I always had the impression that ACL applied to the organisation (dealership) you have the sales contract with, not the manufacture.
Yes the normal thing is go after the selling dealer. If the selling dealer looses then the selling dealer can go after the manufacturer to recover their loss. But it doesn't have to be that way. It can combined as often both the selling dealer and manufacturer can be the respondents or if the selling dealer is no more you can go after the manufacturer directly…
There was one case in VIC where a guy bought a new Navara and was told by the seller it would have better fuel economy than his old Navara . Supposedly the seller also pointed to the fuel usage sticker on the windscreen to justify his claims. The buyer took the seller to court but Nissan decided that it needed to step in and help the dealer. Unfortunately they were nowhere near as prepared as the buyer who supposedly presented his case rather well and by himself.… Nissan simply took the wrong track that the fuel label was a mandated federal test and on,y useful as a comparative guide and not indicative of real world consumption which completely ignores the sellers representation. So Nissan lost and did think about appealing but there were no grounds so they refunded the guy his purchase price.
Imagine if in the above case the magistrate or tribunal members decided to ignore the sellers representations because they think everyone knows (or should no) the fuel label is a comparative tool only…
The frustrating thing with any case is the magistrate or tribunal member adjudicating a case has all the power and if they decide they don’t want to consider certain things you are pooch screwed. It’s wrong as all facts should be given the light of day and reasons presented why they aren’t relevant…
As some have mentioned before, some Merc performance vehicles piston slap like crazy when cold. One would guess that if the magistrate or tribunal member drives such a car, he may be much more tolerant of the noises a car can make than say other people may be. Such prejudices can’t be planned or effectively dealt with. And I’m sure Magistrates and tribunal members consider themselves to be “normal average people” just like the rest of us though some of us may consider them anything but average…
Sometimes you get wrongly pooch screwed and justice is denied.. At least it’s not a criminal case and the death penalty isn’t on the cards cause it’s impossible to do a take back when the system realises they’ve screwed up (and there are many cases of such in the history books around the globe)…
It’s a sad outcome and is justice denied for VCoz …
The only thing that was never in doubt was that GM are and have always been a pack of cnuts. In the past some upper management needed to be jailed for their acts around ignition key saga that resulted in deaths and cover ups… that was definitely justice denied…
