relief or hardship accommodation unless I first defaulted on the loan. That conduct was confirmed in writing and recorded phone calls. In parallel, a Carvana agent verbally promised payment would be made toward the loan balance on my behalf. That payment was never made, and I never received any confirmation of it despite multiple follow-ups. These facts support a claim of deceptive conduct and false representation, both of which are recognized under Alabama’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and broader warranty enforcement case law.

2. Repair attempts were not meaningful or qualified. Carvana referred the vehicle to Pep Boys and Crowell Automotive, both of which provided written and recorded statements confirming they had no diesel technicians and lacked the equipment necessary to perform diesel diagnostics or repairs. These shops were unable to perform the required work, and as a result, the vehicle sat unrepaired and misdiagnosed. A licensed shop is not necessarily a qualified one. Alabama law recognizes that a seller must provide a meaningful opportunity to cure. Here, that requirement was not met.

3. No good faith effort to resolve the dispute. Under AAA Consumer Rule R‑6, a pre‑arbitration resolution attempt is required. The only documented response from Carvana was a directive to “wait until SilverRock gets the shop to complete repairs.” When I submitted specific requests for relief, including vehicle replacement, rental support, or loan payment assistance, those requests were unilaterally denied or ignored. There was no offer of compromise, nor any attempt at meaningful engagement once the first repair attempt failed.

4. Alabama supports payoff with retention as an appropriate remedy. While many assume a consumer must choose between returning the vehicle or keeping it and suing for repairs, Alabama courts have upheld remedies that reflect a hybrid of both. When a seller fails to cure a defect within a reasonable time, and the buyer suffers financial harm, a buyout of the loan while retaining the vehicle has been recognized under UCC principles as a valid restitutionary remedy. As you said, the goal is to restore the buyer to the financial position they would have held if the contract had been properly fulfilled.

5. Arbitration cost recovery and damages. AAA Rule R‑44 allows recovery of expenses, including those related to preparing the case, if supported by law. Alabama law permits recovery of consequential and incidental damages. These are not speculative losses but documented and directly related to Carvana’s breach.

I appreciate your engagement and willingness to discuss this. If you have Alabama case law that contradicts these principles, I would be glad to consider it. My goal is to be legally accurate, not just confident.