pedsurg

BrandonC: Aren't all of the gt class cars really "thinly veiled" track cars? If not, why a gt3 vrs any of the brilliant but not track specific 997's? This from an owner of a 993 and 997 and one who already loves the 997 gt3.
Jack

faterikcartman

Dock, I didn't say you were the first to initiate discussion of a class action lawsuit, I asserted I didn't. I did, as you point out, suggest the radical step of small claims court so that a judge could decide the issue.

You helpfully commented:
"As a matter of fact I *am* saying "do your homework" before buying a Porsche (or any car for that matter)."

"If you think there is an implied warranty covering track usage just because Porsche advertises it's racing heritage, then knock yourself out trying to win that in court."

"You're trying to use an unfair competition code to argue warranty coverage??
Good luck."

And then added your absolutely erroneous interpretations of California law:

"That code applies to business practices as they relate to fair practices concerning other businesses, not to how it relates to the customer(s)."

"I don't doubt that the code is applied in cases where one business' advertisement unfairly/wrongly represents their product/service *against* another business. But to say that Porsche dealers having pictures of their cars "racing" and/or on the "track" is an unfair practice *against* other businesses, and that the customer is harmed by this, specifically not buying another product because of the pictures and some kind of implied warranty the pictures represent, is a huge stretch."

And then affirmed it:

"Originally Posted by Alexander Stemer
I don't doubt that you are legaly correct. I think it's a sad statement that you probably are legally correct."

"And the "legally correct" part has been my point the whole time."

Am I to believe that when you said

"Looks like you have an open and shut case against PCNA and the California dealers concerning warranty issues and advertising (re: pictures/posters hanging on dealers walls). I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out in court. Keep us posted."

you really didn't mean the opposite?

And, one "case" against California "dealers" (plural) = class action lawsuit.

Still, I didn't allege you brought it up first.

Look Dock, you really admire yourself as being incredibly clever. But I know a guy I grew up with who is great with the quick one liners like you are and he is, deep down, a moron. I'm not saying you're a moron, but an impressive display of sarcasm and wit only impresses impressionable people, kids in high school and, in my experience, drunk girls in bars.

Ultimately, however, you are free to state your legal opinions, however wrong, as often as you like. I should make a greater effort to allow you to make those decisions without correction.

dpblessing

I thought 'class action lawsuits' were a group of plaintiffs (hence the 'class') ?
not one plaintiff against all of a group?

lexpro

One reason for my thought that between Dock and faterik there are no lawyers present here. Dock says he's not, but Dock does own a Porsche. Faterik is apparently neither a Porsche owner nor a lawyer. So maybe his opinions re law and Porsche should be seen in that light.

Bob Rouleau

Lex - somewhere is was alleged that Dock owns a silver 996 TT. faterikcartman is a lawyer by his own admission. I'm not sure that it matters mind you. Dock if the legal stuff is over now, would you mind addessing the other question I asked?

Rgds,

lexpro

Bob:
I'm not sure it matters either, at least with respect to the question of Porsche warranty coverage... However, to the extent faterik is making problematic claims regarding the law and his legal expertise, even soliciting clients on the board (!) people should be careful.
Best

Bob Rouleau

Lex - I can't comment on the claims being problematic or not. I'm a P Eng, not a lawyer. Is soliciting clients on the forum a no-no? I recall someone else trolling for people to file a class action suit over the PCCB problem. Don't know what happened to it, I had already settled with Porsche by then.

Rgds,

BC

Great Point. I was trying to put out at least the most extreme example though - as I am not sure how it could be argued that the GT is NOT for the track. BUt especially the GT3, in the same regard, these cars are for driving to the track, and being on the track. Adjustable suspensions, etc.

Bob Rouleau

Guys, I think it would be easy to show that the GT2 and 3 are made for the track. On the other hand there is no doubt whatsoever that a GT3RSR is made for the track. There is no warranty on the RSR. It is strictly a race car. Dock seems to think that if you drive the car on the track you are potentially out of luck on a warranty claim. If I understand his thinking (not that I agree mind you), a GT3 can be street driven. An RSR cannot. If you drive a GT3 on the track (like an RSR), you have no warranty, just like an RSR. Note that these are not his exact words but I think I have summarized his position.

Dock

So you consider yourself clairvoyant?

Dock

Sorry, I missed the specific question. Was it this one?

