Ron Parr

Forgot to add: The music link is a Honda/Acura product. "Music Link" is a trademark of Honda/Acura and the product is backed by a Honda/Acura warranty.

GIBSON6594

Give an example

Dan Martin

Of course it would just be a refund on the music link.

The car functions just fine, the optional ipod link doesn't work.

Say you're going on a trip, and the travel agent shows you all these beautiful pictures of the hotel overlooking the beach with hot chicks everywhere.
You take the package, fly there first class, and check into the hotel. After a great night's sleep, you open your blinds and look out at the beach only to see that there's nothing but hairy men hanging around because they thought there would be hot chicks there.
You still had an awesome flight, great room looking over the beach, but you don't have any hot chicks.The whole reason you went on the trip was to score.

Are you entitled to a refund? Maybe a discount.
Should the travel agent have to hook you up with his sister? No.



It's a shame that Acura couldn't get the ipod link to work right from the get go. Maybe they'll get it right someday. The point is, it's a great car and the fact that an optional accessory didn't work doesn't make it any less of a great car.

Ron Parr

It would be an interesting and confusing world if we got to pick which legal promises we kept based upon the wealth of the person to whom we made the promise. While it would be interesting, I don't think it would work very well.

The law is for everybody - rich or poor.

joerockt

They ALWAYS "fail". The only people that win are the lawyers. The rest get the leftovers of discount coupons and free oil changes And thats ALL you can expect to come from this...

Reach

You're 100% right. Welcome to America, its a very interesting world indeed.

Ron Parr

An example of how you think the rules are different for Honda/Acura?

Earlier in this thread, you said, "Honda has some of the best lawyers in the world sitting around waiting to chew this kinda shit up and spit it out. People think that they can just sue and that's it. They will motion you right the fuck out of the courtroom."

Already in this thread, I have posted a link to a class action settlement in which Verizon (a huge company with plenty of lawyers) was forced to settle because the phones they were selling had crippled bluetooth functionality that prevented them from connecting to accessories as customers were let to believe.

I can dig up more examples, but let's assume that we can both use google pretty well.

So, my question is: What's so special about Honda and their lawyers that would let them escape where others have not?

Savio

I don't believe I just read this whole thread....

some of you sound like my 8 year old cousin....damn whiny asses...

Beoshingus

Just to throw a few more coals on the fire, has anybody logged into Ownerlink lately?

Once you log in, in the left column it still says:
Looks like they haven't removed their info yet.

That being said, those who think that the Musiclink fiasco is the equivalent of a medical malpractice case really really need to get a grip. Heck, I wanted one too, you know.

Tell ya what. Take a can of Krylon and spray "ASK ME HOW ACURA SCREWED ME" all over your TSX. That'll show 'em.

joerockt

Thats it. That's all you get. A refund on the music link, thats it. If you guys are looking to get a refund on the car itself, forget it, that will never happen...

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

That example does not apply here. Verizon intentionally crippled the bluetooth function and intentionally deceived customers. Acura had no intention of deceiving its customers, and thus the quick action to remove the defective product from the market. Verizon did not such thing and got burned for it.

Ron Parr

The car was advertised as being compatible with the music link. The music link has been demonstrated to work in other cars. The issue is failure to satisfy what was promised about the car.
Did you read the rest of the reply to you in which I specifically said that a refund on the car was not a workable solution and proposed a fair alternative?
If, "hot chicks," had been specifically promised as a feature of the destination, then absence of said, "hot chicks," could be considered grounds for some sort of redress.
It's frustrating that discussions beome so polarized in venues like this. Yes: The TSX is a great car and yes I enjoy mine every day. This is not inconsistent with thinking that Acura has an obligation to live up to all of the promises they made about the car.

I don't know about the OP, but I'm not here to bash Acura or the TSX. I'm just defending the point that Acura ought to live up to their promise about the music link and that they could be forced to do so in court - even though it might not be worth the effort.

GIBSON6594

you beat me to it

You're claiming all these examples are cause for a settlement, you misunderstanding the differences in the issues.

Ron Parr

I don't think I ever suggested that it would be a good use of time or money to push the case. In fact, I specifically said that I most likely would not b/c I value my time too much.

That doesn't make it right.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

And again, there is every indication that Acura is seeking a way to uphold that promise. But several people seem hell bent on getting this embroiled in a lawsuit, which has ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT. A lawsuit should never be the first option, it should always be a last resort and only if a company makes no attempts to remedy a problem. That just does not seem to be the case here.

