Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk02
Finally a voice of reason.
This has always been and will continue to be an insurance settlement. Why the majority feel the owner is entitled to a brand new car is baffling to me.
As HOF pointed out, what if the dealership had been struck by lightning and the place burned to the ground or a tornado came through and destroyed the facilities. Would the expectation still be for the owner to receive a new car. Of course not, he would get an insurance settlement based on the market value of the car at the time of the incident. Why is this any different? This was a random act of a former employee, but it could have easily been a random act of mother nature. I see no difference between the two.
I feel bad for the owner. If this happened to my ZL1, I would be crushed and mad as hell, and you can bet I would never do business with that dealership again. But expecting to be reimbursed more than the insurance settlement seems a bit unrealistic to me.
|
Random act of a former employee """"
Not really , the bastard was on the payroll at the time he did the deed
About comparing it with acts of God , makes no sense , two complete different situations
I for one , never said ,,,,give the OP. A brand new car , but this dealer is dragging his feet , but that's his problem and choice