A Word of Warning to all 200 series Owners! Please Read!

Atticus · 12-15-08, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arbforlc200

unbelievable! You both could have been killed needlessly! Need a lawyer?

Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arbforlc200

yes...Toyota as an entity can say that dtt has committed an intentional tort against its product i.e. the LC. However, when Mr. consumer visits his authorized dealer and he is willing to pay big bucks for expected work to be performed and the dealer is awared and willing to mods OEM hardware, and then it is not performed to SAFETY standards...it is called breach of contract. It gets even more sticky when someone died/injured when workmanship failed to perform as promised. In omnibus, no entiy can completely indemnify itself from loss or damage. So...beaware if you are also a second tier vendor/supplier.

Uh, excuse me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arbforlc200

Consumer Protection Law has come a long way and it is extremely nebulous and now it is considered an expertise field in itself. BTW, everyone will say now that a lawyer would be the last thing on his/her mind....until an injury or death occurs.....lawyers phone will be ringing off the hook. It's TRUE!

I was just raising awareness to everyone...both to consumers and distributors. I love the way your products look and from web reading....your reputation is solid. Perhaps I will be ordering a pair of sliders from you..but will not heavily mod my LC for simple reason that I stated earlier. More power to others who are willing to alter their vehicles.

lol...it's TRUE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by arbforlc200

Does any one understand the difference between latent defect and patent defect? Most folks paid authorized dealers to perfom work and expect quality, safety and reliabilty to be the outcome of this process. What I don't need to do is to crawl underneath my LC 200 and re-inspect what my dealer had done. And even if I wanted to do so, what the !#@# am I looking for? So when either life, limb and/or pecuniary loss occurrs, sometime the only remdedy is to seek equity in the court system.

1. I do.
2. Are you an American? Do you practice law in America?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arbforlc200

perhaps my language was inapproriate for prime time and I had removed the content above. However, hiding behind a computer...is not my motto. It's o.k....you don't know me yet but hiding isn't me especially I have to be front and center in a public arena on a daily basis. If need be, I will provide you my full credentail if your request warrants.

Are you a gladiator?

Anyway, arbforlc200 has some good points about the standard of care and being able to reliably trust that a Toyota dealership won't do something to your vehicle that could kill you, but I'd like to say two things:

1. Since nothing actually happened to you, you likely don't have a tort case against the dealership. Even if they were negligent, you have to have a duty, a breach of that duty, harm, and the breach has to be the proximate cause of that harm (aka "causation"). Anyway, there's no physical harm, so no negligence case. There may indeed be a breach of contract claim, but the damages for that would not likely be more than the time you lose and the amount someone else charges you to fix the problem. Not very much. As a general rule, if you're not harmed by something, no matter how pissed off you are, you're probably not going to get any money out of it.

2. As always, my usual disclaimer: if you need legal advice, see a lawyer who practices in the field you require in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. If you listen to internet lawyers, especially those who don't really sound like they know what they are talking about, then you're asking for trouble.

Anyway, glad you've got the problem figured out. If it were me, I would go to the place where they worked on the kdss and skullfuck the manager over something like this. Then I would document the entire thing and send a letter to Toyota explaining that you think it odd that a new suv would be equipped with a "feature" that could be so very dangerous. I mean, a brake light goes off when your brake fluid leaks out, and this seems almost as dangerous.

Good luck.

arbforlc200 · 12-15-08, 10:29 AM

i was just numbed regarding the rationale on this issue. of course most of my answers are shooting from the hip based on the chat boards. Like any chat forum, you can be verbally abused by any mental midget standing at about 5'9 with a pot belly who thinks he can whop your ***!

To your other questions...

yes

yes ...gladiator in a no holds barred...hahaha

Atticus · 12-15-08, 10:44 AM

I was only asking because your reference to seeking equity made me think of more formalistic common law countries that distinguish between equity and law...and breach of contract is not a cause of action in equity.

sdtash · 12-16-08, 12:46 AM

Tighten them 2 screws I'd say, and drive the thing. lifes to short....Enjoy.

chimyz · 12-16-08, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdtash

Tighten them 2 screws I'd say, and drive the thing. lifes to short....Enjoy.

Thank you... well said, I agree 100%!

Zimm · 01-13-09, 02:34 PM

leaving a system inoperable, that is required to operate for the safe handling of a vehicle, is inexcusable on the part of the PAID modifier.

i dont care if 3% of your costs go to insurance. the fact of the matter is, this work isnt being done for altruistic reasons (merely a moral defense, nothing legal here), its done for a PROFIT. and if you are accepting money, you are morally obligated to do it right. if the insurance is going up, its because all too often the sharks are actually right, and hence they are swimming near the blood. if shops dont screw up, people dont die, and the lawyers will throw their shit against a different wall.

i.e. i may hate attorneys, but excuses for failure dont make me warm and fuzzy either. i dont need to pay someone to ef a job up, i can handle that myself.