I think you answered your own question though, but I'll explain anyway...
I was utilizing a common coloquializm to make a point. The 'lie' is that they
published material and advertised things that have since turned out not to be
true. By failing to support their original towing claim and "lowering" it
without consulting the owners, they are making the original claim untrue and
thus a 'lie'. Had they said: "We've since discovered a problem with towing
those loads, we now ask that until we find a fix for it that you keep the
loads under 2000#. When we find a solution we will notify you of the
results." then they would not have lied but are now making a request of the
owners. They would then be forced into finding a fix or working out fair
arrangements to solve the problems. They did not do this though, they said
"Take this solution and be happy with it." It's up to the R/T owner now to do
all the legwork and say "I'm not happy with your solution, here's my lawsuit."
Obviously, this is not good customer support, the entire crux of my comments.
The sinister part here is that (by Eric's comments) they knew the problem
existed even as the trucks were selling like hotcakes and failed to tell
anyone until now. That constitues fraudulent and misleading advertising as
well as misrepresentation. Those are both punitive capable charges. Jury's
love to punish automakers for these kinds of goofs... Just some legal truth
there.
I can also guarantee you that if this is a "frame" problem with the flat
springs, it would've shown up on the shaker table with a load in the bed of
the truck. If DC made assumptions and didn't test the R/T for this then it's
REALLY a stupid gaff on DC's part... but I can't say if they did that testing
or not.
Shaun H.
---original message---
What evidence do you have that DC "lied"? My understanding is that they
discovered this problem after production was well underway and as they were
doing continuing testing on the R/T. If this is indeed the case, then it
does not constitute a lie from either a moral or legal standpoint. I agree
that the responsible thing to do would be for DC to engineer a fix for this
and then fix all R/Ts free of charge. But unless someone can prove that
there is something more sinister going on here, this is hardly the kind of
case that punitive damages are awarded for. And no way is DC going to have
its head cut off over this.
Mike Crumley 97 V6 Auto
mail to: mcrumley@airmail.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:14:48 EDT