“Buying a Maserati is like paying the cover charge to get into a Las Vegas nightclub brothel”.

I’ve owned a 2005 Quattroporte and loved it. Was a total hoot to drive and looked / sounded sexy doing it. Maserati GranSport coupe was another one I enjoyed, but It was hard finding a decent one at the time. They’ve made some great cars in the early 90s-mid-2000s. To name some more, Maserati Khamsin, Ghibli (earlier…

Absolutely not.

Any Hyundai with the Genesis badge on it. Genesis G70 and G90 blow modern Maseratis out of the water for interiors. And then you have the Hyundai Palisade’s interior, which is far better than the Levante’s (looks like Dodge made it). Hyundai Azera also comes in mind. Koreans are dominating !

That’s your reason?

There are not enough breaths in my lifetime to ever convey how much nobody should buy a used Ghibli. Even if it’s CPO, you’ll never get to drive it. They were appallingly unreliable as soon as they rolled off the lot, and that’s even by Maserati’s historically bad standards. If you try and do research on literally any…

Buying a Maserati is like paying the cover charge to get into a Las Vegas nightclub. Yes, it’s expensive ... but just wait to see how much more expensive it gets once you are through the door. CP.

My biggest complaint are their interiors. When you can get out of a Levante or Ghibli and get into a new Hyundai and go “Wow, this is much nicer”, there’s a big problem.

You’d have to be utterly stupid to buy any modern Maserati, save for the Gran Turismo, which is also singing the swan song right now. After driving numerous new Alfas, Fiats, and Maseratis, I am now convinced that they are more Chrysler than anything else. CP at any price and If you really want a Maserati, get a late…

If you want to take some crazy pills and buy a used Maseratti, buy an older Quattroporte.

Found the Plaintiffs attorney. Give me a break bub, this was textbook negligence; this statute requires something beyond that. You want attorneys fees in ALL negligence cases? Get a different law passed.

Nobody understands this!

Read some of these comments; the court got it right. The shop is still liable for negligence, just not fraud or deception. 

If they don’t tighten the lug nuts, you can still use them for negligence. You just can’t Sue them for EXTRA damages and attorneys fees for mere negligence; they would need to do something fraudulent.

They understand why it is important. They found failing to tighten them negligent. They just don't agree it was fraudulent. 

I do have a law degree, as do the judges who wrote this decision. I worked a law clerk for nearly 3 years.

Yeah, no, that’s not really what is going on here. The court is basically saying that if you did steps 1-14 of your list, you have ‘performed’ the tire rotation. Nothing unfair or deceptive. Now if you forget to do step 12 for one of the wheels, that is by all means ‘negligent’ (and they will get compensation for…

In the meantime, good luck suing an incompetent mechanic in Michigan.

It sounds like this law just wasn’t designed to address this sort of thing.

The ruling makes sense. A deceptive practice in not “performing” a task is charging for an oil change and literally doing nothing to change the oil. You could cause damage by changing the oil and doing it negligently, but that isn’t the same. The two situations are different and the statute is designed to refer to one…