<hsg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:soloe394f0s6s13n7sq1btjgortb83s2vn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:58:54 GMT, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>I do not believe you have "damaged goods". I do not see that you have
any
>>actionable issues.
>>
>>I believe you have a vehicle that was built according to specs. The door
>>went through a mfg. spec check, and it was found that a plate was needed
>>for
>>whatever reason. They added said plate, presumably outside of the
>>automated
>>mfg line, and after some period of time that modification failed. Now,
>>they
>>have to repair it again.
>>
>>I agree with your position that for the money you paid for the car, you
>>might expect First Quality goods. With Porsche printed on the hood and
>>trunk
>>lid, I'd expect better quality as well, but it is just a car. Let them
fix
>>the car, then decide if you want to keep it or sell it. If you sell it,
>>resist the temptation to buy another.
>>
>>If Porsche can not or will not fix it, THEN you might have an actionable
>>claim. But as long as they agree to put the warranty department to work,
>>then your subsequent action will arise from those repairs or the lack of
>>them.
>>
>>Your claim will be under what we call here in the States, the Lemon Law.
A
>>lemon is a car that is plagued with manufacturing defects, but to make a
>>claim under the lemon law, they have to attempt repair the SAME THING
>>three
>>times. It they can't fix after three tries, then you can make a claim
>>under
>>the lemon law, but the manufacturer is only required to buy the car back
>>for
>>your purchase price plus any finance charges you might have made.
>>Depending
>>on the good will they might want to express, they may elect to
compensate
>>for your troubles, but most buyers are happy to be clear of the piece of
>>shit, and the related payments. I do not see your case as a Lemon Law
>>issue
>>yet, you have not said that they have been given several chances to
clear
>>this up.
>>
> The US Lemon Law is a nice bit of legal stuff but here we have "the sale
> of
> goods act" which itself is slightly better protection that you have in
the
> US.
> Generally it's "Caveat Emptor" in the US or Buyer Beware.
>
> Over her the basic rule is that whatever is sold in the way of TRADE or
> Retail
> and not person to person or trader to trader must be what it is supposed
> to be
> and fit for the purpose it was intended to be used for.
> An example would be as our friend said
>
> "Mr Porsche dealer can I have a new Porsche straight from the production
> line as
> I want to drive it from London to Alicante in Spain"
>
> No problem if the car has 38 miles on it when delivered to the customer
> and
> smalls of dead cow hide (leather) and goes like a Saturn 5 rocket.
>
> However in our friend told the dealer he was a sheep farmer and wanted
the
> Porsche to replace his tractor and the dealer told him it would do
> everything
> his tractor would do then he can have his money back as it clearly
won't.
>
> That is a bit OTT. But whatever it is it must be of merchantable quality
> without
> any defects unless pointed out (sale goods - pre registered cars - demos
> etc).
> To my mind under UK law if and I reiterate IF this vehicle was delivered
> to the
> customer in a pre damaged - repaired condition then it clearly was NOT
in
> the
> advertised and sold as condition as a NEW vehicle as it had been
involved
> in an
> "accident" and repaired making it "TAINTED".
>
> However, as before a court might consider that the guy has had use of it
> without
> this repair coming to light for however long but now this damage has
come
> to the
> surface the resale value of the vehicle has been lowered and the court
> could
> order a sum to compensate the guy for this loss at today's prices. The
> company
> could buy back the car at current retail selling price on the SH market
or
> they
> could give him his purchase price back + finance interest (unlikely).
>
Yes, but it is not clear that the vehicle was repaired because of damage,
or
was modified at the factory during manufacturing because they found that a
plate was needed that was not part of the original design spec. We just
don't know what the circumstances are surrounding the plate that has come
loose.
I understand the point that if the vehicle had been wrecked, and repaired,
then sold as new, this is an actionable fraud case. Let's say, for
example,
the car was out on a test drive -- not delivered to the buyer (and not
this
buyer) -- and was struck in the door. The dealership turns around and
rotates the car through the body shop to get pounded out and painted, then
they sell it as a New Car. Technically, it IS a new car since it had never
been registered. This could be construed as a fraudulent sale, but it
seems
to me that the dealership would not want the bad press that goes with
being
discovered on this. They would avoid the bad press by putting the car on
the
used car lot and selling it at a discount over the price of the same car
on
the new car lot. The discount would be small because they would be
up-front
with the buyer -- we had this car on a test drive and some putz ran into
it,
as you can see it is in perfect condition but we did have to roll it
through
the body shop for repairs, you can take advantage of our loss here and
have
a brand new car for a used car price. Sign here. And here, and here.
Barring any further factual information, I see no actionable issues here.
Perhaps that's why I am not a lawyer ...
|
