I think this deserves its own thread. Way to go, tenacious fellow residents! Don't take this rooking lying down! I am proud of you all!
Link
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
This suit is a huge waste of time and resources. When a company is no longer viable, economically or otherwise, and has to close; nobody can force them to stay open just because they purchased something from them. If the suit was against the manufacturer only, it would make a little sense. But, the story said the dealership, salespeople, anyone having anything to do with the sale of these vehicles is being listed as a defendent. This is utterly stupid! These people did not go to the trouble and expense to open a dealership just so they could fleece anyone. I'm sure those people would love to still have jobs. I know that it will be inconvenient to go to a Suzuki dealership now, but that is a risk when you buy anything. I'm quite sure nobody was forced to buy anything for there, it was a personal choice and all choices involve some level of risk.
This case just shows that some people will try to sue for anything. What a stupid lawsuit!
This case just shows that some people will try to sue for anything. What a stupid lawsuit!
hainminister, maybe you could find some info here
I don't think it is stupid - maybe these car salesmen will start telling the truth or at least know what they are promising!
I don't think it is stupid - maybe these car salesmen will start telling the truth or at least know what they are promising!
quote:Originally posted by jjuliesmiles:
hainminister, maybe you could find some info here
I don't think it is stupid - maybe these car salesmen will start telling the truth or at least know what they are promising!
What are youtalking about? Who wasn't telling the truth? Those people sold those cars in good faith. In the real world, most businesses don't make it known that they are about to go under so they won't have a mass exodus and mutiny on their hands. The salespeople were just doing their jobs. You obviously are oblivious to the real world.
maybe I'm not - I'm not the defendant in a class action law suit 
It's stupid.
quote:Originally posted by jjuliesmiles:
maybe I'm not - I'm not the defendant in a class action law suit
Me either. It is the laws in our state that allow frivolous lawsuits, such as this, that deter a lot of business from locating in our state. It would be similar to suing Toys-R-Us or Goody's for going out of business when you had something you wanted to take back because of a defect.
quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:
This suit is a huge waste of time and resources. When a company is no longer viable, economically or otherwise, and has to close; nobody can force them to stay open just because they purchased something from them. If the suit was against the manufacturer only, it would make a little sense. But, the story said the dealership, salespeople, anyone having anything to do with the sale of these vehicles is being listed as a defendent. This is utterly stupid! These people did not go to the trouble and expense to open a dealership just so they could fleece anyone. I'm sure those people would love to still have jobs. I know that it will be inconvenient to go to a Suzuki dealership now, but that is a risk when you buy anything. I'm quite sure nobody was forced to buy anything for there, it was a personal choice and all choices involve some level of risk.
This case just shows that some people will try to sue for anything. What a stupid lawsuit!
I haven't seen the complaint, but I assume what the article is talking about is "fictitious parties." Alabama allows you to list potential defendants in the original complaint by description only, if you don't know who they are. That allows you to go back and substitute the real parties once they are discovered. I doubt (but I could be wrong) that any actual sales people will end up being named. It's just a CYA type thing because it's hard to go back and add parties later if you haven't "reserved" the option by using fictitious defendants at first. I suspect the Suzuki parent company will end up being the real target in all this but I fail to see how they are liable. But they have the deep pockets.
lawguy,
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like THEY (the Suzuki parent company) should be the only ones on the hook for this, since the service agreement which is typically given with a vehicle is the policy of the parent company and not the local company who is tasked with the implementation of the service agreement, and the local company has very little to do with what is promised by the manufacturer. What is your take on that from the lawyer's standpoint?
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like THEY (the Suzuki parent company) should be the only ones on the hook for this, since the service agreement which is typically given with a vehicle is the policy of the parent company and not the local company who is tasked with the implementation of the service agreement, and the local company has very little to do with what is promised by the manufacturer. What is your take on that from the lawyer's standpoint?
