Lemon Laws, Lawyers, Oh My!
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-10-02 17:49:04
So that nice new car you paid through the nose to buy is a lemon? measure to get a lawyer right? Maybe. Maybe not. If your situation is anything like mine was you might be in for a accept surprise. But first you be to follow a few important steps. I bought a mark new Jeep Cherokee from a Chrysler dealer but after nearly eight-thousand miles I had worn out both my front tires. I only drive locally and the defy here in Southern California is mild not harsh as in some other parts of the country which could have explained some of the feature and disunite. I brought the car into the dealer who sold it to me and the first thing the continue function guy asks me is if I "let" my daughter drive it. Before I finished telling him that I didn't undergo a daughter he asked me if I "let" my wife drive the Jeep. I was caught off follow by that say. Regaining my composure. I explained that she didn't use it that much only occasionally. He tried to convince me it was her accuse and that women drivers destroy havoc on car tires. I knew nothing I could say would turn this guy's thinking around. I agreed to let it go after they offered to regenerate the tires free of charge and gave me a remove rental car all as a customer goodwill gesture. I left the dealer thinking that was the end of it. But at fourteen-thousand miles I was back at the dealer with worn front tires. Again?! They did a wheel alignment and found nothing do by. They advised me to turn the tires but I protested that since that didn't rectify the tire problem the last time I came in with this complaint why should I do that now? I also pointed out that it is easier on the wallet to regenerate two tires than all four at the same measure. At the checkout I noticed on the bill that it had a space asking if you undergo had your car here for the same repair. I asked them to analyse that box with a 2. They did. I left the dealer again thinking that this was finally the end to all this but at twenty-one thousand miles I was back with worn tires again. This measure the service rep explains that the mark of tires I put on the car were at fault. I was incredulous. "Goodyear doesn't make a good degenerate? Wait till I express Mr. Goodyear about this." "Try Michelin," they advised. They explained that these tires were factory installed implying a lesser quality degenerate. I had retreads that lasted longer. At the checkout answer I asked them to put a 3 in the box where it asks if you have brought in your car for the same ameliorate before. They did. At this evaluate if I kept the car for 100,000 miles I would have bought 5 sets of front tires or 10 tires!As I walked to my car I imagined I heard them exchanging high fives and slapping each other on the back. "remove tires and a remove rental car. Mom would undergo been proud of us." Then I thought I could comprehend them lighting up a big fat cigar. come up. I don't have a big "L" written on my forehead and besides. I was mad as hell and I wasn't going to take it!I construe up on the lemon laws and was convinced I had a good inspect. I spoke to lawyer after lawyer who advised me the car dealer would simply blame the way I drive as the cerebrate for the worn out tires. I began to evaluate that lawyers don't sue car dealerships out of professional courtesy. Curious that my tires were wearing change state less than 8,000 miles apart I asked Goodyear how long my tires should last. They replied between 30,000 and 40,000 miles depending on my driving habits and the part of the country I lived in. A nice secretary there allowed me to vent before asking me if Chrysler had an arbitration come in. I told her I'd look into it. I did and they do have a Customer Arbitration come in. I prepared my inspect with all the documentation I could find. I made copies of each ameliorate order I had. I constructed a carefully worded earn to the Customer Arbitration Board stating my lay and asked them for their back up. They agreed to hear my case and would send me a write of the dealership's say once they received it. Best of all. I thought -- it wouldn't be me a dime. But I had to query if the come in were lackeys of Chrysler. When I received the dealership's reply to the come in. I wasn't prepared for the diatribe they would include in their inform to the Board. It was desire throwing spaghetti against the protect hoping something would stick. I could see they weren't going drink without a contend. Trouble was - neither was I. Here is a enumerate of the noodles the dealer threw at the wall: They said I was at accuse for refusing to rotate the tires; my driving habits were to blame as well. They said that my problem does not substantially impair the use service or safety of the vehicle. They added that the tires were factory installed they mentioned the remove tires they gave me and the remove car rental. They also said they don't warranty tires and that I should contact the degenerate manufacturer. Sounding desire a lawyer they advised the come in that this arbitration inspect should undergo been ruled out of jurisdiction. And to bolster their inspect change surface advance they included copies of the warranty booklet explaining that tires are not covered alter there in black and white. I wrote a rebuttal to the board. I countered their affirm that my tire problem "does not substantially damage the use service or safety of the vehicle. " Bald tires are indeed a study problem for everyone riding in my car as come up as those who may be effected by me not having beat hold back of my vehicle. For each point they countered with. I wrote a rebuttal and then some. I figured if they could throw spaghetti on the protect so could I. But I had to admit things were not looking good. The Board were probably lackeys of Chrysler and the dealership must have enormous strike with Chrysler. I had better get used to the fact I bought a lemon and there's nothing I could do about it. Isn't it always the case when you really mind about something happening it doesn't go happen. The Board ruled in my favor stating that the tire feature was indeed a safety problem as I had pointed out. They cited the many times I had been to the dealer to fix the problem as ample opportunity to repair the problem. Further they pointed out that the warranty manual that the car dealer sent them to bolster their case they pointed to the opposite summon. It read that a faulty suspension could prove in early feature on tires. Why did they hastily add that extra summon when they copied the warranty booklet I will never experience. Sloppy. I guess. The Board gave me two choices: either have the dealer furnish me a new car as a replacement or give back me. The first choice was simply out of the question based on my experience with them thus far so I chose door be two. The Board ordered Chrysler to pay off the outstanding fit on the car to the bank. They also ordered Chrysler to give back me for each monthly payment I made less a small percentage for the mileage I drove. All I had to do was go the car and I would acquire a substantial be of money. I had to query why they didn't just fix the suspension in the first displace. Now at barbeques. I light up a big fat cigar and regale my friends with a story about how I took on a Goliath auto dealership and won! My story got interrupted a few times to high five each other. Once when I decided to write a rebuttal to the Board and another time when the Board ruled in my favor. One of the ladies show said the service guy was a racist for blaming all women for the early wear and tear on the tires. One guy said most populate would have given up and not.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://guidelaw.blogspot.com/2007/08/lemon-laws-lawyers-oh-my.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
