On 05/28/2012 12:32 AM, Michael Oke, II wrote: > In your opinion? Hi Michael,
Well, the lawsuit is evidently about that, although the attorney backed down in this case. Since it is a "complex" legal issue eventually it will be litigated. "The skirmish in the widow's case raises complex legal issues involving federal bankruptcy rules that sometimes allow companies to discard product liability or other risks, overruling state laws that give consumers rights to sue for damages." Now to say it has "nothing to do" with it, have you got a judge and jury in your pocket? The eventual plaintiff may win or lose, but I am fairly sure the court will not say that it has "nothing to do" with it. >>> Ok, but it has nothing to do with warrantys nor product liability. > >> Ultimately, some judge somewhere will decide. "Nothing to do with >> warranties or product liability" - a most remarkable statement! >> >>> Michael Oke, II >>> 661-349-6221 >>> >>> Contents of this and all messages are intended for their designated >>> recipient. >>> >>> On May 27, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Pete Theisen<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/27/2012 07:18 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: >>>>> Such a provision allowing them to avoid punitive penalties if found >>>>> to be at fault. Part of me wonders how Chrysler could be allowed to >>>>> include language that prevents such a thing for them. >>>> >>>> Exactly, GM never had the provision, questionable that Chrysler should >>>> be allowed to have it. >>>> >>>>>>> I guess that reading does not mean comprehending. The article >>>>>>> talks about avoiding punitive damages stemming from lawsuits >>>>>>> concerning cars built by the 'old GM'. Nothing more and nothing >>>>>>> less. Heck, it even mentions that Chrysler had just such language >>>>>>> contained in their filing. >>>> >>>>>> What about the part that says GM's agreement did not include such >>>>>> a provision? >>>>>> >>>>>> "GM agreed to remain exposed to future product-liability suits >>>>>> involving older cars and trucks after more than a dozen state >>>>>> attorneys general protested its attempt to discard such liability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chrysler eventually did the same, but spelled out in court >>>>>> documents that it wouldn't be exposed to punitive damages in such >>>>>> cases. Unlike Chrysler, GM's bankruptcy sale agreement doesn't >>>>>> outline such immunity." >>>> >>>>>>>>> But I do and I'm not in the least concerned. You really need >>>>>>>>> to read the article referenced. >>>> >>>>>>>> I did read it, I posted it. I can't see the part you seem to be >>>>>>>> seeing. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 05/27/2012 04:47 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Reading is fundamental Pete. They want to avoid punitive >>>>>>>>>>> damages arising from any product liability case. Can't >>>>>>>>>>> say that I blame them for looking for an out there. >>>>>>>>>>> Juries have a long history o being stupid when it comes >>>>>>>>>>> to such things. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I take it you do not have a late 2009 GM car with extended >>>>>>>>>> warranty? If you did . . . >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Warranty? Product liability? Don't be silly . . . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/05/16/wsj-gm-claims-immunity-for-its-old-cars/ -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
