Don't worry...after everything we have been through I want EVERYTHING in writing!
Ford V10motor locked up
- Thread starter Cathy Covington
- Start date
- Status
Take the offer.
Take the offer.
Take the offer and run. It will cost you alot more than $2000 to pursue Ford. Cut your losses and get on with your life, Joe
Speaking of pursuing Ford, look for a written non-disclosure or some other written agreement not to bring suit against Ford in relation to this breakdown that'll require your signature. The more I think about Penske's "magnanimous" offer, Penske's verbal assertion that Ford won't budge notwithstanding, the more I'm beginning to suspect that Ford's a "silent partner" in defraying at least some of the $9,000.00 engine cost that Penske's agreed to bear. (Your $2,000.00 is probably the labor charge.) I still think this is a good deal, and as good a deal as you'll get without walking wide-eyed and innocent into court only to watch helplessly as your sharks and Ford's profit by your misfortune and admitted negligence. I can't help but think Ford wants something out of this, too - namely to make the problem finally go away. Cathy, you've got more to lose than gain by keeping your back up.
Ray,
Curb the exxagerations! This is nothing but a nickle and dime case to Ford. Ford is playing the numbers game with these folks and other fine consumers. Now you see why they do it, it works!
If I was in the same boat as the Covingtons things would have turned out different, I can almost guarantee that!
If Cathy is happy then everything worked out.
Curb the exxagerations! This is nothing but a nickle and dime case to Ford. Ford is playing the numbers game with these folks and other fine consumers. Now you see why they do it, it works!
If I was in the same boat as the Covingtons things would have turned out different, I can almost guarantee that!
If Cathy is happy then everything worked out.
Better yet: Put the $2000 on your credit card. When you get the vehicle back, call your credit card company and do a chargeback. When the CC company asks for documentation, send a copy of your warranty. Do the chargeback over the phone and in writting. Follow up with letters to the credit bureaus letting them know the amount is in dispute. The CC company will take the money back from the dealership for you.
Let FMC and the CC company duke it out.
(Always make major purchases/repairs with a CC. Lots of legal protections built right in.)
Then next time, buy Japanese!
_CREDIT_ card not _CHECK_ card. There are very very legal protections built into a CHECK card.
Quite frankly, if you agree to pay the $2000 and then dispute the charge, you're guilty of fraud. The charge can only be disputed IF there is fraudulant charge or a failure to deliver. Neither will apply if she agrees to pay the $2000.
Not to mention that it is unethical, and from her posts she sounds like a person of higher integrity than that.
[/qb][/QUOTE]Quite frankly, if you agree to pay the $2000 and then dispute the charge, you're guilty of fraud. The charge can only be disputed IF there is fraudulant charge or a failure to deliver. Neither will apply if she agrees to pay the $2000.
Not to mention that it is unethical, and from her posts she sounds like a person of higher integrity than that. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No, a chargeback is a chargeback. Stealing another person's card and using it, that's fraud.
What is unethical is for the dealer not to honor the warranty. The dealer is also bound by terms of service as a merchant with the credit card processing company. They have very strict rules and, IMO, failing to honor the written warranty is a violation of the terms with merchant services. Anyway, it will be for the merchant to prove, not the customer.
The chargeback is a very powerful tool that most consumers are unaware of, and it's perfectly legal. That is why major purchases/repairs should always be put on a CC.
I've worked in web-based retail and I could write a book on chargebacks. The merchant has the burden of proving that a chargeback should not go through.
Not to mention that it is unethical, and from her posts she sounds like a person of higher integrity than that. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No, a chargeback is a chargeback. Stealing another person's card and using it, that's fraud.
What is unethical is for the dealer not to honor the warranty. The dealer is also bound by terms of service as a merchant with the credit card processing company. They have very strict rules and, IMO, failing to honor the written warranty is a violation of the terms with merchant services. Anyway, it will be for the merchant to prove, not the customer.
The chargeback is a very powerful tool that most consumers are unaware of, and it's perfectly legal. That is why major purchases/repairs should always be put on a CC.
I've worked in web-based retail and I could write a book on chargebacks. The merchant has the burden of proving that a chargeback should not go through.
The dealer is clearly unethical as well as FORD, however the dealership can prove that there is a disagreement prior to the charge being made on the card. It may be a way to do it but, a wrong doesn't make another wrong right. Pay the bill and sue FORD! FORD is clearly the ******* here and should be sued! Shoddy garbage they dish out to consumers is a disgrace!
Any sort of respect I had for FORD is lost!
A good friend of mine has a Explorer. U-haul will not allow him to rent a trailer since it will be hooked up to his Explorer. I can rent the same trailer and hook it to my 4-Runner.
