View Full Version : who's fault is it......
manu1959
06-17-2008, 10:33 PM
so one of you comes to me and asks me to go buy you a car.......you ask for a make of your choice.....fully tricked out......you give me a long list of waht you want......i go down to the dealer give them the list double check it.....come back....you double check it.....it is eactly as specified.....
we wait 2years and the car arrives......it is the wrong color....no engine and fabric seats not leather......
who gets to fix it and at who's cost.....
MtnBiker
06-17-2008, 10:36 PM
the dealer
MtnBiker
06-17-2008, 10:37 PM
are you buying cars for us? :D
dealer
breach of k and breach of warranty since no engine
Psychoblues
06-17-2008, 10:40 PM
I dig the metaphor, m'59. So, is McCain going to overcome it all or will the lack of the engine and leather seats continue to disappoint you? I am certain the color will not matter at all!!!!!!!!!!!
manu1959
06-17-2008, 10:50 PM
interesting .... at the moment..... it is the fault of the guy that placed the order.....
someone argue that for me......
manu1959
06-17-2008, 10:52 PM
I dig the metaphor, m'59. So, is McCain going to overcome it all or will the lack of the engine and leather seats continue to disappoint you? I am certain the color will not matter at all!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry it isn't a metaphor.....it is a true story.....
unless the dems ordered a lib and got a muslim instead and the bpubs ordered a con and got a lib instead......at the end of the day....the voters got what they voted for....
Psychoblues
06-17-2008, 10:58 PM
Thanks for confirming the metaphor, dumbass.
sorry it isn't a metaphor.....it is a true story.....
unless the dems ordered a lib and got a muslim instead and the bpubs ordered a con and got a lib instead......at the end of the day....the voters got what they voted for....
Maybe the "bpubs" outta spend more time with real issues instead of making up ones that they hope will get more attention than the failures of their own? Don't 'cha think?
interesting .... at the moment..... it is the fault of the guy that placed the order.....
someone argue that for me......
this can't be teh porsche? they don't have fabric do they? and how can a customer order "no" engine? does the customer have a receipt of the order detailing what was purchased?
manu1959
06-17-2008, 11:03 PM
this can't be teh porsche? they don't have fabric do they? and how can a customer order "no" engine? does the customer have a receipt of the order detailing what was purchased?
no it is not my porsche.......engine was checked but it wasn't in the car......and yes there is a detailed spec and receipt.....
so tell me how is this not the mfr and the buyers fault....how does the middle man get stuck.....
Psychoblues
06-17-2008, 11:03 PM
Go back to bed, yuk, it was a metaphor.
this can't be teh porsche? they don't have fabric do they? and how can a customer order "no" engine? does the customer have a receipt of the order detailing what was purchased?
You don't dig it? I don't have the time or patience to go back to abc's and 2 plus 2 with you.
Go'night, sweetcakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
manu1959
06-17-2008, 11:05 PM
Go back to bed, yuk, it was a metaphor.
You don't dig it? I don't have the time or patience to go back to abc's and 2 plus 2 with you.
Go'night, sweetcakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as i said it isn't this is a real issue.....nothing to do with politics....
manu1959
06-17-2008, 11:06 PM
Thanks for confirming the metaphor, dumbass.
Maybe the "bpubs" outta spend more time with real issues instead of making up ones that they hope will get more attention than the failures of their own? Don't 'cha think?
listen up balls on chin.......it isn't a metaphor.....it is a real live issue....
no it is not my porsche.......engine was checked but it wasn't in the car......and yes there is a detailed spec and receipt.....
so tell me how is this not the mfr and the buyers fault....how does the middle man get stuck.....
depends on what the middle man's responsibility was, did the middle man sign off on something? was this authority to sign known to the dealer? did the dealer know the middle person was an agent/etc...agency law....
if there is a detailed spec and receipt and the product does not conform to that, i don't see how the buyer or the buyer's agent/whatnot can be responsible.
whatnot is a legal word :laugh2:
Psychoblues
06-17-2008, 11:30 PM
Seriously, balls on chin, don't you know that I already know how serious you are?
listen up balls on chin.......it isn't a metaphor.....it is a real live issue....
btw, How are the others getting along? You all like the balls flying in your face thing. They love you and you love them. Nobody could ask for such a cozy relationship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
manu1959
06-17-2008, 11:33 PM
depends on what the middle man's responsibility was, did the middle man sign off on something? was this authority to sign known to the dealer? did the dealer know the middle person was an agent/etc...agency law....
if there is a detailed spec and receipt and the product does not conform to that, i don't see how the buyer or the buyer's agent/whatnot can be responsible.
whatnot is a legal word :laugh2:
he signed on to act as agent.......signature was by client and was know to dealer......detailed spec etc....signed off on by buyer and dealer.....
what if i told you buyer and dealer lined up against the agent to seek restitution....
