Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReaper
The OP bought the car NEW and it was destroyed while in possession of the dealership. The destruction was not an act of God. Why should he have to settle for a used car that someone else drove for 10k miles ?
|
So what, then, if he had 60k miles on the car? A brand new car is expecting way too much. I'd give him one, but that's because I'd want to go above and beyond. But to say the dealer OWES a brand new car is just ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highland Ranger
Big difference between act of God ( lightning) and the dealers negligence in not hiring responsible people. Even if there is no criminal venue, I'd imagine they are civilly responsible. But all that aside, business who don't do the right thing get punished. These guys will lose many times the value of a whole zl1 let alone the delta between insurance settlement and new car values. Because bottom line the people who feel the dealer is correct are in the minority. Maybe numbering as few as the employees of the dealer.
( so fess up - you're from Delaware right?)
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
|
I have not seen anyone yet who says the dealer is correct. Only that the 'liable' expectations in this thread are overboard.
And once again, is it OK for an employer to consider docking everyones pay for a loss like this to offset the cost? Why don't they all share the liability? Is a business owner held to a higher standard because they are somehow over privileged?