Ford... worth 1000 words
Chapter President
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
From: Near Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee
"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."
"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."
Wow, what can ya say to that? Leave it to Begle to turn the guys opinion into a "trustworthy and seemingly-honest man" owing a dealer $500,000!!
Is that how it is? Or did my simple mind get fried somewhere in all that legal mumbo jumbo soup?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Salem, Oregon
That legal statement appears weak for several reasons.
1."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 term sucks does not imply that a person failed to meet a contract requirement. Most people would agree that it only means sub-par.
2. The statement says that the man is known to be a very credible man, which is their basis for claiming he is "legally slanderous". That does imply that if he was known to be dishonest then he would not be legally slanderous. The logic of the legal statement does not follow because if he was known in his community as an honest man, then it can only boost his case for being entitled to his opinion.
The fact that they chose to take legal action decreases my confidence that the dealership provides proper service. It appears that they are trying to cover up a mistake with how they handled a particular case.
I do not know the circumstances of the man’s frustration, and he may have done something that voids his warranty, but it's frivolous lawsuits like those that threaten free speech and undermine the importance of having a reputation as an honest individual.
I am curious of the outcome of that lawsuit, and the details of the initial warranty dispute.
1."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 term sucks does not imply that a person failed to meet a contract requirement. Most people would agree that it only means sub-par.
2. The statement says that the man is known to be a very credible man, which is their basis for claiming he is "legally slanderous". That does imply that if he was known to be dishonest then he would not be legally slanderous. The logic of the legal statement does not follow because if he was known in his community as an honest man, then it can only boost his case for being entitled to his opinion.
The fact that they chose to take legal action decreases my confidence that the dealership provides proper service. It appears that they are trying to cover up a mistake with how they handled a particular case.
I do not know the circumstances of the man’s frustration, and he may have done something that voids his warranty, but it's frivolous lawsuits like those that threaten free speech and undermine the importance of having a reputation as an honest individual.
I am curious of the outcome of that lawsuit, and the details of the initial warranty dispute.
Banned
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 1
What could be "sub-par" about a contractual obligation that wouldn't imply the breaking of the obligation? If the contract says that "all defects in worksmanship or manufacturing will be repaired to satisfaction unless aftermarket modifications are present", the terms "suck", "sub-par" and "contractual breach" are all synonomous. 2. The statement says that the man is known to be a very credible man, which is their basis for claiming he is "legally slanderous". That does imply that if he was known to be dishonest then he would not be legally slanderous. The logic of the legal statement does not follow because if he was known in his community as an honest man, then it can only boost his case for being entitled to his opinion.
The same applies in this case; if the neighbors stated that the man was a fool and con-man, the charge of slander would be irrevelant; a fool and con-man can't damage the dealership's reputation as much as an "honest", outgoing and well-liked individual.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Salem, Oregon
I stand corrected on item 1. I misunderstood the statement to mean that the man that painted the sign was admitting a breach of contract on his end by using the term sucks. However, I do not believe it implies that there was necessarily a breach of contract. He could have just as easily recognized that he has no claim to a full warranty, but still hold the opinion that the dealership should have done more to satisfy his situation. In this case he would have held the opinion that the service sucked, without implying that a contractual agreement was not honored. Heck, he may have thought the terms of the warranty sucked to begin with, but agreed by signiture anyhow. To lay judgment on an individual in the amount of $500,000 when there is question as to what his use of the word “sucks” is an abuse of the legal system.
I understand the idea you were trying to convey with the magazine analogy, but it has no relevance to an individual’s reaction to being dissatisfied. Based on the single photo, I don’t believe the man is as influential as a major publication.
Now for my mostly irrelevant analogy:
Cell phone contracts include a statement that in summary says you must make your monthly payments for the contracted number of years regardless of weather service is ever rendered in that period of time. The company could shut down the cell phone network altogether and you would still be required to pay the bill or face early termination fees. If that unfortunate circumstance happened to me, I would say that the contract sucks, even though I have no legal recourse. I would simply be saying that I expect the company to live by an ethical code, not just a legal one.
P.S. The linguistic professor sucks. Su me.
I understand the idea you were trying to convey with the magazine analogy, but it has no relevance to an individual’s reaction to being dissatisfied. Based on the single photo, I don’t believe the man is as influential as a major publication.
Now for my mostly irrelevant analogy:
Cell phone contracts include a statement that in summary says you must make your monthly payments for the contracted number of years regardless of weather service is ever rendered in that period of time. The company could shut down the cell phone network altogether and you would still be required to pay the bill or face early termination fees. If that unfortunate circumstance happened to me, I would say that the contract sucks, even though I have no legal recourse. I would simply be saying that I expect the company to live by an ethical code, not just a legal one.
P.S. The linguistic professor sucks. Su me.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 4
From: Cypress, TX
Cell phone contracts include a statement that in summary says you must make your monthly payments for the contracted number of years regardless of weather service is ever rendered in that period of time. The company could shut down the cell phone network altogether and you would still be required to pay the bill or face early termination fees.
Rusty
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,053
Likes: 29
From: lyman, utah
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: Trussville, Alabama
Warranties
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
From: Walden, NY
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post