I'm not sure that anyone should be on the hook. But I don't have all the facts and I have no idea how the local dealerships conducted business. For the most part, I imagine the manufacturer is responsible for the warranty/service contract. But I once had a vehicle that I bought used where the local dealer gave something like $15 oil changes or whatever for as long as I owned it. That was strictly a local agreement. The Suzuki dealerships may have been selling some sort of third party warranty/service contracts that were different than the mfg. warranties. I guess that would make them potentially liable in that event. However, almost every car dealership also includes an arbitration clause that would prevent you from taking them to court. Instead, you would have to file an arbitration demand. The manufacturers don't necessarily have this, only the local dealerships. That's another reason I suspect Suzuki parent is the real target. There's no question Suzuki should honor their own warranties, but I don't know that they can be held to a specific location. Just because you have to drive a couple of hours for service doesn't mean they have breached their warranty. Here's another example: Jaguar used to be their own company (I think), then Ford bought them, now they are apparently owned by some company in India. What if I had a Jag? Where would I go for service? Anyway, I'm sure Mr. Peck has figured out some potential liability or he wouldn't have taken the case. I don't have enough info to really make a call on this one, but it sounds somewhat shaky as to the local dealers. Businesses fail. As long as there's some place to get warranty service, I don't see this going far.
quote:Originally posted by lawguy07:
I'm not sure that anyone should be on the hook. But I don't have all the facts and I have no idea how the local dealerships conducted business. For the most part, I imagine the manufacturer is responsible for the warranty/service contract. But I once had a vehicle that I bought used where the local dealer gave something like $15 oil changes or whatever for as long as I owned it. That was strictly a local agreement. The Suzuki dealerships may have been selling some sort of third party warranty/service contracts that were different than the mfg. warranties. I guess that would make them potentially liable in that event. However, almost every car dealership also includes an arbitration clause that would prevent you from taking them to court. Instead, you would have to file an arbitration demand. The manufacturers don't necessarily have this, only the local dealerships. That's another reason I suspect Suzuki parent is the real target. There's no question Suzuki should honor their own warranties, but I don't know that they can be held to a specific location. Just because you have to drive a couple of hours for service doesn't mean they have breached their warranty. Here's another example: Jaguar used to be their own company (I think), then Ford bought them, now they are apparently owned by some company in India. What if I had a Jag? Where would I go for service? Anyway, I'm sure Mr. Peck has figured out some potential liability or he wouldn't have taken the case. I don't have enough info to really make a call on this one, but it sounds somewhat shaky as to the local dealers. Businesses fail. As long as there's some place to get warranty service, I don't see this going far.
Well said, my point exactly!
As several pointed out in the other thread (and there are links and numbers there as well) -- the warranty will cover a repair if they use Suzuki parts etc...yes, the closest "Suzuki Service Department" may be in Jackson TN or Murfreesboro, but the warranty will still cover John's Garage so long as he uses Suzuki parts ets...the problem will come with garages trying to get reimbursed by Suzuki for those parts I guess -- unless they leave it to the car owner to pay up front and have to collect from the Suzuki parts supplier...
quote:Originally posted by DixieChik:
As several pointed out in the other thread (and there are links and numbers there as well) -- the warranty will cover a repair if they use Suzuki parts etc...yes, the closest "Suzuki Service Department" may be in Jackson TN or Murfreesboro, but the warranty will still cover John's Garage so long as he uses Suzuki parts ets...the problem will come with garages trying to get reimbursed by Suzuki for those parts I guess -- unless they leave it to the car owner to pay up front and have to collect from the Suzuki parts supplier...
I don't know how it is for Suzuki, but most new car warranties require the warranty work to be done by manufacturer certified mechanics. For instance, for Ford or Chevy warranty work to be paid they must use Ford or Chevy parts and the work must be done by a Ford Certified mechanic or a Chevrolet Certified mechanic.
Exactly, DC & DHS, and I think that's the problem. I don't think expecting Suzuki to honor their word is a waste of time or money. As I see it, these people who bought their cars from Shoals have two choices right now...pay out of pocket for repairs and wait to be reimbursed or drive/tow thier cars to the nearest service center. If nothing else, maybe the lawsuit will make Suzuki reconsider at least leaving a service center open in either Sheffield or Huntsville, or force an arrangement with a local garage or another dealership to honor the warranties by performing the service with little/no out of pocket expense to the warranty holders. I agree that many lawsuits are frivilous, but this one, IMHO, does not fall into that category. Incidentally, I don't own a Suzuki or know anyone who does.
Sue a business for failing, huh? Ain't that just the American way.
On the bright side, if your little lawsuit falls through, you can still kick people who have fallen.
On the bright side, if your little lawsuit falls through, you can still kick people who have fallen.