Ron Parr

I NEVER said that anybody should expect a refund on their car.

I do think that people are entitled to more than a refund on the music link b/c the car isn't doing what was promised.

joerockt

Wow. Just wow...The worst type of person on this planet. Bitch, moan, whine and complain about how the way things should be, but when it comes time to man up and act, nope, not me, I'll just go cower in a corner somewhere and sulk. Pathetic.

Ron Parr

Intent isn't the issue at all.

If something is sold with certain features advertised and it doesn't have these features, the legal obligation remains. Incompetence isn't an excuse.

Ron Parr

Again, I'm not the one advocating a lawsuit at this point.

I'm point out that they have a legal obligation.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

No, but lack of action is. Verizon did not voluntarily pull the advertising or the phones. Instead, they just kept everything in place and hoped nobody would notice.

Acura did not such thing. They quickly pulled the product and the advertising and appear to be working on how to remedy the situation.

Ron Parr

This WAS a discussion about what Acura's legal obligations are. That discussion can have value to others on the specifics of the case, but also have value in general to help people understand what rights they have as consumers. These things are true regardless of whether it is personally worth it for every person in the discussion to seek legal redress on this particular case.

The worst type of person on this planet? Hmmm... Let me think about that for a moment. Could it be a person who doesn't understand a discussion and then tries to ruin it for everybody by dragging things down with ad hominem comments. Nope - that's probably not the worse kind of person in the world, but it's pretty annoying.

Ron Parr

I assume you meant that action IS an excuse. I do agree that prompt action is important. It limits the number of people influenced by the problem - and has the consequence of limiting the size of any class in a class action suit. From a purely practical standpoint, it limits their legal exposure. However, it doesn't excuse them from their legal obligation to the people who purchased the product under the original set of promises.

I'm not suggesting otherwise and I'm not suggesting that anybody call a lawyer this afternoon. I'm just pointing that a legal obligation exists. Let's all hope that Acura finds a satisfactory solution.

GIBSON6594

Tell me what type of damages you expect from this suit?

Zephrem

I'm not advocating a lawsuit (I agree it is the last resort and people pull the trigger way too quickly), but the issue regarding whether the lawsuit has merit or not under the California statute is the misrepresentation (including seamless integration) itself. This alone is actionable, and there are hundreds of examples including the ipod battery class action, the class action over the Sony DRM rootkit, the apple hard drive class action, the Fujitsu class action, to name just a couple.

It's not about whether the problem was known or whether they are trying to fix it -- although having a bad corporate actor helps -- it is the misrepresentation itself. The remedy is a separate issue. We can enter into a debate whether it makes sense to enforce that standard, whether a person applying common sense would find a company liable, or whether legislation should curb class action lawsuits generally, but to say it is meritless because Acura is trying to fix the problem now is not accurate.

Ron Parr

(Not sure if this is directed to me.)

As I previously indicated, I am not currently advocating lawsuit.

In a previous reply in this thread, I said,

"I don't think a refund on the car would be a workable solution. The best choice would be to figure out a way to fix the problem. Failing that, they could offer a discount on an alternative. For example, they could offer a discounted connection package for the AUX jack/power outlet in the armrest, and an RF remote with some kind of clip or bracket to mount it nicely somehwere in easy reach. It's not a perfect solution and not exactly what they promised, but it would demonstrate a good faith effort to compensate customers for a warranty violation."

In rereading through some of this thread, I'm flabbergasted by both the content and tone of some of the responses. I have suggested that Acura work to find a fair solution for the mismatch between what was offered in the marketing material and what was delivered. I have suggested ways to do this.

I don't think any of this is patently unreasonable or unncessarily harsh, but people seem to be reacting like I've asked Acura to build me a new house.

GIBSON6594

It was directed to you.

Things are getting mixed up now...You are saying a law suit is not reasonable now? I'd agree, there are just no recoverable damages if a refund has been issued. There are no punitive actions taking place.

Do you think that the reparations to this are going a result of more money spent on Honda's part. They did all they had to do. I would disagree with you on the new part/bracket will ever be produced.

