GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
2013 Volt
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
You have to admit, it takes real chutzpah to stand up in court and defend the company's position with this argument. I suspect this will be my last GM product. There is no limit to their creativity in coming up with explanations as to why they won't fix items under warranty. And the judge is a real piece of work . . . workmanship doesn't include part design???

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
If I were the plaintiff I'd be turning this over to the NHTSA - design flaws are covered under FMVSS. These rims probably don't meet the FMVSS standards for vehicle rims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supchrgamx

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
srmart,

Smug remark, no the Judge is not an idiot, a Judge has to follow the letter of the law and that takes years of study to even understand word for word, letter for letter what the law is. A Judge is a Lawyer who has a proven record of being good at what they do for years before he or she is appointed to be a Judge. A Judge can only rule on evidence provided and presented. Now if there was evidence that was asked for provided eg. internal GM documents that a corporate officer knew that the wheels are defective, and that the officer was told to ignore facts presented or to proceed using them in production anyways, to knowingly use defective parts, that would be something a Judge could rule on for action. But no such evidence was presented or provided. The Judge cannot rule arbitrarily on hearsay or their personal opinions or "feelings" based on what they feel should be done and nothing solid to base their decision on, a Judge has to base their ruling on facts and evidence provided in the court room at trial. The rule of law dictates what they have to base a decision on otherwise they could be held accountable and possibly disbarred or at least embarrassed in the law community. Besides this is America, you can always appeal a decision and provide new evidence. "Justice is blind"

Stephen

The judge is an idiot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,295 Posts
That guy is definately a Finn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,243 Posts
FWIF, the owners manual warns about low profile tires and road hazards. Z06 and grand sports are track oriented packages and tracks don't have potholes. Want a street friendly vette, should have got a sting ray.
 

·
Registered
2013 Volt
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Now if there was evidence that was asked for provided eg. internal GM documents that a corporate officer knew that the wheels are defective, and that the officer was told to ignore facts presented or to proceed using them in production anyways, to knowingly use defective parts, that would be something a Judge could rule on for action.
Sounds like you think that defective parts are covered under warranty only if the manufacturer knew they were defective at the time of assembly. Could you be confusing criminality with contract/warranty law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
FWIF, the owners manual warns about low profile tires and road hazards. Z06 and grand sports are track oriented packages and tracks don't have potholes. Want a street friendly vette, should have got a sting ray.
Page 273 of my Volt's manual has the same warning. Does this mean I should only run my Volt on a racetrack!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,722 Posts
Are the wheels breaking? Did someone design the wheels (work on them) or were they just found somewhere in nature? The title says he ruled on whether a design defect is covered under warranty. Well, it's actually more complicated so maybe he is not quite an idiot. Are those wheels specified by GM as unsuitable for street use? Looks to be a safety and possible recall issue. It wouldn't matter what GM knew or didn't know if there are enough reports of failures.
 

·
Registered
16,17 volt
Joined
·
814 Posts
Workmanship is a human attribute relating to knowledge and skill at performing a task
so the engineer that designed the defect wheel had poor workmanship
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
srmart,

Smug remark, no the Judge is not an idiot, a Judge has to follow the letter of the law and that takes years of study to even understand word for word, letter for letter what the law is. A Judge is a Lawyer who has a proven record of being good at what they do for years before he or she is appointed to be a Judge. A Judge can only rule on evidence provided and presented. Now if there was evidence that was asked for provided eg. internal GM documents that a corporate officer knew that the wheels are defective, and that the officer was told to ignore facts presented or to proceed using them in production anyways, to knowingly use defective parts, that would be something a Judge could rule on for action. But no such evidence was presented or provided. The Judge cannot rule arbitrarily on hearsay or their personal opinions or "feelings" based on what they feel should be done and nothing solid to base their decision on, a Judge has to base their ruling on facts and evidence provided in the court room at trial. The rule of law dictates what they have to base a decision on otherwise they could be held accountable and possibly disbarred or at least embarrassed in the law community. Besides this is America, you can always appeal a decision and provide new evidence. "Justice is blind"

Stephen
Stephen,

Evidently you aren't a courtroom lawyer. And, you aren't in a state where judges are essentially political appointees. Many judges are utter morons, lunatics, basket cases, Alzheimer cases, you name it.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top