pedsurg

Although Porsche continues to set record sales figures, think about where they would be if they "did the right thing." Do you think 996's and 997's would be selling in the 30's and 60's respectively if Porsche acknowledged the RMS design flaw and extended their warranty to, say 100K? For relative pennies, the brand would be stronger and owners as fiercely loyal as in the old days.

How many X51's were sold at massive profit. If a few self destructed they could be covered by warranty at very low cost but with huge brand benefit. If many are self destructing, covered warranty repairs would be more costly but also more ethically (perhaps not legally Dock) indicated due to a probable design flaw. So regarding self destruction X50 trannies: Which is it? Small numbers repaired at little relative cost but huge corporate gain or large numbers indicative of a design flaw demanding an ethical and fair resolution?

Jack

Dock

I couldn't agree more.

mike_la_jolla

Jack -- I don’t have exact numbers, but I believe that 911TT transmissions are failing at a higher rate than the Boxster's RMS’s. This isn’t as obvious because there are so few Turbo’s in relation to the Boxster. Also, I think that those that chipped the base 996TT’s are more susceptible to the ‘transmission-failure-that-Porsche-calls-abuse’ as are those of us with X50’s.

pedsurg

Mike: We expect our heroes: people, institutions, and corporations, to do the right thing, not just the minimun legally required thing. Porsche is/was a heor to many of us. I hope they decide to do the right thing; but I'm not holding my breath.
Jack

faterikcartman

I subscribe to AutoWeek, Car and Driver and Motor Trend and I've never seen an ad (or a picture at a Ford dealer (but I don't spend too much time there so I would be interested what these pictures look like, exactly) with a Ford production car on a NASCAR track.

faterikcartman

I don't see how Mike in LaJolla's renting of track time and driving his car there is an "event" to exclude coverage.

More importantly, there didn't seem to be an effort to determine that the part failed DURING said event. I thought we were arguing because Porsche says we won't cover you no matter when it happened or why if you happened to have tracked your car.

Finally, that's great that you were able to find that but I'm pretty sure, off the top of my head, that the terms of a contract that are enforceable are those that the parties have been shown and had a meeting of the minds about. I don't think the "gotcha" clause is a legal doctrine, but I could be wrong.

faterikcartman

Are you having a senior moment? Here is my whole sentence:

""Some" others here, believe the warranty details are available if you do you due dillegence before you buy the car and that it is the buyer's responsibility to look beyond what Porsche puts forth in its catalogues, ads, and sales presentations, and get the details of the warranty if you are concerned about it."

Words are important. Does this mean it is an absolute fact that "it is the buyer's responsibility to look beyond what Porsche puts forth in its catalogues, ads, and sales presentations, and get the details of the warranty if you are concerned about it"? If so, again Dock, you are absolutely wrong about California advertising and consumer protection law. We even have restrictions on the size of fonts used to print disclaimers. You don't even "believe" they are necessary. Again, you are flat out wrong and I hope no one other than fellow cult-members believes your legal "analysis". And please don't tell me to go sue and good luck with your lawsuit ect.

faterikcartman

Here is post 171:

"Concerning PCNA's warranty coverage, from a Boxster to the Carrera GT, all the cars are treated the same.

If you don't track your car and have a mechanical problem then the dealer will look for "abuse". If no abuse is found you stand a pretty good chance of a warranty repair. If you track your car, PCNA legally doesn't *have* to look for "abuse"; however, the dealer *can* still check for abuse and if none is found there is a window of opportunity for warranty repair."

Here, I conclude you are saying PCNA has a legal right to deny your claim if you've tracked the car. You have no idea if they have a legal right to do that. Zero. You do not know anything, as you've aptly shown in this thread, about the consumer protection laws including those relating to warranty and advertising, and contract laws, of the state of California. You are making an assumption.

Just a quick Google search found this (produced by a California District Attorney:

**********
1.5) Adhesion Contracts

a. Definition of "Adhesion Contract." An "adhesion contract" is one that is entered into between two parties of unequal bargaining strength, and that is expressed in the language of a standardized contract. The distinctive feature of an adhesion contract is that the weaker party has no choice as to its terms. #58 It is offered to the weaker party (ordinarily a consumer) on a "take it or leave it" basis, without affording the weaker party a realistic opportunity to bargain and modify the terms of the offered contract, and under such conditions that the weaker party cannot obtain the offered product or service except by accepting the form of the offered contract.

b. Enforceability of "Adhesion Contracts." The vast majority of consumer contracts are contracts of adhesion that meet the legal prerequisites for enforceability, and are, therefore, enforceable. While most consumer contracts are enforceable, a contract of adhesion may be unenforceable, in whole or in part, on one or several legal grounds:

Unfair surprise. Courts deny enforcement of a contract of adhesion if the contract, or a term of the contract, falls outside the reasonable expectations of the weaker party. #59


Unduly oppressive or unconscionable. Courts deny enforcement of a contract of adhesion even if the contract or provision is consistent with the parties' expectations, if it is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. #60
In one case, for instance, the California Supreme Court held that a life insurance policy's limitation of coverage to passage on scheduled air carriers was ineffective, where the consumer had no opportunity to learn this until after purchasing the policy. In so holding, the court noted that "[I]n standardized contracts ... which are made by parties of unequal bargaining strength, the California courts have long been disinclined to effectuate clauses of limitation of liability which are unclear, unexpected, inconspicuous or unconscionable." #61 [emphasis added]

Now I am not giving any sort of legal opinon whatsoever that the same would apply in any case regarding Porsche, though it may.

