I always thought these were really really ridiculously good-looking. 

if you need GAP I think you’re either buying the wrong car or getting the wrong financing.

I don’t pay for GAP either.  I self insure on that.  The data tells me I will get away with it.

My godfather would literally make spreadsheets, and then he’d typically weigh the various scores until the numbers told him he should get the car he wanted from the beginning.

The problem with a 1-3 year old car from Honda, Toyota, etc...is that you will pay almost full retail price. 

I have no issues with Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard owning a building and I think they’re being really good landlords by not charging rent for April. It’s decent and I wish my apartment complex would do the same.

I have a friend who is a time traveler. His name is Jim Spanfeller, and he is determined to bring the usability of websites from the late 1990s to the modern internet.

The Gang Dilutes a Brand Name

I was radicalized by punk rock and Deadspin.

I suspect a lot of us would express similar sentiments. I don’t want my ad revenue going to Great Hill any more, but I also have an incredibly hard time letting go of Deadspin and the writers I love. Hoping the next few days will present a better course of action for the commentariat crew 

I’m saddened by the imminent firing of the great Ray Ratto.

The Michigan Court thought about it for a while and concluded “It’s negligent, not malicious”

The judges never ruled that re-attaching the tires is not a part of a tire rotation. What they said was that the omission of doing the re-attachment properly does not meet the bar of fraudulent behavior necessary to invoke a law which is all about fraudulent behavior and not at all about negligence. The judges were…

I like Steve a lot and generally agree with him but you know who else (most likely) has a law degree and is in fact a recognized expert on disputes of law? Any appeals court judge who ruled on this case.

Aaron, I read the opinion. Respectfully, the Court of Appeals got it right. The purpose of this particular statute is to address unfair or fraudulent practices, not to resolve negligence claims. The plaintiff was entitled to and received a recovery for his injuries, so this isn’t a situation where the injured party is…

But you’ve become emotionally tied to being right, since you wrote the article, and it’s obvious.

In journalism you need to get an unbiased opinion, or at least two opinions from people on opposite sides. Lehto is a plaintiffs attorney that practices in this arena, of course that is going to be his “take” on it. I’m not saying he is so completely way out there in his interpretation but he is being a good advocate…

The word ‘unfair’, the way it’s used in this law, seems to imply intent when considered in context. There was no intent on the mechanic’s part to harm, or defraud the plaintiffs, therefore no breech of the MVSRA.

Lehto is wrong and self-serving.

The reason that the lawyer you spoke to for this article takes this position is because Steve Lehto is an attorney in Michigan who handles these kind of cases.