If you go back to the other thread that RDenton started -- there were several posts from people that had Suzuki cars and had called the Customer SErvice line and were told that the warranty would still be valid if they used Suzuki parts etc...there were links to a site and the numbers to the Customer Service Line -- unless Suzuki refuses to honor the warranty I don't see a problem with it -- I would just make sure everything was clear before any work was started --
and if it has to be a Certified Suzuki Mechanic -- then that sounds like a great new job field for some local mechanics to get into very quickly around here...
and if it has to be a Certified Suzuki Mechanic -- then that sounds like a great new job field for some local mechanics to get into very quickly around here...
quote:Originally posted by SaltyDog:
Exactly, DC & DHS, and I think that's the problem. I don't think expecting Suzuki to honor their word is a waste of time or money. As I see it, these people who bought their cars from Shoals have two choices right now...pay out of pocket for repairs and wait to be reimbursed or drive/tow thier cars to the nearest service center. If nothing else, maybe the lawsuit will make Suzuki reconsider at least leaving a service center open in either Sheffield or Huntsville, or force an arrangement with a local garage or another dealership to honor the warranties by performing the service with little/no out of pocket expense to the warranty holders. I agree that many lawsuits are frivilous, but this one, IMHO, does not fall into that category. Incidentally, I don't own a Suzuki or know anyone who does.
What do think is the problem? Suzuki will honor their warranty. I'm sure nobody ever guaranteed that there would always be a Suzuki dealership around here or Huntsville either, for that matter. Like I said before, I realize it is a major inconvenience to go so far out-of-town for warranty work, but the warranties have not been voided, they will be honored as per the agreement, I'm sure of it.
Suing a company because they can't succeed is ridiculous. Should I sue Big Mike's because they closed and I liked their hushpuppies? Should I sue Goody's because my wife bought me a shirt that was the wrong size and now I can't take it back? Should I sue Toys-R-Us because my son has a toy that is broken and needs to go back, but I can't because they are closed?
I'm serious.
A local garage should consider contacting Suzuki and offering some type of agreement to service all the Suzuki cars in the Shoals.
It could prevent a lawsuit, and would allow people to not have to drive soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far to Huntsville/Decatur.
It's funny to me now. A lot of people think driving 45 minutes is like a freaking 3 day trek. Some people drive farther just to go shopping.
After living in a metropolitan area, an hour is nothing! And the cool part is that there is still a Suzuki dealership here--for now.
The biggest piece of advice is TAKE CARE OF YOUR CARS so you don't need to use a warranty. If you have a two year old car (or less) and are having major issues and need to execute your warranty, a) you are seriously ragging out your car/not taking care of it b) you got a lemon.
You CAN get basic oil changes, tire services, and any other basic maintenance at whatever business you choose. Joe's Auto, Valvoline, Sam's, Expresso Super Jiffy Cheapo Lube, whatever.
Heck. Go to Wal-Mart and have your basic maintenance done. Just ask them to use Suzuki approved parts. What's the big deal? Call ahead. Pay LESS money than service through a dealer. Problem?!?
I'm still having a hard time wondering why people are freaking out about having to drive to H'ville?
What are you needing to have serviced anyway?
Is your car malfunctioning? Or do you think you HAVE to go to a dealer to get an oil change and tire rotation? Because you don't. If some lawyer told you that you would void your warranty if you didn't go to Suzuki to have all services done, you totally just got taken for a ride (pardon the pun).
If your car is screwing up with major issues, that's another story.
I'm lucky to be married to an ex-mechanic.
A local garage should consider contacting Suzuki and offering some type of agreement to service all the Suzuki cars in the Shoals.
It could prevent a lawsuit, and would allow people to not have to drive soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far to Huntsville/Decatur.
It's funny to me now. A lot of people think driving 45 minutes is like a freaking 3 day trek. Some people drive farther just to go shopping.
After living in a metropolitan area, an hour is nothing! And the cool part is that there is still a Suzuki dealership here--for now.
The biggest piece of advice is TAKE CARE OF YOUR CARS so you don't need to use a warranty. If you have a two year old car (or less) and are having major issues and need to execute your warranty, a) you are seriously ragging out your car/not taking care of it b) you got a lemon.
You CAN get basic oil changes, tire services, and any other basic maintenance at whatever business you choose. Joe's Auto, Valvoline, Sam's, Expresso Super Jiffy Cheapo Lube, whatever.
Heck. Go to Wal-Mart and have your basic maintenance done. Just ask them to use Suzuki approved parts. What's the big deal? Call ahead. Pay LESS money than service through a dealer. Problem?!?