Colin

When all is said and done, I believe it finally comes down to this:



From a legal standpoint, I believe they are off the hook. From a marketing/moral/right thing to do standpoint, they will likely refund all costs anyone incurred, and move on. IMO this is not too different than estimated miles per gallon. Are you going to sue because you don't see 31 mpg even though it clearly says "your mileage may vary?"

Ron Parr

Let's try this again:

Acura sold a product (my 2006 TSX) that they claimed could be integrated with an iPod in a paticular way through the addition of a particular accessory. It appears that the product I actually got doesn't have this capability. The accessory exists, but it cannot currently be interfaced properly with my car.

I think we can all agree that Acura should try to fix this.

Now, let's suppose that Acura can't fix it. The situation would be that I received a car that isn't exactly what was promised and that there's no simple way to fix it. What I received has less value than what I was told I was getting and Acura has a legal obligation to deal with this.

Acura could choose to deal with this obligation in several ways. It could be determined that the extra capability added $75 in value to each car, and that each customer who purchased the car with the belief that it was compatible with the music link is entitled to a $75 refund. Acura could decide to offer an alternative solution, as I described above, at a discount as a way of compensating their customers. Acura could decide to a gift certificate for use to purchase iPod accessories at the iPod store. There are many possibilities.

Finally, Acura might decide to do absolutely nothing. Since Acura does have a legal obligation, they could be forced to do something in court. However, it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble to push this since the time wouldn't be worth the relatively small compensation one could hope to achieve.

The problem with going the class action lawsuit direction is that so few people would belong to the class b/c Acura has taken steps to make sure that future buyers don't expect music link compatibility.

Just because something isn't worth the trouble to enforce legally doesn't mean that the legal obligation has ceased to exist.

BTW, I'm not talking about punitive damages here since I don't think there was an intentional act of deceit. I'm talking about compensation for the difference in value between what people were told they were getting and what they got. For example, if somebody had said when I purchased the car, "You can pay an extra $50 now to get an upgraded head unit that will be compatible with our future iPod integration accessory," I probably would have agreed to pay. So, to me, the feature would have a value of at least $50.

Ron Parr

That really has absolutely nothing to do with it. It does not excuse them from the implied warranty of merchantability.

GIBSON6594

Thats all fine and great, but you have no proof that the screw up didn't lie with Apple, and if such is the case you bought nothing from Honda that didn't perform up to expectations.

When you buy a watch with a 2 year battery that only lasts 1 year, do you expect a refund on the watch? I hope not, because a free battery replacement is all you're going to get.

Ron Parr

The bought the car from Honda/Acura. My car is a Honda/Acura product and the Music Link is a Honda/Acura product. If the problem is with Acura's supplier, that's their business. Acura is free to pursue their suppliers to achieve redress if they want, but this doesn't change Acura's obligation to me.

Why does the "refund for the entire product" straw man keep coming up?

GIBSON6594

I actually think it is a Apple product (I know the Acura name is on it, but Apple openly claims to be the producer).

I never said a refund for the entire product, a refund can be partial.

And you never answered the question

Ron Parr

It's sold as an Acura product, so it's Acura's obligation.

Sure - I'd expect a refund equal to the difference in price between a watch that included the advertised battery and a watch that includes the battery I received.

As I said for the TSX, the ability to add the "music link" adds value to the car. Otherwise, Acura wouldn't have advertised it in their efforts to sell the car. The compensation should related to the difference in value between what was promised and what was received.

Colin

It has everything to do with it. It specifically says "specifications and features" The iPod Music Link is a feature. I just can't see on what grounds you move this product out of this disclaimer. Having said this, I still feel they'll make some sort of concession to those affected, all the while denying any obligation to do so.

Dan Martin

Is that more or less than the $250 it sells for?

GIBSON6594

you sure about that?

As for the watch, there are not 2 seperate batteries, the 1 and only battery simply didn't last long enough, there is not a seperate value. What you said is illogical. wanna try again?

Ron Parr

A disclaimer does not protect a merchant from the implied warranty of merchantability. They can say whatever they want in the disclaimer; it doesn't change the law.

Ron Parr

The "it" in question is the car. The question is how much the promised music link compatibility added to the value of the car.

Ron Parr

What I said is perfectly logical. The value of watch with a one year battery is something that can be determined.

Dan Martin

But you purchased it as an option. It is not a part of the car. Can they really be liable for more than the option's cost? If so, can they be liable for more than the car's cost? Where does it end?