Fellow Member (>400)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Eugene, OR
Thanked 58 Times in 44 Posts
My favorite part is where they say that "Auotbahn specially excepts....the the plaintiff relied on Autobahns's "implied and express warranties" and "its superior knowledge and expertise" because said allegations are vague....."
So their defense is that you relied on their advertising, which was vague, and because of that your claims are invalid? And the warranties for vehicle repair, which are widely upheld by legal precedence and are in no way disputed in my understanding, are in this specific case too vague?
It would be interesting on a theoretical level to see what would happen if a bunch of people went to this dealership and test drove cars, and during those test drives the cars became damaged. I would be interested in how "vague" they determined the law to be regarding who is to pay in that theoretical situation. I am in no way advocating for small or large numbers of people to go to any dealership and intentionally involve new cars in an accident during a test drive as a purposeful act of retribution for any imagined or real prior act of injustice on the part of said dealership.
2006 M5 black/black
1999 A4 1.8 winter beater
1989 Isuzu Impulse 2.6L turbo-397hp/414tq at the wheels
1984 1-ton van
1989 Toyota PU 3RZ swap-on hold, stock 22RE in the meantime
1994 Park Avenue with overdriven Eaton
Last edited by impulsoren; 8th October 2010 at 07:47 AM.