I'm still having a hard time wondering why people are freaking out about having to drive to H'ville?
What are you needing to have serviced anyway?
Is your car malfunctioning? Or do you think you HAVE to go to a dealer to get an oil change and tire rotation? Because you don't. If some lawyer told you that you would void your warranty if you didn't go to Suzuki to have all services done, you totally just got taken for a ride (pardon the pun).
If your car is screwing up with major issues, that's another story.
I'm lucky to be married to an ex-mechanic.
I imagine if you tell Suzuki Huntsville that "Hey I'm driving from Muscle Shoals and need _______ service done" you could PROBABLY talk them into a free rental car.
It IS the least they could do.
If you have to have work done, I would suggest them giving you a rental.
It IS the least they could do.
If you have to have work done, I would suggest them giving you a rental.
1. Ummmm, didn't the article say the Huntsville dealer was already closed also?
2. Big Mike's closed???!!! I knew they had moved out to the boonies and it's been some time since I've been but I wasn't aware they had closed. At the time they didn't even have a salad bar and they had quit selling alcohol, so I guess the faithful locals weren't enough to keep it running.
2. Big Mike's closed???!!! I knew they had moved out to the boonies and it's been some time since I've been but I wasn't aware they had closed. At the time they didn't even have a salad bar and they had quit selling alcohol, so I guess the faithful locals weren't enough to keep it running.
When you purchase a car at a dealer, one of the things that is sold to you is the service of the local dealer. They make it clear in their advertising. Most dealers really push that they have great service. When you buy a car from a dealer, you are purchasing that service as well as the physical automobile itself. If that dealer now refuses to provide that service for whatever reason, they are in violation of an implied contract. This is much different than purchasing hush puppies from a local diner. Same with items purchased at local retail shops. They make no implication that they will service anything they sell (unless of course they have a service department such as an appliance store), therefore they are not liable to provide any such service. Now that I've said that, do I believe these people will collect from Shoals Suzuki? I seriously doubt it, but people who purchased cars from this local dealer should expect to receive the service locally as they contracted to when they purchased their cars. I wish them luck.
quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
When you purchase a car at a dealer, one of the things that is sold to you is the service of the local dealer. They make it clear in their advertising. Most dealers really push that they have great service. When you buy a car from a dealer, you are purchasing that service as well as the physical automobile itself. If that dealer now refuses to provide that service for whatever reason, they are in violation of an implied contract. This is much different than purchasing hush puppies from a local diner. Same with items purchased at local retail shops. They make no implication that they will service anything they sell (unless of course they have a service department such as an appliance store), therefore they are not liable to provide any such service. Now that I've said that, do I believe these people will collect from Shoals Suzuki? I seriously doubt it, but people who purchased cars from this local dealer should expect to receive the service locally as they contracted to when they purchased their cars. I wish them luck.
So, from what you are saying, I gather that a dealership should stay in business, even if they are losing money, simply because they have sold cars and promoted their service. That is preposterous! Yes, dealerships sell their service, it is a vital lifeline of their business. But, if the company is tanking, they can't stay open just to appease the people who bought there. How is that even the least bit logical? As I said before, there is no guarantee that any business you buy from will be there tomorrow. It's just a simple reality of life. My advice would be, if you can't or won't make the drive to the nearest dealer (if required) for warranty work, then trade the car. It's a pretty simple solution.
Buyer Beware.
quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
When you purchase a car at a dealer, one of the things that is sold to you is the service of the local dealer. They make it clear in their advertising. Most dealers really push that they have great service. When you buy a car from a dealer, you are purchasing that service as well as the physical automobile itself. If that dealer now refuses to provide that service for whatever reason, they are in violation of an implied contract. This is much different than purchasing hush puppies from a local diner. Same with items purchased at local retail shops. They make no implication that they will service anything they sell (unless of course they have a service department such as an appliance store), therefore they are not liable to provide any such service. Now that I've said that, do I believe these people will collect from Shoals Suzuki? I seriously doubt it, but people who purchased cars from this local dealer should expect to receive the service locally as they contracted to when they purchased their cars. I wish them luck.
No, the reason they try to sell you on service is because that's the only place they still make money since Internet sales and research makes it harder for them to have a high margin. This is why some dealers did gimmicks like free tires and oil changes for life because they make it back by doing the other maintenance. The only advantage of getting non auto work done by the dealer is that they document that the work is done. Take it to a local mechanic and its up to you to keep up the paperwork if something happens later.
