It depends on the definition of what a car is supposed to do. Is it
supposed to move people from A to B in comfort or just move them from
point to point. The dissenting judge touched on this by saying that a
new or near new luxury car must have comfort whereas a Kaleb special
just needs
Over here if you are caught without a spare or an unusable spare, the
police can defect your car.
Not sure but I think in Germany the law is that you must carry spare
bulbs so that you can fix burnt out ones on the spot.
Hendrik
Mitch Haley wrote:
There was a case in Michigan where a buyer
I think the obvious was overlooked, Johnson admits adding super seal to
the air con system and being a professional in the auto business would
know that the reason that super seal has to be put in is that there is a
fault/leak in the A/C system. Johnson told the Hodges that the car was
in
Hendrik, I agree with you. I noticed the Super Seal, etc., right away, too.
Yep, Johnson knew the car had an A/C problem.
Wilton
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL
Wilton Strickland wrote:
Hendrik, I agree with you. I noticed the Super Seal, etc., right away, too.
Yep, Johnson knew the car had an A/C problem.
And that was something the trial judge took into consideration.
The appellate ruling was that the case should have been thrown out
summarily. I
hahahaha, yea
Luther wrote:
So you are ok with a buyer being a dumbass and not checking EVERYTHING out on
a used car regardless of the price paid? No more caveat emptor? If this
is the case, Kaleb, I need you to pay for my transmission in the SDL.
Luther
On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:02:14
Well, they are a pack of idiots for paying that much for that car
anyway, then expecting the seller to pay for failures on a 10 year old
car is just stupid
Donald Snook wrote:
I was reading the Journal of the Kansas Bar Association today and it has
reports of recent decisions by the Kansas
the moron buyer should not have paid that much, if they are stupid
enough to pay that much, they should have at least been smart enough to
have somebody check it out
Donald Snook wrote:
Luther wrote:
So you are ok with a buyer being a dumbass and not checking EVERYTHING out
on a used car
yea but still, its a 10 year old used car, the people should have had it
checked out. If they were not prepared for the issues that could arrise
with an old car, they should have bought a new car with a factory warranty.
Wilton Strickland wrote:
Hendrik, I agree with you. I noticed the Super
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wilton Strickland
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:26 AM
To: mercedes
Subject: [MBZ] Lawsuit over a Mercedes
Hendrik, I agree with you. I noticed the Super Seal, etc., right away, too.
Yep, Johnson knew the car had an A/C
So perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us how a mechanic would pick
up that the A/C system has been filled with a sealant to make it
temporarily work? Particularly if the weather is near freezing.
End of the day the moral of the story is that the world of car
salespeople is full of crooks
They way I read it is that the owner complained that AC was not working
well and the dealer added freon and later tried to convince them that
adding a bit of freon every know and again was normal. Then again I kept
nodding off every know and then as i read through the legal mumbo jumbo.
tried to convince them that adding a bit of freon every
now and again was normal.
It is. I believe that having to add a can's worth every few
years is within the design parameters. (Or was.) But I bet
this one leaked a whole lot more than that!
-- Jim
I was reading the Journal of the Kansas Bar Association today and it has
reports of recent decisions by the Kansas Court of Appeals. There was a case
about a guy who bought a 1995 Mercedes (it just says it was a 320) for $17,000
in January 2005. It had over 135,000 miles. The new owners
So you are ok with a buyer being a dumbass and not checking EVERYTHING out on a
used car regardless of the price paid? No more caveat emptor? If this is
the case, Kaleb, I need you to pay for my transmission in the SDL.
Luther
On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:02:14 -0500, Donald Snook [EMAIL
Donald Snook wrote:
I was reading the Journal of the Kansas Bar Association today and it
has reports of recent decisions by the Kansas Court of Appeals.
There was a case about a guy who bought a 1995 Mercedes (it just says
it was a 320) for $17,000 in January 2005. It had over 135,000
miles.
I'm not sure how a non technical buyer would check an A/C in January.
Not sure how I would either ;-)
--
Regards,
Peter T. Arnold
2007 HHR, 2.4L/Auto, LT2, 20Kmi, No problems!
1987 300SDL 286 KMI Now lives with Dave Walton, Cleveland Ohio
1995 F-250 PowerChoke 199Kmi
1954 Metropolitan
Pay $100 for a COMPLETE inspection by a qualified and TRUSTED mechanic. Case
closed.
Luther
On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:30:43 -0500, Peter T. Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure how a non technical buyer would check an A/C in January.
Not sure how I would either ;-)
--
Regards,
Then sue your poor trusted mechanic who only got $100 if he turns out to be
wrong?
Randy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Luther
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:40 PM
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] lawsuit over a Mercedes
Luther wrote:
So you are ok with a buyer being a dumbass and not checking EVERYTHING out on
a used car regardless of the price paid? No more caveat emptor? If this is
the case, Kaleb, I need you to pay for my transmission in the SDL.
No. Actually, I agreed with the dissenting Judge who
John R. wrote: So how much would all of those attorney fees cost? Surely more
than the $4k in question!
Definitely! That is one reason these cases get litigated and appealed is
because of the award of fees.
Donald H. Snook
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For
21 matches
Mail list logo
