who won a large award by suing Mickkie-D's for serving her too-hot
coffee,
SHE was injured and not someone 50 years after the fact.
..... and the "Twinkie Defense" which was successfully adduced , in
arguing that Dan White, a gun-murderer, was under the influence of
processed suger when he shot the mayor & a city councilman, in San
Francisco.
HE was under the influence and not someone 50 years after the fact.
And, then, there's the OJ defense: if the glove don't fit, you must
acquit!
HE had (or not) the glove and not someone 50 years later.
If the OEM battery ain't there
And how do you know it was not there? Did you see the battery in the car
when the dealer took possession? Do you have a photo or some other proof?
and with malice aforethought, installed that pitiful generic (made in
Japan) battery and
A Japanese battery?? In 1957?? Don't think so. Japan was not noted for
quality anything back then. Their products were basically simple items of
plastic and cheap sheet steel. Most people rated Japanese goods as one step
above junk. North America did not start getting car parts made outside of
Europe, Canada and the U.S. until the 1960's. Actually, Japan did not start
exporting any parts for non-Japanese vehicles, including such things as
batteries, tires, etc., until after 1961.
But it all goes back to two important points -
1) You have to prove the battery in the car was not the battery installed in
the car when it rolled off the assembly line. If you can't prove that, you
have no case.
2) You have to prove that Chrysler installed Mopar batteries at the factory,
and nothing but Mopar batteries. If someone can come up with proof that
Chrysler used at least two different brands of batteries in their cars back
then, you lose.
And just on whom are you planning to lay this suit? If the dealer is not in
business any more there is no corporate body to go after. And if the owners
of the firm are not around, you are going to have fun getting money out of a
corpse. I was going to say I somehow doubt any court would go after the
grandchildren in a case such as this, but given that American courts have
given people money for spilling hot coffee on themselves, killed someone
because they pigged out on sugar and fell off a ladder standing on a pile of
damp cow manure, I shudder at the thought a decision a jury would make in
this case!
Bill
Vancouver, BC
----- Original Message -----
From: "eastern sierra Adj Services" <esierraadj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [FWDLK] Miss Belvie's battery..
Good points, Bill, but:
there is an implied, and express warranty of quality, which may have
been violated by the dealership if it can be proven that the dealership
switched an OEM battery for a lesser, possibly defective battery, for
the dealer's economic gain.
The complaining Family (especially if the car had been properly entombed
and had emerged in pristine condition) might claim that, in exception
to the like-new OEM tires and equipment, the selling-dealer knowingly
and with malice aforethought, installed that pitiful generic (made in
Japan) battery and willingly vitiated (harmed) the current value of the
car, by reducing its fair market value.
Before y'all start snickering-bars, kindly recall the millionare-lady
who won a large award by suing Mickkie-D's for serving her too-hot
coffee, and the "Twinkie Defense" which was successfully adduced , in
arguing that Dan White, a gun-murderer, was under the influence of
processed suger when he shot the mayor & a city councilman, in San
Francisco.
And, then, there's the OJ defense: if the glove don't fit, you must
acquit!
If the OEM battery ain't there, you must declare:
I been screwed, somewhere!
Neil Vedder
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network