Ultimate bad look? (When a car dealer sues a customer.) | AutoExpert John Cadogan

A holden dealer in queensland is threatening to sue an elderly couple over an online video seems disproportionate. I'M John Cadogan from auto expert comdata, you the place where Ozzie new car buyers save thousands off their necks. New cars hit me up on the website. For that, it would be fair to say that Ken and Wendy Knox from the sleepy Outback, New South Wales, hamlet of boomy, which is north of Maury, which I guess is a long way from the thriving metropolis here in Shitsville anyway. It'S safe to say that mr. and mrs. Knox wish they'd never bought a shitbox Holden Colorado and they certainly wish that they'd never set foot inside tape motors a Holden dealership in goondiwindi mate, which is now threatening to sue them. I think it's fair to say that negotiations have utterly broken down. There appears to be two versions of events: the version of events put forward by the lemon car lobbyists who produced the video. It paints a picture of the quintessential aging Ozzy battlers, getting kind of screwed over by a country dealer with its finger in a lot of small town pies and enough cash to hire an expensive law firm. Mr. Knox is also apparently being charged as a public nuisance by the local council. After what he says was a peaceful demonstration outside the dealership. However, there's also an assault charge pending against him, which he denies. He doesn't look that dangerous. To me, I mean I'd be embarrassed to allege to the cops that he had assaulted me in a meaningful way, just saying apropos of nothing, and I make no comment about his likely guilt or innocence. Mr. Knox claims that he's even received death. It'S from the dealership, however, you know I've never understood why this worries, people, people who threaten to kill you inevitably don't its the ones who quietly plan it and just go ahead, they're the ones that are of somewhat more concern. To me I mean I get death threats, far less often than I'd like for a journalist, a death threat is like winning Olympic gold. Yes, the tape dealership claims. The truth is essentially the polar opposite set of circumstances. Not only has the car been great, except for needing a new engine because of excessive oil consumption. I mean it is, after all, the Colorado. They are also Saints, apparently the dealership in a nutshell. You might put the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela in a blender and make yourself a tape, motors smoothie, twice the appeal of Belgian chocolate plus it prevents tooth decay. Yes, I formed the view from the tape motors version of events and various reactions that the dealership sits on the summit of bullshit mountain metaphorically and offers the opportunity for potential customers to enjoy an espresso on the terrace from which they might look down and survey. The moral arc of humanity beneath while parting with their cash Shand Taylor, lawyers, the firm threatening to sue the Knox's on behalf of Tate, says our clients respect everyone's right to the freedom of speech. But, of course, that freedom should be exercised in a fair and balanced manner. Regrettably, the content of the video is a very clear and blatant abuse of the right to freedom of speech. I'M not entirely sure they wrote that letter in that voice. How would you know, but this is a view that is also expressed by tape motors independently on this front. There are a couple of important points in Strayer. There is actually no bill of rights. There'S no legislation that I'm aware of that confers the right to free speech. All the legislation I know of concerning free speech imposes limitations on what may be freely said to any asshole whose view is that free speech must be fair and balanced. Well, I'd suggest who gets to decide what is fair and balanced, pretty slippery slope. This is the most preposterous and intellectually impoverished imputation that I can imagine any allegedly educated person making about free speech. How does one make controversial statements if everything said must pass the fair and balanced test? Riddle me that firm of contemptible lawyers - it's potentially quite lucrative, you know, perhaps we could just fine everyone who breaches that test by saying anything controversial or offensive. So I call bullshit on that professor Harry gee, Frankfurt's definition of bullshit is the one that I only ever use. Look it up if you're unsure of what I mean by that term. Also, I fail to see how one might quote clearly and blatantly abuse the right to free speech if it doesn't actually exist as a gazetted right. The lawyers droned on regrettably our clients consider the content of the video fYI. The video is called Ken's oil guzzling Colorado. You can search for it in the YouTube interface I'll, put a link in the description, our clients consider the content of the video and Facebook publication to be highly defamatory, misleading and deceptive and constituting an injurious falsehood. In my view, this is an entirely contemptible move from the mongrel lawyer, playbook, that's a personal opinion. Companies generally cannot sue for defamation under Australian law, but there is an obscure tort called injurious falsehood that they could sue you for Hyper 30. The standard of proof there is very high, however, and they have to prove malice, plus falsehood, plus they have to prove that they incurred a loss or damages injurious. Falsehood is almost never successful, but lawyers often employ that threat of injurious falsehood to shut people up for saying something their clients don't like. Even if they know the case would be a shot duck in court. I'M not saying that's the case here, but it might well be while we're discussing