PCNA does not use me as a conduit in either direction. They don't need me as a conduit for information flow from this forum to them because they already read everything here on their own. And they don't use me as a conduit for information flow from PCNA to the forum because it's never a "be sure to post about XYZ" type discussion.

PCNA has it's finger on the pulse better than most people think.

0396

'PCNA has it's finger on the pulse better than most people think'

One would think so, but in my case, I was disappointed with my concern.The following year,I tested a Porsche Truck..but remember
their attitude..I made my mind and said- once a fool- not again and ended up buying an S/4 Audi. Yes, I'm exercising my rights as an consumer!
Oh, I've been 'playing' with Porsches since 72

faterikcartman

Look, I haven't even read Dock's post and I won't, but now some others are chiming in with their incorrect legal analysis. Can't anyone figure out if they know what they are talking about before they chime in here?

Quote (dpblessing):
"I thought 'class action lawsuits' were a group of plaintiffs (hence the 'class') ?
not one plaintiff against all of a group?"

Quote (lexpro):

"Bob:
I'm not sure it matters either, at least with respect to the question of Porsche warranty coverage... However, to the extent faterik is making problematic claims regarding the law and his legal expertise, even soliciting clients on the board (!) people should be careful.
Best"

First, I'm not sure where you got the idea anyone was talking about one plaintiff and many defendants. A class action is generally brought by one or more named representative plaintiffs on behalf of all who were similarly situated.

Regardless, by definition a class action CAN consist of one plaintiff against multiple defendants. For your edification I've included a quote from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23:

Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Please focus your attention on the "sue or be sued" line.

I also own a Porsche and am interested in buying another--a 997tt. I believe that information is somewhere on this board. Where you got the idea I don't own a Porsche is beyond me.

Furthermore, what kind of idiots are you? Dock has you believing he's right about the law because you think he owns a Porsche and I don't--that is some of the most pathetic reasoning I can imagine. Does someone actually pay you enough to buy a Porsche? No wonder this country is in trouble.

And some guy who isn't a lawyer gives his ERRONEOUS interpretation of class actions and suddenly I'm making "problematic claims regarding the law"???
WTF!!!

Morevover, I specifically state I am not looking for more work and I am soliciting clients? Did you monkeys read the whole thread? I started out suggesting Mike in La Jolla just go to small claims court! I have a place in Del Mar just up the road from La Jolla; if I were soliciting clients I would have sent Mike a private message as he would be a great plaintiff--ask Mike, I haven't!

Because Dock kept goading me to file a lawsuit because he couldn't come up with any cogent points for discussion I told him he could refer potential plaintiffs to me if he wanted. Again, later, upon his prompting, I told him I couldn't file a lawsuit on my own but said I would consider the situation of anyone who approached me--but that I wasn't looking for more work!

So here we are: I do own a Porsche. I am a lawyer in California. I have cited and even quoted the law--correctly--while others have stated it--WRONGLY. Everything I've said can be verrified if one has a rudimentary ability to Google and basic reading comprehension skills. In fact, some of the allegations can be dismissed reading this whole thread. If you don't want to read the whole thing they consider SHUTTING YOUR PIE HOLE!

Still, I'm faced with the comments above.

Bob, you sound like a great guy and rather thoughtful about the whole thing, as do a few others.

Some of you, on the other hand, are either unrepentant jerks or abject idiots. Seriously, being so **** sure when anyone who knows how to use a search engine and read can refute you is stupid, really stupid.

In the words of my namesake, "screw you guys, I'm going home."

Bob Rouleau

Faterikcartman -

First, could I have a name? I am getting tired of typing 14 letters

Please, don't get upset. I have observed for years that the average person enjoys "playing lawyer". Perhaps it's the glamor we see on TV that incites the desire? I also understand that real lawyers can get upset over the opinions expressed by wannabes. Heck, I have seen plenty of lawyers get upset over the opinions of other lawyers!

I've been watching the threads on the 996 forum called 'engine replacement 'x', where 'x' is a single integer (for now) between 1 and 5. While far from conclusive, the evidence presented is disturbing. It does make me wonder what's going on at Porsche these days. Have they backed off on the legendary toughness I respect so much? Have their warranty costs soared? That would be a good reason to attempt to to reduce them. I always figured Porsche warranty claims to be very small, and perhaps that's why they could afford to be generous under certain circumstances.

This is very thought provoking.

Regards,

faterikcartman

Bob, I sent you a PM.