Ford V10motor locked up

[Amkeer]

Ray,

She can't post that UOA here.

Cathy,

Was careful documentation done, witnesses, when the original sample was drawn? If not you will need to pull a second sample properly. Your attorney will know about this. You have to be one step ahead of these bastards.

 

[Drew99GT]

I'm in no way siding with Ford on this. I, like Ray H., am just looking at things pragmatically. My brother recently sued for breach of contract and unfortunetly lost on an easy win if he didn't have such a terrible lawyer (he's got a great one now). Now, he's about 10 grand in debt, and that is just from court fees and the bill for the lawyer. Like everything, litigation costs money, and with how jumbled up our court system is, BIG MONEY. You just have to do a cost-benefit analysis in detail when you are ready to sue, that's all, and you better have a hefty chunk of change too.

Best of luck Cathy. I truely hope everything I've said is wrong for your benefit.

 

[Amkeer]

Drew,

The BAR has a fund setup for malpractice. If your brother is smart he will get his money back that way or EO insurance. You can't sit back and assume people know what they are doing. Lesson learned. I learned the hard way also. Thats why I am very careful about things like this.

 

[Drew99GT]

Amkeer, my brother's NEW lawyer is "taking care of business" shall we say, and papers have been served to the old lawyer for his malpractice and outright incompitence. My brother lossed the contract suit on a blatent technicallity perpetrated unknowingly by the first lawyer. Lawsuits and litigation are just plain BAD, and should ONLY be used as a last resort if you KNOW you have your ducks lined up in a row.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Cathy, that's great news! I'm glad to see a real warranty claim get taken care of properly!!

 

[Ray H]

You may be entirely correct, Amkeer, but I see a glaringly gross error in your fundemental assumption that Ford has the burden of proof in denying the warranty claim. Ford won't be bringing suit in a court of law. The Covingtons will - which makes them the plaintiffs. As plaintiffs, the burden of proof will be entirely on the Covingtons. As the defendant, Ford doesn't even have to offer word one in its own defense. (The defendant is always presumed innocent [a Constitutional guarantee] until proved guilty - by a preponderance of evidence in this case.) This venerated British legal custom is the fundemental way the legal system works, in criminal and civil cases, and has always worked from the time of the thirteen original colonies and, later, the United States. (We might've thrown the Brits out, but we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater...)

Oh, one more thing: Drew doesn't "have it all wrong".

[ August 10, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]

 

[Amkeer]

Ray,

The burden of proof is with Ford's denial of a warranty claim that the vehicle was purchased with. They have to prove why they denied a warranty claim. The plaintiffs will claim, Breach of Warranty. The vehicle was well within the warranty period and the plaintiff brought the vehicle in to have the authorized dealer repair the faults to which they denied.

 

[Ray H]

You're obviously and unjustifiably comfortable in your quasi-legal delusions. Consult any 7th grade civics textbook for clarification about the rights of the accused.

 

[Amkeer]

Ray,

How many warranty claims have you brought to court? How many contract disputes have you been involved in that went to court?

 

[Ray H]

None regarding the former, three regarding the latter - the most recent 1 1/2 months ago. And, now, your courtside experience? Your latest tactic is pretty transparent, Amkeer. Rather than maintain a civil dialog on the pertinent aspects, you've chosen instead to attempt an irrelevant blind-side on me, personally. Very cowardly, Sir.

[ August 10, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]

 

[Cathy Covington]

Well, my warranty hasn't been taken care of yet! Actually, Brandon, the service manager got the oil for me out of that little palstic tub. Remember, this is the dirtiest part of the oil and it still showed that the oil wasn't dirty enough to cause a failure. the aluminum was very high in this sample and I still don't really understand that. I would also be interested to know what the lawyer in that one case did wrong so I can try to avoid this. I go back to work today. these people have successfully kept me out of my motorhome for the entire summer!

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amkeer:
Ray,

She can't post that UOA here.

---

I am curious as to why she cannot post it ?

Evidently Ford is fixing to see it .

There has been alot of moral and other support here from members in this thread. This is a motor oil site so not to post the analysis seems a let down at this point .

Most here are not experts so as long as a tribologist does not comment on the analysis publicly Ford nor any court could use the comments against the case she has .

Correct ?

[ August 11, 2004, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cathy Covington:
... the aluminum was very high in this sample and I still don't really understand that. ...

---

That engine uses bimetal aluminum bearings.

Good luck!

Go GET EM!

 

[Kestas]

quote:

---

...the aluminum was very high in this sample and I still don't really understand that.

---

Perhaps this engine uses aluminum bearings for the crank journals?

 

[Ray H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Motorbike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amkeer:
Ray,

She can't post that UOA here.

---

I am curious as to why she cannot post it ?

Evidently Ford is fixing to see it .

---

I don't know either. Perhaps its already or soon will be under court seal? You're right, though - Ford will definitely have access to the report as part of discovery.

 

[Drew99GT]

Cathy, I do not know what the exact details are of the malpractice of the former lawyer, but it had to do with holding back evidence on my brothers part towards the defense. The new lawyer is alleging that the old lawyer was essentially working for the defense covertly, except he did not cover his tracks very well.

 

[Amkeer]

Will Brandon lie under oath and say he didn't pull that sample? You will need to subpoena him on behalf of you, but since he works there it could be a problem. In any event it may be best to pull another sample with witnesses.

 

[Ray H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amkeer:
...In any event it may be best to pull another sample with witnesses.

---

I was under the impression that Landers had removed the pan to inspect the locked main bearings and had already disposed of the RV's V10 crankcase oil except for that small sample in the tub. So, what additional sample could be pulled, now??? Correct me if I misunderstood Cathy's earlier posts about the sample she got and Landers' questionable evidentiary "procedures" when she was conveniently offsite.

 

[Amkeer]

From what I understand they saved the filter and some oil in a plastic container.

 

[Cathy Covington]

The oil and filter are in a plastic container in Brandon's office. Unsealed. anyway, that is where I had to pull the sample from because it was all the oil that was left. the filter was pulled on 6/2 nd it was 7/14 when i got the sample out of the tub. Exactly what part of the UOA are you wanting me to post? I don't really understand it, that is why I spoke to Amsoil and Penzoil. Everyone here has been extremely helpful...I just don't want to get myself anymore messed up than I already am!