What a joke!
OK I am done venting......
Any sort of respect I had for FORD is lost!
A good friend of mine has a Explorer. U-haul will not allow him to rent a trailer since it will be hooked up to his Explorer. I can rent the same trailer and hook it to my 4-Runner.
OK I am done venting......
Amkeer may have something here!quote:
Originally posted by Amkeer:
Pay the bill and sue FORD! FORD is clearly the ******* here and should be sued! Shoddy garbage they dish out to consumers is a disgrace!Any sort of respect I had for FORD is lost!
It is going to cost Ford a minimum of $1,000 to even show up at small claims court for a $2,000
Judgement. Figure any lawyer worth his or her salt is going to charge $150 an hour and $500 just to show up for the case in court. Hummmmm it might just be worth it to try it. It may be far cheaper to pay you off than have to show up in front of the judge. Even if you lose it has cost them the time, hassle and the lawyers fee's of dealing with you. Even if they brought their own lawyers in from Dearborn they still would have Airfare and hotel expenses.
Ford has a sea of lawyers on retainer. They get paid the same whether or not they are or are not in court.quote:
Originally posted by ALS:
Amkeer may have something here!quote:
Originally posted by Amkeer:
Pay the bill and sue FORD! FORD is clearly the ******* here and should be sued! Shoddy garbage they dish out to consumers is a disgrace!Any sort of respect I had for FORD is lost!
It is going to cost Ford a minimum of $1,000 to even show up at small claims court for a $2,000
Judgement. Figure any lawyer worth his or her salt is going to charge $150 an hour and $500 just to show up for the case in court. Hummmmm it might just be worth it to try it. It may be far cheaper to pay you off than have to show up in front of the judge. Even if you lose it has cost them the time, hassle and the lawyers fee's of dealing with you. Even if they brought their own lawyers in from Dearborn they still would have Airfare and hotel expenses.
Hootbro
Quite frankly, if you agree to pay the $2000 and then dispute the charge, you're guilty of fraud. The charge can only be disputed IF there is fraudulant charge or a failure to deliver. Neither will apply if she agrees to pay the $2000.
Not to mention that it is unethical, and from her posts she sounds like a person of higher integrity than that. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No, a chargeback is a chargeback. Stealing another person's card and using it, that's fraud.
What is unethical is for the dealer not to honor the warranty. The dealer is also bound by terms of service as a merchant with the credit card processing company. They have very strict rules and, IMO, failing to honor the written warranty is a violation of the terms with merchant services. Anyway, it will be for the merchant to prove, not the customer.
The chargeback is a very powerful tool that most consumers are unaware of, and it's perfectly legal. That is why major purchases/repairs should always be put on a CC.
I've worked in web-based retail and I could write a book on chargebacks. The merchant has the burden of proving that a chargeback should not go through. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Not true. My wife, who is a criminal attorney, agrees that if she were to "charge back" after agreeing to pay the $2000 it would be considered fraud and subject to prosecution, since the repairs will have been made.
The dealer and Ford have already stated their position, right or wrong in your opinion. They have stated that the repairs were not covered under warranty due to the oil issue. I'm not debating that point, it's been flogged to death already. So the warranty arguement is moot. The only way to legally "charge back" the charges would be to win a legal judgement.
Maybe your ethics would allow you to try the charge back scheme, but I would highly recommend against it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'm unsure of this. I've known people that have had warranty claims denied and had the repairs done and then cancelled payment on the check and placed the same amount in an excrow account (no fraud there). That is, they disputed the validity of the charges. This brought it into a independant level of review. One ..well he wasn't a friend ..but I knew him, had a 197x GM with plasitc/nylon planetaries in the trans ..they said he abused it ..he said he didn't ..they fixed it ..he cancelled the check ..they put it in under warranty. This went away for the most part when leasing became popular (it was tax deductable back then for just about anyone). Then the consume didn't own the vehicle ..and the financing agency ..the bread and butter of the dealership, was holding the hot potato if the owner said "keep it". Back then, though, credit ratings didn't have such radical influence on your life since nobody carried such vast amounts of debt in unsecured loans. Now your interest rate can jump from under 10% to 24% with a bad mark.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Not true. My wife, who is a criminal attorney, agrees that if she were to "charge back" after agreeing to pay the $2000 it would be considered fraud and subject to prosecution, since the repairs will have been made.
The dealer and Ford have already stated their position, right or wrong in your opinion. They have stated that the repairs were not covered under warranty due to the oil issue. I'm not debating that point, it's been flogged to death already. So the warranty arguement is moot. The only way to legally "charge back" the charges would be to win a legal judgement.
