Messed up car dealership
07-13-2006, 10:55 PM
#41
Team Owner
Originally Posted by CLpower
Doom, do you honestly believe if you leave your car w/ the dealership that if they damage it they aren't responsible? Sign or no sign?
Thanks for the clarification Chief. I don't understand why nobody goes after dealers to take these signs off if they're blatantly lying to customers. I wish I could find the statute on personal property left in care or a bailment as you stated. That might help Ravi's case.
07-13-2006, 11:03 PM
#42
Team Owner
Now that I know the name of the relationship thanks to Chief, here's something I found regarding NJ law.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=5
Search the cases to see if negligence can be proven against the dealership. If that can be proven, then they should be responsible.
C. Duty of Care Owed by Bailee
1. Mutual Bailment
A "mutual bailment" is a bailment which is beneficial to both the bailor (the person who surrenders the property) and the bailee (the person who receives the property). Where there is a bailment for mutual benefit, a bailee will be liable for damage to the property or loss of the property if that damage or loss results from the bailee's negligence. Thus a bailee is liable to the bailor for loss or damage to the property if the bailee has failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the property which came into the bailee's possession. Reasonable care means such care for the safety of the property as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the same or similar circumstances.
Cases and Comments:
Rogers v. Reid Oldsmobile, Inc., 58 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div. 1959); Parnell v. Rohrer Chevrolet Co., 95 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 1967) (automobile stripped while kept by bailee in a large cyclone fence enclosure); Franklin v. Airport Grills, Inc., 21 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1952) (mere fact of fire in a restaurant is not sufficient to establish negligence).
1. Mutual Bailment
A "mutual bailment" is a bailment which is beneficial to both the bailor (the person who surrenders the property) and the bailee (the person who receives the property). Where there is a bailment for mutual benefit, a bailee will be liable for damage to the property or loss of the property if that damage or loss results from the bailee's negligence. Thus a bailee is liable to the bailor for loss or damage to the property if the bailee has failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the property which came into the bailee's possession. Reasonable care means such care for the safety of the property as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the same or similar circumstances.
Cases and Comments:
Rogers v. Reid Oldsmobile, Inc., 58 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div. 1959); Parnell v. Rohrer Chevrolet Co., 95 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 1967) (automobile stripped while kept by bailee in a large cyclone fence enclosure); Franklin v. Airport Grills, Inc., 21 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1952) (mere fact of fire in a restaurant is not sufficient to establish negligence).
Search the cases to see if negligence can be proven against the dealership. If that can be proven, then they should be responsible.
07-14-2006, 09:04 AM
#44
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western New York
Age: 64
Posts: 25,177
Received 7,134 Likes
on
3,627 Posts
good job Doom. There are free legal research sites, one of the best is the cornell law school's whose address is probably cornell.edu Sometimes I amaze myself that I can remember some of the stupidest stuff learned when it was 17 years ago! (on bailments that is)
07-14-2006, 01:09 PM
#46
Team Owner
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Originally Posted by Doom878
Now that I know the name of the relationship thanks to Chief, here's something I found regarding NJ law.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=5
Search the cases to see if negligence can be proven against the dealership. If that can be proven, then they should be responsible.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=5
Search the cases to see if negligence can be proven against the dealership. If that can be proven, then they should be responsible.
07-15-2006, 05:30 AM
#47
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western New York
Age: 64
Posts: 25,177
Received 7,134 Likes
on
3,627 Posts
Originally Posted by Doom878
Need a paralegal? 
07-15-2006, 11:11 AM
#48
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Age: 42
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by parshooter
How were they screwed by OHIO? Bet shit like this happens in every state.
Also, driving a Saturn is bad for your carma.
Well, my home Acura dealer's service department in the Detroit area turned out to be pricks, and I did get tapped on the rear outside of Grove City, Pennsylvania. Everytime I'm in Chicagoland, I pray for dear life. But nothing matches my Ohio mishaps.
07-17-2006, 11:26 AM
#49
'Big Daddy Diggler'
I hope they didnt take the car off the dealer lot like that. Tell them to get a lawyer and to contact all the local news stations. Over here in NY we have 7 on your side and shame on you, just to name a few.
07-17-2006, 01:54 PM
#50
The Boss
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Jack City
Age: 46
Posts: 4,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post the dealership and their mailing address. We'll all each send them a letter and cc to the corporate. Let them know how serious and how we feel about it 
That's the best I can do for ya
That's the best I can do for ya
07-17-2006, 02:04 PM
#51
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Originally Posted by AcuraDriver2006
Post the dealership and their mailing address. We'll all each send them a letter and cc to the corporate. Let them know how serious and how we feel about it That's the best I can do for ya
That's the best I can do for ya
I'm quite good at writing eloquently nasty letters
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