Dilloduck
06-17-2008, 11:36 PM
he signed on to act as agent.......signature was by client and was know to dealer......detailed spec etc....signed off on by buyer and dealer.....
what if i told you buyer and dealer lined up against the agent to seek restitution....
so what is their reasoning ? I assume they both dont have the same claim?
he signed on to act as agent.......signature was by client and was know to dealer......detailed spec etc....signed off on by buyer and dealer.....
what if i told you buyer and dealer lined up against the agent to seek restitution....
the agent signed nothing, only acted as delivery between of contract between dealer and buyer? i would be interested to know the theory under which they seek restitution. did the agent receive any consideration for the act? was the agent under any contract with the buyer or dealer?
manu1959
06-17-2008, 11:40 PM
the agent signed nothing, only acted as delivery between of contract between dealer and buyer? i would be interested to know the theory under which they seek restitution. did the agent receive any consideration for the act? was the agent under any contract with the buyer or dealer?
of course the agent got paid to be the agent.......agent had a contract to be the agent....
what if i told you the buyer and dealer were financial partners in the deal....
Dilloduck
06-17-2008, 11:45 PM
of course the agent got paid to be the agent.......agent had a contract to be the agent....
what if i told you the buyer and dealer were financial partners in the deal....
uh oh---this has got a lead up like one of Gabby's threads !!!!!:laugh2:
of course the agent got paid to be the agent.......agent had a contract to be the agent....
what if i told you the buyer and dealer were financial partners in the deal....
it is not always of course, agents can simply be doing something for friendship...
i must say that a buyer and dealer being financial partners in the deal and using an agent to simply deliver the request/confirm the request with the buyer is a strange business relationship. i would have to know more to determine a conflict of interest, but it definately raises serious questions about bias.
did the buyer sign off on the checklist the agent showed him? did the agent sign the checklist? and did the agent deliver the checklist in the exact same condition it was when the buyer signed it? e.g., does the dealer have an alleged checklist that does not conform to the buyer's checklist?
uh oh---this has got a lead up like one of Gabby's threads !!!!!:laugh2:
he said it wasn't, i trust him, but if he is up to something nefarious, this has been fun :laugh2:
manu1959
06-17-2008, 11:51 PM
it is not always of course, agents can simply be doing something for friendship...
i must say that a buyer and dealer being financial partners in the deal and using an agent to simply deliver the request/confirm the request with the buyer is a strange business relationship. i would have to know more to determine a conflict of interest, but it definately raises serious questions about bias.
did the buyer sign off on the checklist the agent showed him? did the agent sign the checklist? and did the agent deliver the checklist in the exact same condition it was when the buyer signed it? e.g., does the dealer have an alleged checklist that does not conform to the buyer's checklist?
the checklists match and are signed by all parties......
manu1959
06-17-2008, 11:53 PM
uh oh---this has got a lead up like one of Gabby's threads !!!!!:laugh2:
nah i am not going to spring my 7 year old daughter's opinion on you....
crin63
06-17-2008, 11:59 PM
so one of you comes to me and asks me to go buy you a car.......you ask for a make of your choice.....fully tricked out......you give me a long list of waht you want......i go down to the dealer give them the list double check it.....come back....you double check it.....it is eactly as specified.....
we wait 2years and the car arrives......it is the wrong color....no engine and fabric seats not leather......
who gets to fix it and at who's cost.....
Why would you wait for 2 years without actually following up on your order. Don"t expect what you don"t inspect.
You should have done your due diligence to find out the status over that 2 year period.
Psychoblues
06-18-2008, 12:02 AM
But, if the product remains inferior to even common expectations, such as including an engine the entire contract is moot on it's surface. You've been tryin' to fuck folks for a long time with no success, so far, m'59. Do you think this kind of fuckin' will sustain you? Typical car salesman.
manu1959
06-18-2008, 12:05 AM
But, if the product remains inferior to even common expectations, such as including an engine the entire contract is moot on it's surface. You've been tryin' to fuck folks for a long time with no success, so far, m'59. Do you think this kind of fuckin' will sustain you? Typical car salesman.
i was the agent in this trasaction scrotum breath....
manu1959
06-18-2008, 12:08 AM
Why would you wait for 2 years without actually following up on your order. Don"t expect what you don"t inspect.