It's not Suzuki's fault that the local dealer over extended itself, and as its been said several times they honor the warranty as long as they use official parts, which by the way, is shipped and handled in the US by GM which owned a percentage of Suzuki until last year.
The cars sold well in the area. Chances are very high that someone will come in after the economy is better and restart it. It not a case like Peugeot or MG where they pulled out of the US. You won't be left high and dry. And for what its worth, when those companies left they still made arrangements to have warranty work honored.
DHS, other people have managed to disagree here without such thinly veiled hostility. Hmmmmmmm. Wonder why you seem so personally offended?
quote:Originally posted by ryokurin:
The cars sold well in the area. Chances are very high that someone will come in after the economy is better and restart it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
There isn't going to be someone open up another Suzuki dealer in this area! They have seen what happens when you cross the local population, if they are smart they will stay away ;o)
Kirk
quote:Originally posted by Harry P. Knuckles:
Buyer Beware.
Caveat Emptor...I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing throughout this ENTIRE thread.
Seriously, don't you all think that Suzuki corporate has encountered this same scenario time and again in different regions? Of course they have. Dealerships open and close all the time. I say that to say this...I would bet that any sales contract executed would have some sort of clause addressing this contingency. Granted, it may not be worded in such a blatant way (If we tank, you have to drive to Nashville for an oil change) but I can PROMISE you that it is addressed (and probably not in a favorable, consumer-friendly way).
If your "agreement" with them is not addressed in writing, there may be problems. Did you rely (justifiably perhaps) on what you were told? Maybe. Were you "sold" on the warranty by the salesman? Perhaps. In the end it probably won't matter. Lots of times people assume a bundle of rights that just aren't there and there's not much you can do to change their minds. I can assure you (without ever even seeing the contract) that it favors corporate. Honestly, how many of you really read what you are signing when you are buying a car, house, etc.? Most people don't.
The bottom line is that Suzuki global is probably the target here. I would think that their pockets would be infinitely deeper and a much more promising in the land of tort law.
Just an aside about the arbitration clause that is almost certainly part of your vehicle contract...
It's amazing how things that are "non-negotiable" can be negotiated when there is cash on the table. The last vehicle I purchased I amended the "binding arbitration" clause, initialed it and slid it back across the table to the manager who also initialed the change to save the deal. As a consumer you really need to do some "homework" on binding arbitration and avoid it if there is any way possible.
.
What I'm ticked about is I purchased a service maintennance program for $995.00 when I bought mine and I can't even get connected to anyone about refunding my money. On the numbers I've called,they don't have an option in the menu to ask about this. It might not seem far for someone who doesn't own a Suzuki,to think about driving to Nashville,but,I'm furious about it.
I work 4 nights a week and I can't see my working off on Fri.am then driving to Nashville !!!!!!! I just want some advise on getting this money back. I have a brother that will change the oil,rotate the tires and everything else that $995.00 prepaid for....
I work 4 nights a week and I can't see my working off on Fri.am then driving to Nashville !!!!!!! I just want some advise on getting this money back. I have a brother that will change the oil,rotate the tires and everything else that $995.00 prepaid for....
quote:Originally posted by SaltyDog:
DHS, other people have managed to disagree here without such thinly veiled hostility. Hmmmmmmm. Wonder why you seem so personally offended?
I'm not personally offended. I'm offended because the ignorant in our state think it is OK to sue if they are the least bit inconvenienced. And as for veiled hostility, I have none. I do get very frustrated when supposedly mature adults can't seem to understand a very simple concept. I have a very low tolerance for stupidity, sorry that it shows.
Also, it does seem that you are implying that I am somehow connected to Shoals Suzuki. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I am nor have I ever been connected with Shoals Suzuki. I never even shopped cars there. I hope you being wrong doesn't wreck your day.
Perhaps it karma for Mike Self's lawsuit against his former business partner?
Yes, Big Mike's moved to the boonies and closed less than 6 months later. They still charged the high prices for their food and it wasn't worth the drive anymore. Their sign says thanks for over 20 years or something like that...some letters are missing so apparently been closed a while now.
quote:Originally posted by DHS-86:
I hope you being wrong doesn't wreck your day.
Nah, I don't have a problem admitting it when I'm wrong.