How do I get Porsche to pay under their replacement warranty?
03-19-2009, 01:10 PM
#31
Race Car
Pologuy should probably know that Tinklybear a) painted his car with a rustoleum and a roller, and b) _then_ discovered that he'd been driving it around since he bought it with only 3 quarts of oil in it.
So if I was being put straight by someone who paints their car with a roller _before_ checking the dipstick (or knowing how to read one), well...
So if I was being put straight by someone who paints their car with a roller _before_ checking the dipstick (or knowing how to read one), well...
That is not at all relevant to the issue here. I'm not even involved or know anything about tinklybear and I'm offended by your post.
03-19-2009, 01:47 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia (Formerly: Sunnyvale, CA)
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
OK, here's the deal:
In general, it's true that the logical validity of an argument or proposition is independent of the person putting the argument forward. Attacking the credibility of the person rather than attacking the argument itself is usually considered an ad hominen fallacy, and is rightfully frowned upon.
There is one exception to this general rule, however: When the argument has a "moral authority" dimension, in addition to the logic.
Example: Bill Clinton criticises some national leader on foreign policy, and the national leader responds "Who are you to criticise? Been chasing any bimbos lately?"
Irrelevant, ad hominem attack.
OTOH, if Bill Clinton was to criticise someone for infidelity, the same response is valid, even though the strict logic of his proposition may be sound.
Why? When the criticism takes on a moral authority dimension, then the authority can be validly challenged.
So when tinklybear lays down the law to pologuy:
it struck me that pologuy might want to know who he's actually dealing with here, if he didn't already know. Anyone starts "setting me straight", the first thing I ask is "and who the hell do you think you are?" As most people would. And properly so.
I am sorry this has dragged the thread so far off-topic, however.
In general, it's true that the logical validity of an argument or proposition is independent of the person putting the argument forward. Attacking the credibility of the person rather than attacking the argument itself is usually considered an ad hominen fallacy, and is rightfully frowned upon.
There is one exception to this general rule, however: When the argument has a "moral authority" dimension, in addition to the logic.
Example: Bill Clinton criticises some national leader on foreign policy, and the national leader responds "Who are you to criticise? Been chasing any bimbos lately?"
Irrelevant, ad hominem attack.
OTOH, if Bill Clinton was to criticise someone for infidelity, the same response is valid, even though the strict logic of his proposition may be sound.
Why? When the criticism takes on a moral authority dimension, then the authority can be validly challenged.
So when tinklybear lays down the law to pologuy:
I am sorry this has dragged the thread so far off-topic, however.
03-19-2009, 02:05 PM
#33
Race Director
This thread was a severe case of deja vu and I was somewhate disappointed I that I had opened the thread when I found out in fact it is this same story from the same 'lister all over again. But then all of these other entertaining posts about moral authority, ad hominem attacks, and roller painting Porsches ensued. Thank goodness. 
03-19-2009, 02:49 PM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My earlier point is that no mechanic has a crystal ball and can magically see inside an engine to detect that other parts are about to break. You really have to be on the professional mechanic end of these disputes to understand how people expect a brand new engine when they have a few parts replaced on it. Another memory of mine. A girlfriend I had way back in the 80's had her 1967 firebird engine rebuilt by friends of mine. Later when we were replacing the rear wheel bearings on the car she remarked that when she had the engine rebuilt she thought she was done doing repairs on the car. hmm.
10-29-2009, 02:24 PM
#35
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I figured we should have heard some kind of an update on this by now.
Anything?
Anything?
10-29-2009, 11:01 PM
#36
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hawkinsville / Perry, Georgia, RETIRED USAF GO BLUE
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think you gents have scared Pologuy off. Trying to get straight answers seems to be impossible. Crying over spilt milk over a year ago and never cleaned up has flaked away long since.
Cheers,
Larry
Cheers,
Larry
10-31-2009, 09:08 PM
#37
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, this strikes me as the strongest leg of your claim against the dealer -- regardless of the condition and problems the car had when it went into their workshop, it sounds like it wasn't in a proprer condition to drive when it left the workshop. A car should drive for more than 400 miles without catastrophic engine failure after a diagnosis and engine repairs.
Using this line of argument, you don't have to prove they replaced the thing that failed -- you only have to demonstrate that they failed (perhaps negligently) in their duty of care by delivering the vehicle in a state unfit to drive.
Civil cases are decided on the balance of evidence, rather than the much stricter "beyond reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases. Therefore, a judge will only have to agree that it is more likely than not that they stuffed up (or not), either by commission or omission.
Using this line of argument, you don't have to prove they replaced the thing that failed -- you only have to demonstrate that they failed (perhaps negligently) in their duty of care by delivering the vehicle in a state unfit to drive.
Civil cases are decided on the balance of evidence, rather than the much stricter "beyond reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases. Therefore, a judge will only have to agree that it is more likely than not that they stuffed up (or not), either by commission or omission.
I AGREE..! It would be the burden of the dealership to prove that the work they did "isnt" what failed and caused the motor to fail...
I agree you in the least could sue for the coverage of the cost of labor paid... even more so if they "checked" the whole car... Im also betting that if you subpoena the technician that did the job that he is a young mechanic and has never in his life before worked on a 944... you would want to have him and his experience deposed... if you can show that the dealer failed to give quality service for monies rendered you would be entitled to the funds back and all subsequent damages arising from such negligence... ie the cost of replacing the now blown motor...
I agree that no one does have a crystal ball to tell what would break next as one member says but we all know here that if you were to install the intermediate shaft bearings wrong/incorrectly that it WILL cause low oil pressure and prematuraely destroy the lower end of the motor...
