Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Found this in this morning's news:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/new...for-awhile-concludes-no/ar-AAJcuaB?li=BBnb4R5

It would be interesting to hear your views on this, especially if you live in Michigan.
In true legaleze they are removing the application of the one statute and penalties, but allowing that negligence still applies. There is nothing unusual about this. The dealership can still be sued for damages and injuries from negligence, just not subject to the extra goodies like lawyer fees.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Everything in Moderation
2006 CR-V EX, 5MT
Joined
·
11,848 Posts
I'm sure that ruling will be appealed. (I hope so)

Meanwhile, the court saved me some time when doing tire rotations! ? And lawyer Steve Lehto won't be making as much money.?
 

·
Registered
2016 CRV Touring AWD
Joined
·
4,044 Posts
No politics please.

if a statutory remedy doesn't apply, that's not news. The law wasn't designed to provide them for the scenario.
Common tort and contract law remedies apply. But of course that's not newsworthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hakuin

·
Registered
'07 CR-V EX-L AWD
Joined
·
4,662 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I'm sure that ruling will be appealed. (I hope so)

Meanwhile, the court saved me some time when doing tire rotations! ? And lawyer Steve Lehto won't be making as much money.?
I would hope they will appeal it, too, but the case has already been going on, apparently, for close to five years. I Just don't see how something this ridiculous and obvious can be left standing. Don't we have a reasonable right to expect a court to make sense? Hmmm.
 

·
Registered
'07 CR-V EX-L AWD
Joined
·
4,662 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
No politics please.

if a statutory remedy doesn't apply, that's not news. The law wasn't designed to provide them for the scenario.
Common tort and contract law remedies apply. But of course that's not newsworthy.
It seems to me that a citizen ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation that a panel of senior judges would be capable of having good judgment. If this incident had happened to a member of one of their families, you can bet the decision would have been different. But besides that, how they could possibly have arrived at their interpretation of the word perform, as used in a contract for service, to have the word perform not include the implication of completion of the contracted task, which would, by any definition, include tightening the lug nuts.

To my thinking, the only possible answer to why they ruled this way is that they were bought and paid for. And as a precedent, it cannot be allowed to stand. The judges should be removed and charged accordingly, and their ruling thrown out, as it is as worthless as they are. Otherwise, we are back to square one, lost in the wilderness.

Or maybe it's just that I live in the territories, and don't understand the niceties of civilized folk. Yep, that's probly it. :unsure:
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top