Phil writes:
"Good point from a liability standpoint. Wouldn't a customer have to prove
the mis-representation was detrimental to their purchase, even though done
as a conscious act?"
There are two issues here: 1) what the law says, and 2) what nuisance
and settlement value it has. The law requires damages. So, if as Phil
says, the customer only got something better, there are no damages and no
recovery. However, we all know that will not stop someone from suing!
So, are you damn sure that someone will not be able to argue that in one
way, shape or form that they are damaged? Is a 289 better in *all*
respects than a 260? What about cooling for the guy who drives in
higher heat? Gas mileage for the traveller? What about the guy whose
daughter got in a car accident driving a Tiger, who could argue that he
specifically chose a Mark 1a over a Mark II because he wanted her to have
the slower car? I'd say it would be enough for a jury to grab on to.
Ya, your gut says that is outrageous. But, Rootes might pay something to
keep even the accident out of the court and the newspapers.
It's just the sh*ty way the world spins. (Don't forget, I left
litigation to do real estate transactional work for a reason!)
Jay Laifman
Pircher, Nichols & Meeks
Los Angeles
|