So they literally stuck a Ferrari badge on a Vantage, cool.

The rock was probably texting and wasn’t paying attention to the cars and deserved to get driven over.  

you called?

It looks low rent compared to most Nissans. 

I think the problem here is that you can’t actually market this thing to people who don’t know about cars. There’s no wool-pulling. It’s not like the Urus (I finally have an excuse to drive a Lambo!) or some heritage-laden tweedmobile (Careful with the Jag, darling).

Lots of car names became famous to normies for…

Agreed. Seriously, I’m really hoping we aren’t on a trend of Jalop articles making fun of authorities when they get very specific on making rulings.

I find these type of articles confined to a single author.  Not mentioning any names.

So Renault used a system that automatically adjusted brake bias, but not based on lap distance or time, but they also didn’t automatically adjust brake bias as it is still controlled by the driver.

Width is always more important than length. As my father once said(to my horror):

I feel this knee jerk response to Dr.Kamiya shows the real lack of knowledge here.

Because there isn’t, IF it was an honest mistake. It would be like if a tank at a gas station developed a leak and after a rain storm, people filling up found their cars sputtering and stalling due to water in the gasoline. Can you sue the gas station owner for failing to inspect the tanks and damaging your car?…

Exactly my thought. After reading the headline I was all “WTF?!” Then after reading the article and especially Dr.Kamiya’s comment it all clicked and makes perfect sense. The law protect about charging for work not performed. They rotated the tires are requested. The tech just didn’t completely finish it. It wouldn’t…

Really?Do you have trouble telling the difference between unfair and deliberate deception?
The plaintiffs brought the wrong arguments to court and got shot down for it!!
Look, i sypathize with them on the cost.Our legal system is shit.No argument there! The cost of having something heard in court is a massive blight on…

It’s shitty and negligent, but there is no intention to deceive or defraud.

Even if the lug nuts were not re-installed, that would not matter. That is negligence, not fraud. As soon as one tire was removed from its original location and put in another, the MVSRA-based defense was voided.

Yes, that’s his position, and that’s the right position.

As much as it pains me, I do have to agree (albeit, also no law degree here). The MVSRA is pertinent to services performed that were authorized through “unfair or deceptive practices”. Not services that were performed shittily. The claim of negligence is still 110% legitimate, the MVRSA claim though isn’t.

Putting aside the high dudgeon you wrote this article in, you are completely incorrect. Is it unfair in life that bad things happen? Yes, go ask Melville in Moby Dick, but not all unfair things are illegal or have the same culpability.

This is why bloggers don’t argue legal cases. It was wrong, obviously. But it doesn’t fit the legal definition of unfair business practices, because it wasn’t intentional or deceptive. It was careless. Which is negligence, a completely different argument which the plaintiff could have argued. Her lawyers chose the…

There’s a difference between negligence and fraud. The law is designed to discourage and penalize fraud. This is a case of gross negligence, not fraud. Had the dealer not rotated the tires at all, this law would be applicable. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the plaintiffs should have been awarded any less, when…