the mongrel lawyer playbook when the lawyers say our clients, in this case they're referring to the tape Motor Company, the dealership and also to David Tate, the dealer principle. This is, of course, important because individuals, including mr. Tate, can sue for defamation, unlike companies, but I can't see anywhere where mr. Tate has been identified. So that seems pretty tenuous to me because, as I understand it, only identified persons are able to sue. But then I'm not a lawyer and I might be entirely wrong. It may be that Ken and Wendy Knox are in fact Lucifer and Hitler incarnate, respectively hell-bent on destroying the sterling reputation of an honest, hard-working country. Business with solid community ties. Perhaps they're doing this. Just for kicks, I don't know what they put in the water at [, Music, ] at Bhumi or in the spirit of fairness and balance. It may be that type Motors has screwed the Knox's beyond the breaking point in the absence of lubrication and then experienced a severe but hurt backlash off the back of the fact that the internet gives everyone a voice now, which makes it harder to be a corporate Asshole and get away with it and emerge with your reputation intact. It seems to me that calling the lawyers is spectacularly heavy-handed in either case, like maybe Kim jong-un, visited your new indy and gave the dealership some advice about dealing with dissent. In my view, it's a real roll of the dice for a business to sue a customer like that, because if they lose the case, the court basically endorses what's been said about them, and then everyone is free to say exactly that until the heat death of the Universe, the message is also amplified because reporters hate assaults on the freedom of speech and the battle is taking on the big end of town and winning. It'S always a nice story to report. Isn'T it there's even a video that can show excerpts of this case now with impunity with the courts in firmata? It'S like the world's worst anti advertising campaign. Basically, if tape loses, and so there's that Holden has a reputation for breaching Australian Consumer Law, the a Triple C recently put Holden's head in a vise and forced it to admit those breaches and sign a court enforceable undertaking. That'S so big and so detailed that you can see it from space. You can bet that this stench of non-compliance leeches down from head office and into at least some dealers over many years. It becomes a cultural thing, a way of doing business. I make no comment on this in relation to tape motors specifically, but my point is threatening to sue. An elderly couple is a bad look for a car maker struggling to rebuild its botched reputation as a potential customer. I would not want to stand in the tape motors showroom and worry that if I were to end up in a dispute with them, they would have their lawyers sue me for injurious falsehood, rather than just solve my problem. Small towns are funny to you. No word does get around. I really doubt that these potential damage assessments have been sufficiently considered at tape motors if it all goes south at a hundred miles an hour. There'S the risk. The dealership might actually bring the Holden brand into disrepute and, I'm sure, that's grounds for termination in most companies franchise agreements, which will doubtless represent even more fun and games for SH and Taylor lawyers. Yes, I love it when the lawyers win so to take motors. I'D suggest harden up it's an online video if its allegations are from the crackpot fringe, then devote the time and effort to it that such things deserve ie, none ignore it sticks and stones. If the allegations are substantially true, do what you can to put the pin back in this grenade urgently before it all goes off in your faces, even harder, David Tate, the dealer principle I'd further suggest that next time anyone puts some signs alleging lemon this or whatever Out the front of your premises walk out personally with a couple of coffees. Let them know that they're free to protest for as long as they want the bathrooms are inside if needed. Let them know that they're also welcome to come in and talk about their problem and tell them that you will do whatever you can to resolve it personally, as a matter of urgency, turn their frowns upside down they'll become ambassadors for you forever. How hard is this really car dealers can be so retarded on customer care and dispute resolution? That'S pretty obvious! So here's the newsflash, the loftiest ideal of customer service is not to do the minimum required under Australian Consumer Law and then screw customers over wherever possible. It'S doing whatever you can to make people happy, even if those people are unfair, unbalanced and unreasonable. I'M tipping there's going to be a lot more of this kind of stuff in the public domain before the car industry in Australia decides that it's just not 1980 anymore. Holden is already a brand: that's on the nose and sales are in freefall, threatening to sue customers, because you just don't like what they said about. You is, in my view, counterproductive not to mention infantile and immature, I'm John Cadogan. What do you call a firm of lawyers buried up to their bottom lips in concrete? It'S clearly a failure to estimate the required volume of concrete and what happens to a lawyer when he takes Viagra. Hmm, he gets taller. What do you throw to a drowning lawyer? His partners, we could do this all day, but finally, do you know why the code of conduct prevents lawyers from engaging in rumpy-pumpy with their clients, it's simply to prevent them from billing. You twice for essentially the same service. I kind of like that. One thanks for watching

Author : Bedliner Review

Share this

Related Posts