Thanks Win. This is excellent logical, straightforward, legal reasoning. I knew this was a breach or failure of contract, but not sure what the correct term was.
I didn't get what I paid for = failure of consideration.
I did pay. My money was good. The mechanic did the work correctly. But the front-office/GM screwed up with this "he said, NO" excuse for not covering the labor.
Point two: Superposition isn't appropriate here: I'm not between shop & supplier just as I'm not an employee, as he declared. He's manipulated me into the former, yet kept me out as the later, which is inappropriate. Thus, the financial burden for the faulty part lies with him ("we eat it") and his supplier. Not me as customer.
His "inability" to seek reimbursement from his supplier or remanufacturer is outside of my role as customer.
Bingo....this is key.
I didn't get what I paid for = failure of consideration.
I did pay. My money was good. The mechanic did the work correctly. But the front-office/GM screwed up with this "he said, NO" excuse for not covering the labor.
Point two: Superposition isn't appropriate here: I'm not between shop & supplier just as I'm not an employee, as he declared. He's manipulated me into the former, yet kept me out as the later, which is inappropriate. Thus, the financial burden for the faulty part lies with him ("we eat it") and his supplier. Not me as customer.
His "inability" to seek reimbursement from his supplier or remanufacturer is outside of my role as customer.
Bingo....this is key.