You should have done your due diligence to find out the status over that 2 year period.
very good .....we did monitor the process....weekly in fact and pointed out that the very issues that are now the subject of the claim were issues at the time and would be issues in the future.....
yet the buyer and dealer blame the agent for the outcome.....
the checklists match and are signed by all parties......
Why would you wait for 2 years without actually following up on your order. Don"t expect what you don"t inspect.
You should have done your due diligence to find out the status over that 2 year period.
somethings take years to order...
in the agents contract, what, if any, is the agent liable for? so far, i see zero responsibility on the agents part, afterall, the principal is the one who normally takes the responsibility of an agent, not the other way around. as a general rule, agents are liable for very little unless unkown agency or outside of scope, which appear not to be the case here. unless something int eh agency contract changes normal agency law among the parties, the agents is not liable based on the facts so far.
manu1959
06-18-2008, 12:13 AM
somethings take years to order...
in the agents contract, what, if any, is the agent liable for? so far, i see zero responsibility on the agents part, afterall, the principal is the one who normally takes the responsibility of an agent, not the other way around. as a general rule, agents are liable for very little unless unkown agency or outside of scope, which appear not to be the case here. unless something int eh agency contract changes normal agency law among the parties, the agents is not liable based on the facts so far.
yes it is a strange one.....i will let you know how it turns out......
i would suspect that the financial partners...buyer an dealer struck a side deal....and it di not cover whoever came up short on the deal and this is where the agent comes in......they get to cover the difference.....well ....their insurance company does.....
Psychoblues
06-18-2008, 12:19 AM
You broke the first rule of retail, dickbreath. Never assume that you are what the customer is looking for. Respect the product and sell it for what it's worth.
i was the agent in this trasaction scrotum breath....
As the stated agent as you freely admit you are, then you are as guilty as the proprietor for misleading salesmanship. Wanna buy a new car?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
yes it is a strange one.....i will let you know how it turns out......
i would suspect that the financial partners...buyer an dealer struck a side deal....and it di not cover whoever came up short on the deal and this is where the agent comes in......they get to cover the difference.....well ....their insurance company does.....
if this goes to discovery, you would have a right to that info based on at least two legal theories off the top of my head. also, with your actual athority and you acting in the scope, they have no claim, and in fact it is the principal who is liable for anything you have done .... again, based on the facts so far and nothing else and i assume this is all a hypo and discussion is merely for the board/fun.
please keep me posted, and you know how to contact me outside of the forum.
manu1959
06-18-2008, 12:24 AM
You broke the first rule of retail, dickbreath. Never assume that you are what the customer is looking for. Respect the product and sell it for what it's worth.
As the stated agent as you freely admit you are as guilty as the proprietor for misleading salesmanship. Wanna buy a new car?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
an agent provides a service not a product and is held to a negligence standard not a wraranty or guarantee standard which is what the dealer of a product is held to......the salesman or dealer signed a document as did the buyer agreeing to provide the car complete and functioning just as specified.....
so you are a smart guy....why did the dealer not do that and why did the seller and dealer join hands to blame the agent for the dealers failure to comply with the terms and conditions of their agreement....
You broke the first rule of retail, dickbreath. Never assume that you are what the customer is looking for. Respect the product and sell it for what it's worth.
As the stated agent as you freely admit you are, then you are as guilty as the proprietor for misleading salesmanship. Wanna buy a new car?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
i'm shytco, i'm typsy and have no idea what i talkeths abouths
manu1959
06-18-2008, 12:25 AM
if this goes to discovery, you would have a right to that info based on at least two legal theories off the top of my head. also, with your actual athority and you acting in the scope, they have no claim, and in fact it is the principal who is liable for anything you have done .... again, based on the facts so far and nothing else and i assume this is all a hypo and discussion is merely for the board/fun.
please keep me posted, and you know how to contact me outside of the forum.
of course they have no legit claim......but what do insurance companies do at the end of the day.....
an agent provides a service not a product and is held to a negligence standard not a wraranty or guarantee standard which is what the dealer of a product is held to......the salesman or dealer signed a document as did the buyer agreeing to provide the car complete and functioning just as specified.....
so you are a smart guy....why did the dealer not do that and why did the seller and dealer join hands to blame the agent for the dealers failure to comply with the terms and conditions of their agreement....
i would argue that the agent did not have actual authority, but it doesn't really matter because the dealer knew the agent was acting on the principals behalf, so the agent had apparent authority. however, the agent did or did not do something required of him and the agent might have deep pockets, so go for the agent.
of course they have no legit claim......but what do insurance companies do at the end of the day.....
subrogate, indemnigy, raise rates, go after another but they stand in the shoes of the insured so what exactly is the insurance role in this and who's insurance?
