> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net]On Behalf Of Gabriel A.
> Couriel
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 6:12 AM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: DML: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Warranty Trouble
> with Supercharger and other mods?
>
>
>
> look... as a "lawyer in residence," let me explain something to you. a
> lawyer may make the claim that the rep saw the truck at the track, and
> remembered the vehicle, but that'll fail for two reasons. first
> of all, the
> claim that the rep "remembered" the vehicle probably won't survive the
> "laugh factor," that being that when a judge hears the argument, he won't
> bust out laughing at how stupid it is (believe me, it is actually
> used as a
> guide for not making stupid arguments).
For a generic truck, yeah you might get a laugh. Who's to say the truck
wasn't painted flamingo pink and had 24" billet wheels on it?
> second and most importantly, the
> dealership has the burden of proving that the damage done to your vehicle
> was not caused by racing, but that information can only be found from
> information discovered within reasonable means by any dealership.
> unless it
> is reasonable for dealership to put reps at race tracks, it probably won't
> survive that argument either.
>
> as for your claim that the use of the truck at the track is
> insurance fraud,
> i would say that it isn't, considering that "insurance" does not cover
> warranty (warranty is a TOTALLY seperate item under the Uniform Commercial
> Code (UCC)). thus, there wouldn't be an insurance fraud argument
> (let's not
> even get to the level of intent/action needed).
IME Gabe, a good many extended service contracts are sold at the time of
initial purchase. In my case, I butted heads with the dealership at the 25k
mile mark. Well under the standard 3/36, yet they voided my extended service
contract and restricted my standard 3/36 warranty.
You can argue the legality of that until you're blue in the face, the
dealers and DC are banking on the fact that the typical Dakota owner isn't
going to pursue his civil rights on the matter. In most cases, you will tie
up far more money in lawyer's fees than you would in paying for the repair
in dispute. It's a numbers game, plain and simple. Lawyers argue and make
settlement arrangements based on numbers. You don't find a case to the death
over a $2k claim. Makes zero financial sense.
>
> as your claim goes "If you think ethics are driving their
> actions, you must
> deal with different attornies than I do," you are missing a very
> large point
> (and very distressing). attorneys are working very VERY hard at improving
> their image, including ethics training. i have two ethics classes this
> semester, and ethics are a daily component of our education. i take that
> comment as a personal insult, because it says that the education that i am
> getting is in order to screw people, which is far from the truth.
> i work to
> get the truth, not to get money (believe it or not).
Gabe, it's noble that you are holding yourself to a higher standard, but I'm
gonna have to recommend you get some thicker skin before you hit the real
world of law.
I've spent, conservative estimate, 200+ hours of my time in the last 6
months researching consumer laws and building evidence to support a civil
suit that I went to court for just yesterday. I've never been party to a
civil suit in my life. Let me tell ya, it's no fun and that's personal
experience, not something I picked up from a book.
It's consumer vs. the 800 lb. Corporate gorilla and the gorilla's attornies
are playing for keeps. They don't have my best interest in mind. They are
fighting for their client. If my civil rights happen to get trampled in the
process(which I'm claiming they are), oh well. That's the cold reality Bud,
so I wouldn't take it so personal. You're setting yourself up for a long and
miserable career if you do.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 16:29:49 EST