I'm only pointing out that there may in fact be a legal obligation on PCNA's part, but you certainly don't know for certain that there isn't.

Dock

This is real simple. Here's the part of your post that's germane to my post #171...

There is a window of opportunity for the dealer to make a warranty repair on a car that is tracked. That is different than your saying "if you track the car your warranty is void".

Dock

The key here is that I focused on the word "believe" as was used by you to present my position...

I'll say it again, there is no "believe" about it, the warranty details are in fact available.

faterikcartman

Quote Dock:
Originally Posted by faterikcartman
""Some" others here, believe the warranty details are available...

I'll say it again, there is no "believe" about it, the warranty details are in fact available.

Dock, you may have the last word after this. I promise I will not post again in this thread. You are an idiot or, as I've said before, dishonest.

Here is the whole sentence (again): ""Some" others here, believe the warranty details are available if you do you due dillegence before you buy the car and that it is the buyer's responsibility to look beyond what Porsche puts forth in its catalogues, ads, and sales presentations, and get the details of the warranty if you are concerned about it."

You keep leaving out the part that says "...and that it is the buyer's responsibility ..." I've never argued that the warranty wasn't available if you looked hard enough for it so it is reasonable to focus the "believe" part as applying to the second part of the sentence.

If it would make you happy I'll say it this way: ""Some" others here, believe that, because the warranty details are available if you do your due dillegence and research enough before you buy the car, it is the buyer's responsibility to look beyond what Porsche puts forth in its catalogues, ads, sales contracts and sales presentations, and get the details of the warranty yourself if you are concerned about it."

So I'll say this for the last time: the valid parts of a contract are generally the ones presented to and viewed by the parties so that they can have a meeting of the minds on the contract. As in the example from the District Attorney's office regarding insurance policy exclusions, the exclusions did actually exist, but because they were not shown to the insured at the time they signed up for the policy the court refused to enforce them.

It is quite possible that because Porsche doens't show customers the warranty exclusions until after they buy the car that Porsche wouldn't be able to enforce these warranty exclusions either.

Thus, just because the exclusions may exist somewhere, the fact that they are not made in the contract documents signed by the customer at the time of purchase could be fatal to their enforcement. So just because they do in fact exist somewhere as you keep insisting, their existence could be a legal nullity as if they didn't exist.

The law may expect a sophisticated business entity to look up ancillary documents on their own, but in consumer transactions the law generally holds people to a reasonable person standard. I posit that you Dock, are not a reasonable person. A reasonable person would believe everything they need to know about a transaction would be contained in the catalogues, ads, sales presentations and sales contract.

I know Porsche is on top now but Ford used to be as well. Today they face bankruptcy. The few sales you lost for Porsche due to your unreasonable posts on this thread are certainly not going to effect Porsche's bottom line, but you may want to reconsider speaking out for them in the future. To many advocates like you and the company could find itself in trouble.

0396

Hey,
I remember this in Business Law 101 ""consumer transactions the law generally holds people to a reasonable person standard" - back in 1971

lexpro

Faterik:
If you are going to argue the law please post the names and citations for a few California cases where an explicit exclusion from a written consumer product warranty, available to the consumer prior to entering into the contract in full compliance with Federal Consumer Products Warranty Act, was held ineffective, and the warranty was enforced despite that exclusion. Are there also cases where the warranty exclusion was upheld? Posting statutory language or a DA's pronouncement is misleading because the facts of the case will determine the application of the law...unless, of course, your position is that specific exclusions in a consumer product warranty available in compliance with applicable law constitute a per se violation of California law. The insurance case decision you posted does not seem to be applicable for the reason you highlighted: "the consumer had no opportunity to learn [of the exclusion of coverage] until after purchasing the policy." This is not the case here unless you are saying PCNA and the dealers violate Federal law.

Also, your gratuitous personal insults do nothing to further your arguments...why do you persist in offering the image of a practicing attorney as a splenetic jerk? If you were not anonymous on this board would you make the same remarks?

Bob Rouleau

Lexpro - two things. In the insurance case, is there a "reasonable" test? Could the line be stated as " the consumer had no *reasonable* opportunity.."?

I think Ferik (for short) is suggesting that based on advertising, comments from the dealer, even instructors at PDE, the buyer has no reason to suspect exclusions for track and, as a result does not consider additional research to be a *reasonable* necessity.

Two - thanks for enriching what I thought was a pretty decent vocabulary - splenetic, indeed.

lexpro

Thanks; I don't often get the chance to use it.
I don't know the insurance case Faterik is talking about, so I can't answer your question. However, assuming that the situation in the insurance case was as Faterik quotes it: "no opportunity to learn of the exclusion until after the purchase" the outcome is easily understood. Putting it another way, if a material element of a contract is withheld until after the contract is signed, that element, whatever it is, will not likely be enforceable. I assume in the insurance case, the exclusion was the undisclosed material element...therefore the exclusion was not enforced. Now you ask whether the outcome would be the same if the there was no "reasonable" opportunity...etc" Your question goes right to the heart of my point above: the facts of any particular dispute will determine how the law is applied. I don't know what would consititute "reasonable opportunity" under the particular circumstances at issue. With regard to the issue of Porsche warranty coverage, it is my belief that the Federal Consumer Products Warranty Act provides a pretty good marker as to what is "reasonable" opportunity: satisfying the requirement in the law of the availability of the warranty for the consumer prior to purchase.