Psychoblues
06-18-2008, 12:31 AM
And, that's your problem, yuk.
i'm shytco, i'm typsy and have no idea what i talkeths abouths
Not mine.
manu1959
06-18-2008, 12:32 AM
i would argue that the agent did not have actual authority, but it doesn't really matter because the dealer knew the agent was acting on the principals behalf, so the agent had apparent authority. however, the agent did or did not do something required of him and the agent might have deep pockets, so go for the agent.
the buyer and dealer have a gap in payment for the car.....of course the complete car is finally delivered......buyer and dealer cut a deal.....remember they are also financial partners in this deal....anyway buyer gives the dealer the agent and claims negligence was the reason for the car showing up wrong......so the dealer files against the agent.....runs out the deductible and the insurance company settles ....... so you think it will dismissed without predjudice.....or will insurance get to pay on a boondoggle claim....
the buyer and dealer have a gap in payment for the car.....of course the complete car is finally delivered......buyer and dealer cut a deal.....remember they are also financial partners in this deal....anyway buyer gives the dealer the agent and claims negligence was the reason for the car showing up wrong......so the dealer files against the agent.....runs out the deductible and the insurance company settles ....... so you think it will dismissed without predjudice.....or will insurance get to pay on a boondoggle claim....
are you serious this is not a hypo?
ok, they are financial partners, bias is clear as dealer has a stake in the outcome and of course so does the buyer. if they are claiming negligence of the agent, what is the duty allegedly breached and how did this breach cause the car to not be delivered properly? and now that the car has been delivered properly or fixed, what are the damages?
if the insurance wants to settle a boondoggle claim and leave you out of it, i don't see how you can stop that unless you want to argue insurance fraud.
Psychoblues
06-18-2008, 12:45 AM
Typical repuke argument. Fuck over somebody and leave it to the lawyers to work it out. Clear, simple but not final. What a crock of 100% horsehit!!!!!!!!! No wonder the repukes hate the lawyers!!!!!!!!!!!
Typical repuke argument. Fuck over somebody and leave it to the lawyers to work it out. Clear, simple but not final. What a crock of 100% horsehit!!!!!!!!! No wonder the repukes hate the lawyers!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg19/marynjade/drunk-4.jpg
Psychoblues
06-18-2008, 12:57 AM
I dig that, yuk!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg19/marynjade/drunk-4.jpg
Thanks for the honesty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dig that, yuk!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the honesty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you're welcome, glad you appreciated your card and that you honestly accepted its message...
manu1959
06-19-2008, 02:37 AM
ok...the agent has escaped......on the issue discussed the other day....
the buyer and dealer have come up with a new idea......
it would appear the agent, in the opinon of the buyers and dealer, that the agent should have prevented the dealer from building the car wrong and should have stoped the delaer technicians from drawing and specifying the car wrong.....and they should have done that because the buyer thought we should have done that and the dealer thought we were doing that.....all of which is not in the agreement between the buyer and the agent.....
trippy how things are spun.....
diuretic
06-19-2008, 02:59 AM
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg19/marynjade/drunk-4.jpg
Can I get this tee shirt? I could use it! :laugh2:
diuretic
06-19-2008, 03:04 AM
That sounds like it's outside the instructions given to the agent.
The phrase "fiduciary responsibility" just popped into my head for some reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_duty
ok...the agent has escaped......on the issue discussed the other day....
the buyer and dealer have come up with a new idea......
it would appear the agent, in the opinon of the buyers and dealer, that the agent should have prevented the dealer from building the car wrong and should have stoped the delaer technicians from drawing and specifying the car wrong.....and they should have done that because the buyer thought we should have done that and the dealer thought we were doing that.....all of which is not in the agreement between the buyer and the agent.....
trippy how things are spun.....
i thought the agent did periodically check the status/progress of the car
even though not in writing, are there past dealings that could cause the buyer/dealer to assume that the agent was responsible for that? did the agent act in such a manner as to give inference to that?
crin63
06-19-2008, 01:16 PM
Are all the players still the same? Did personnel change?
Were actual physical inspections an option for the buyer or the broker? Did either avail them self of that opportunity if it was? If not, why?
Who's responsibility was it for inspections and progress reports?
Costello: Well then who's on first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow's name.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The first baseman.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy playing...
Abbott: Who is on first!
Costello: I'm asking you who's on first.
Abbott: That's the man's name.
Costello: That's who's name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's who?
Abbott: Yes. PAUSE
Costello: Look, you gotta first baseman?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: Who's playing first?
Abbott: That's right.
http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirstTEXT.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.