Maybe your ethics would allow you to try the charge back scheme, but I would highly recommend against it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well, your wife, the criminal attorney, is wrong.
A chargeback is not fraud and it is not a scheme.
American Express is really no different than most other CC companies. This link provides a pretty good summary of the procedures.
Here are a few points from the above link to emphasize:
"1. We [AMEX] will review the Cardmember enquiry/dispute and may request further information from you [the merchant] (Information Retrieval Request). We will itemise what information you [the merchant] need to provide to us and you must respond within 25 days.
5. If you [the merchant] dispute the Chargeback, you will have 25 days in which to provide us with the necessary documentation to support your position."
Legal judgements have nothing to do with chargebacks because chargebacks are a purely administrative process. They are covered in the merchant terms of agreement.
If Cathy C. submits a copy of her warranty along with the lab reports showing that her oil didn't cause the failure, the dealership has 25 days to prove her wrong. If they do not, American Express takes the money from their merchant bank account --per their agreement in the merchant terms of agreement. No fraud involved. No "scheme" involved.
As I said, most consumers--even attorneys--are unaware of this powerful tool that is built in to credit cards. My experience (and I've seen tons of chargebacks as a merchant) is that all CC companies are ruthless--even cold-blooded--in how they treat the merchant. The cardholder gets every break and every benefit of the doubt. Merchant gets nothing.
Not true. My wife, who is a criminal attorney, agrees that if she were to "charge back" after agreeing to pay the $2000 it would be considered fraud and subject to prosecution, since the repairs will have been made.
The dealer and Ford have already stated their position, right or wrong in your opinion. They have stated that the repairs were not covered under warranty due to the oil issue. I'm not debating that point, it's been flogged to death already. So the warranty arguement is moot. The only way to legally "charge back" the charges would be to win a legal judgement.
Maybe your ethics would allow you to try the charge back scheme, but I would highly recommend against it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well, your wife, the criminal attorney, is wrong.
A chargeback is not fraud and it is not a scheme.
American Express is really no different than most other CC companies. This link provides a pretty good summary of the procedures.
Here are a few points from the above link to emphasize:
"1. We [AMEX] will review the Cardmember enquiry/dispute and may request further information from you [the merchant] (Information Retrieval Request). We will itemise what information you [the merchant] need to provide to us and you must respond within 25 days.
5. If you [the merchant] dispute the Chargeback, you will have 25 days in which to provide us with the necessary documentation to support your position."
Legal judgements have nothing to do with chargebacks because chargebacks are a purely administrative process. They are covered in the merchant terms of agreement.
If Cathy C. submits a copy of her warranty along with the lab reports showing that her oil didn't cause the failure, the dealership has 25 days to prove her wrong. If they do not, American Express takes the money from their merchant bank account --per their agreement in the merchant terms of agreement. No fraud involved. No "scheme" involved.
As I said, most consumers--even attorneys--are unaware of this powerful tool that is built in to credit cards. My experience (and I've seen tons of chargebacks as a merchant) is that all CC companies are ruthless--even cold-blooded--in how they treat the merchant. The cardholder gets every break and every benefit of the doubt. Merchant gets nothing.
As Cathy said earlier, Landers is picking up the bulk of the cost of the engine replacemant, and she is paying Landers $2,000.
She would have no justification for doing a chargeback on Landers.
It sounds like her only semi-reasonable option it to sue Ford for the $2000 in small claims court. That is if she still wants to fight it over $2k.
Her truck was under warranty.
She does not owe $2000 and she should not pay $2000.
If she has no justification for a chargeback, then she has no justification for a lawsuit.
Lawsuits cost money.
Chargebacks are free.
Folks,
I think you are going to find that when a settlement is reached, a paper has to be signed that outlines what the agreement is. It will probably be filled with the usual legal mumbo-jumbo, but it will also include a statement releasing all the parties from subsequent action. This would include lawsuits, chargebacks, etc. So any action that is not consistent with this argeement would constitute the breaking of a contract. My experiences with releases of this type is that the courts take a very dim view of anyone - consumer, dealer, manufacturer - not fulfulling their part of the bargain. I've heard of contempt of court citations in extreme cases.
Hope this helps.
I think you are going to find that when a settlement is reached, a paper has to be signed that outlines what the agreement is. It will probably be filled with the usual legal mumbo-jumbo, but it will also include a statement releasing all the parties from subsequent action. This would include lawsuits, chargebacks, etc. So any action that is not consistent with this argeement would constitute the breaking of a contract. My experiences with releases of this type is that the courts take a very dim view of anyone - consumer, dealer, manufacturer - not fulfulling their part of the bargain. I've heard of contempt of court citations in extreme cases.
Hope this helps.
- Status
Similar threads
