I heard the engine is ruined and not covered due to a chip, and the dealer is suing the owner for slander

 

And I would say that isn't necessarily an objectionable course of action.


However, the picture is funny.

 

That is priceless!

Freedom of speech ain't free!

 

I think the dodge and chevy forums just found a new avatar.

 

I Like it!!!!

Gives me a new idea for some mischieft... (can't spell...)

 

Now, who would stupe so low as to use that as an avatar?

















Good idea Air...

 

Priceless... LMAO !

 

Eh, I try...

 

You gotta feel for these guys.It seems that the fords got worse ever since the 1st powerstrokes.Im no ford guy ,but you gotta admit those mid 90's 7.3 trucks were great all around trucks.This guy probably had fords all his life and got haggled into a 6.0 and like so many others they got screwed.I know plenty of old boys like this.They couldnt get 20mpg if their life depended on it ,not to mention the reliablility that a diesel truck should have.Awesome pic though

 

I know his pain, we got an 03 and an 05 both flatbed 6spd duallys.

I went to get some hay about a month ago in the 05, I made it about 6 miles from the house and when I left a stop sign shifting from 2nd to 3rd ( I was on it hard) it died. Would not start back up at all. Had it towed to the dealer and it was the high pressure oil pump.

The truck had less than 36k miles on it, maybe a little less than 35, I can remember exactly.

 

If they engine was blown when it had a chip in it then the wrranty is void correct. Any aftermarket additions void the waranty.

 

Can you say Cummins conversion?!?!

 

If a lawsuit of slander were brought against the man, it is an unreasonable suit. Slander means to falsely report the character of someone. The man is entitled to his opinion that their warranty sucks. No court of justice would actually convict the man of slander.

I like the way he handled the situation. It was much less ugly than I would have made it. Hopefully the dealership learned to take care of their customers better. To the people that say “you have to pay to play” as a knee-jerk response: You are doing a disservice to the consumer. While I agree that making modifications to a truck that would cause damage should not be covered, I believe that this culture is increasingly letting business off the hook. Every product sold has an implied warranty unless specifically stated in writing that it does not have the implied warranty, or that the warranty is limited.

As a tangent, let me use Japanese products as an example of quality. Their products don't tend to last longer because they are simply smarter than Americans. I don't believe that. I believe it is because their honor depends on the quality of work they do. They take personal responsibility for whatever aspect of design or production they are involved in. Perhaps a better way to measure a man is not by what he can consume, but what he can produce.

The topic of weather a chip voids the warranty is subjective from a legal standpoint. I would guess some people would win a legal battle in some courts, and some would loose in others. It all comes down to did the truck fail under reasonable levels of use, or was the use uncommonly harsh.

 

Another interesting point is there is a video out for the new 6.4 PowerStroke that says the computer will record chip usage so the dealer can tell and that there is a special tailpipe that must be kept clean so it makes it difficult to even put a exhaust tip on it.

Here is the link:
http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fu...d/18992262.cfm

 

"The defendant has stated, through several signatures on the day of purchase, that he was well aware of the terms of my client's warranty. Explicitly stated on this page of said warranty is the clause that any and all unauthorized alterations to the vehicle's drivetrain or electronic control systems would void my client's contractual obligations. The precedent stands that this contractual condition is perfectly valid and enforceable.
"The use of the vernacular term "sucks", as the defendant did in this picture, is a strong implication that my client failed to follow the letter of his contracted service. The linguistics of the matter have been verified by the expert witness who is a professor of language at the local University.
"As the defendant was well known to have purchased a vehicle from my client, he would have been accepted in his community (which is consequently the primary market of my client) as a man of knowledge and evidence regarding my client's business operations. This statement is verified by several of the defendant's neighbors, who submitted these statements to the court detailing the defendant's history as a trustworthy and seemingly-honest man.
"By using his status as a man of integrity and experience regarding my client's business practices, and by advertising to his community that said practices were inadequately followed, he irreparably and illegally harmed the reputation, and therefore financial future, of my client.
"Therefore, the defendant's actions are legally slanderous, and my client is requesting an immediate removal of all slanderous material on his property and $500,000 in damages to cover the future decline in my client's business that the slander will cause. Thank you."