Thank you for your defense,PKR but it is very easy when writing to be taken in a wrong context. I appreciate Seaoat's input. It is not a very high stakes case and you have to consider the aggravation of it all but the idea we have laws and they are usurped by corporations w/ deep pockets is dismal.PkrBum wrote:You can apparently argue with a stop sign... congratulations.
My Ol' Man was a mechanic all his life. He retired before computers. He taught me a lot about cars but was dead set against me becoming a mechanic.Mr Ichi wrote:I am not tying to be a ass but some of the mark up is the way my shop would cover part of my personal warranty if the part failed and I had to do it again at no cost to the costumer. Granted some shops have a excessive mark up in Parts. If it had been my shop I would have had to eat the entire bill even though it was not my fault
Again dingleberry, what part of the Magnusson Moss law did you not comprehend? It was pretty simple reading. Under the warranty you cannot require a customer to use a particular facility or service. Is that clear or do you want to keep bringing politics in to a non political situation like your dumbass counterparts?Markle wrote:This is a major reason we need tort reform and adopt a system similar to that of Great Britain.
Loser pays. If you sue someone and lose in court, you pay all the court costs and attorney fees for the person or company you sued.
It would also be applicable in the medical field.
No, it does not stop acts of malpractice. An attorney would still be happy to take a malpractice case on a contingency basis. They just wouldn't take the fringe cases that had little or no chance of success.
Dreamsglore tried to cut corners and save a few bucks. An admirable goal. She took a chance but now want's someone else to suffer for her decision. Yep, sounds just like a Progressive.
Bite the bullet, tell yourself that This was an expensive learning experience and move on.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum