Dear Shakyside Motors: Please be informed that Mr. and Mrs. Henry Haskell have retained this Law Office in regards to their claim against you and your business. This letter is sent to you in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as found in the Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 93A. Herewith, demand upon you for relief under the pursuant statue is made. The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage you to provide fair and just relief to said Haskell in order that all the parties may avoid litigation as provided for under the above said statute. Certainly, this is a matter that should not have to be litigated and Mr. and Mrs. Haskell consider some of your salespersons to be friends. In February of this year, you were the salesman that sold a car to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Haskell. As well, you are in the custody of funds, belonging to the Haskells’ that arose from this tentative transaction. It has become apparent that there is a valid litigation that could be charged against your dealership in regards to possible non-disclosures as made to the said Haskell and the seller. The Massachusetts Lemon Law, M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 7N1/2, protects consumers who have serious defects in their new cars. The law defines a lemon as a new motor vehicle that has a defect that substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of the vehicle, and which has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. If a substantial defect still exists or recurs after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the consumer has the right to a refund or a replacement vehicle. Keep in mind that not all car problems are serious enough to qualify under the Lemon Law. We believe that the car purchased from Shakyside Motors on February 12th 2002 is a "lemon" under the Massachusetts Lemon Law (Massachusetts General Laws; Ch. 90 Sec. 7N1/2). I am hereby making a written demand for relief under the Lemon Law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Ch. 93A, Sec.9. They purchased a 1982 Ford Pinto on February 12th 2002 from your dealership. Since they bought the vehicle, they have had many defects like gas leaking everywhere, bad brakes, car doesn’t start in cold weather, and transmission belts need to be replaced. The vehicle has been out of service for three weeks and for three weeks the Haskells’ have attempted to call your offices and have the car repaired.
When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In
Takem’s is an appliance store in the state of Virginia serving the residents of the Appalachian regions of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The business model which is currently being conducted in the appliance store has been called into question by one of the customers who has recently purchased a computer on credit. The owner of the store, Tommy, is now contemplating what should be done to handle this situation and protect his interest in the future. In this discourse, the author attempts to reveal to the reader the alleged infractions that Takem’s may be liable for regarding the situation with his customer, Ms. Sally
The Attorney General and the Department of Motor Vehicles of several States are now putting auto dealers on notice. In the states of New York and Nevada they are warning them: “Your advertisements had better be accurate” (Knapp, Eyewitness News, 2004). Studies from the Attorney General of New York Eliot Spitzer, gives many consumer tips to finding misleading advertisements. “Push, Pull, and Drag it in, Guaranteed Trade-in $3,000!” This is a ploy slogan that really confuses consumers, especially college students. In reality, the dealers cannot pay money for a trade in no matter how much it is actually worth. The dealers can only put that hypothetical “trade-in money” toward the purchase of another car. “Dealers often raise the prices of the cars on their lots prior to this sale” (Spitzer, 2003). So in the end, you are really not getting much of a bargain. When watching a car commercial, look for the details in getting this new car for your “push or pull,” there should be a description of how much money must be put down at the time of the trade. If this is not being done, you can report the violating car dealer to your state attorney general’s office.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
The current situation appears to start out with the buyer’s perception that the seller is dishonest. The buyer asks about the mileage being set back. The seller doesn’t really respond to that comment, but moves past it. I think if he would have made a joke out of it, or made a statement that they don’t practice dishonesty, the seller could have gained more trust. Second the seller appears to be assuming the needs of the buyer. The seller is leading with questions like, “Do you need that much room?” The customer says that they don’t, but is it possible that they do want something more spacious? It is possible. The seller seems to think that the buyer is only buying for gas mileage. The seller is overlooking a key selling point, the buyer is getting into a car pool with their boss. It is probable that the buyer would unconsciously want to buy a car that would make a statement to their boss.
However prior to the modern understanding of Consumer Rights there was a understanding of Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware –this has been a fundamental premise of consumer wellbeing prior to World War ‖ , relation to transactions, principle that the buyer purchases at his own risk in the absence of an express warranty in the contract . This common law rule assumes that buyers and sellers are in an equal bargaining position. However there has been evident change in consumer rights which have contributed to the precedence of using Caveat Emptor is no longer acceptable, apparent in the case ACCC v Hewlett Packard Australia (HP), illustrated that no longer can a company ...
Scott Robinson moved from Houston to Cincinnati in 2007. Before leaving, Mr. Robinson sold his Hyundai Santa Fe to a used car dealer in Rosenberg, Texas. Due to clerical errors at the dealer, Scott's car was sold with his license plates still attached to the vehicle. The new owner of the vehicle ran a stoplight and when the license plate was read, Mr. Robinson's information was pulled up. When he finally received his ticket, it was too late for him to protest the charges even when providing proof of sale for the vehicle.(Geor...
3. - Housing Devon is also stressed because her land lord has put his property for sell. Devon received very little warning about it and would like to know her rights. Devon is planning to move to live with her boyfriend and is considering moving to the North. Attempted phone call to
Marshall Peterson has invested a significant amount in advertising, and growing his business of offering the Muscadine grapes that John Doe’s company supplies to him. In the event that Mr. Peterson is required to either discontinue the sale of the grapes, or will need to locate and establish a new relationship with a new supplier, his business will likely be negatively affected at least for a short time. If he chooses to pursue legal action, then there are certain legal considerations that he will enlist to build his case.
Order Confirming Appraisal Award and Granting Preaward Interest, dated August 17, 2015 in litigation entitled JIMOE, Inc., d/b/a Autorama Auto Sales and James R. Moe v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Pope Ct. Dist. Ct., No.
Even though consumers have great protection rights in Australian Customer Law, they have to understand that this law is designed to provide consumers and sellers a fair go. Therefore, consumers also have to be aware that they will not be protected if they are careless and make unreasonable demands.
The plaintiff Woodson is a resident of the state of New York and purchased a vehicle, an Audi, from the Seaway Dealership in the State of New York. The plaintiff Woodson was injured while in Oklahoma, which was caused by a defect in the car. The plaintiff sued the dealership and the other defendants to recover personal injuries in an Oklahoma State court. All defendants were served under he long-arm statute. The dealership and importer objected to the Oklahoma court’s personal jurisdiction.
I recently spoke to Jeremy, a customer service representative who provided your email as a management resource. I am contacting you regarding a recent experience with the Hennessy Southlake collision department. I have received subpar services at Hennessy Southlake and was informed to contact you.I chose this Hennessy location due to superb references from close friends and associates. The service that I received, however, was lackluster. I brought my car in for a paint job to cover scratches from recent hurricane damage. I was informed that my entire car would be painted to ensure a flawless finish. I am familiar with the Hennessy name. I am also familiar with the Hennessy standard of excellence. I have not received excellence in service nor
My father started, owned and operated a tire business there for 45 years. During the latter years, he depended strictly on out of town business, because the locals prevented county vehicles, school vehicles, and any other county business to be done there. Nevertheless, the business did very well. In 1993, my father had double knee replacement surgery. The business fell behind a few payments on a mortgage loan from a local bank. My father had done business with that bank since 1951. After very few months, the bank began foreclosure proceedings. My father immediately sold a large inventory of tires, raised $10,000. He offered the bank the $10,000 to pay the arrearage plus a few payments in advance to show good faith. Every possible attempt was made to satisfy the bank, but everything was turned down except the $50,000 required to pay the loan off in full.
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.