Dealer Fraud/Mfg? - 04 SO 235 in Mass. not 600... Help!
#31
DTR's 'Wrench thrower...' And he aims for the gusto...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smith Valley, NV (sometimes Redwood City, CA)
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't understand how this is Chrysler's fault. The window sticker clearly says "600" on it and all trucks come with window stickers on them. If there was no sticker on the truck the dealer should have produced it during the sale, that's the normal way to get the mfr's suggested price and the options.
Wetspirit
Wetspirit
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dealer is the one who prints the sticker. I agree that if you know what you are looking for, you need to make sure that is what you buy. If I go out for a chocolate bar, and buy a white chocolate bar because somebody told me it's chocolate, who's fault is that? Oh, yeah, I thought the white on the label was a mistake. That makes it the store's fault, the mfg'rs fault, and I can probably find something to blame you for. Can I sue Hershey's for me being stupid?
All dealers are dishonest. Everyone knows that. You knew that when you went shopping for a truck. Suing DC will only hurt those of us who will buy their products in the future, because you will lose, and they will spend tens of thousands defending themselves against your ignorance. You don't really think they will just eat those costs, do you? NO! They will raise the cost of their products as insurance against idiots who don't read the sticker before they buy a vehicle. Man, when I spend that amount of money, I do my homework, trust nobody, and READ THE FREAKY STICKER! By the way, the sticker has the price on there too. Did you not know the price of the vehicle you were buying?
It is people like you who are driving this country into the ground. Everything is somebody else's fault. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
All dealers are dishonest. Everyone knows that. You knew that when you went shopping for a truck. Suing DC will only hurt those of us who will buy their products in the future, because you will lose, and they will spend tens of thousands defending themselves against your ignorance. You don't really think they will just eat those costs, do you? NO! They will raise the cost of their products as insurance against idiots who don't read the sticker before they buy a vehicle. Man, when I spend that amount of money, I do my homework, trust nobody, and READ THE FREAKY STICKER! By the way, the sticker has the price on there too. Did you not know the price of the vehicle you were buying?
It is people like you who are driving this country into the ground. Everything is somebody else's fault. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
#35
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Shore, MA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually possible that you do not understand because you did not read carefully enough. The claim is sound. So either it could be explained better, or you could read more carefully, or you feign to not understanding for some other reason. Basically, any argument that begins with... you can't trust the people you buy stuff from because they all are lyeing crooks, yada, yada, yada, and you are all on your own in this world yada, yada, yada is flawed as it ignores numerous mechanisms that serve to even the playing field in our society. You see some of us understand that we all have a certain obligation to treat one another fairly and in many cases, especially in those cases where one party generally has the upper hand, the law dictates what those obligations are and what to do when they are not met. If the law were successful, it would keep those with the upper hand on their toes, deterring them from taking advantage of others. Luckily there is a backup system in place, litigation... If you are antisocial, a libertarian, a recluse, anarchist, or of some other persusasion that idiologically/or psychologically prevents you from participating in contemporary society, it may be hard for you to understand the position outlined in the above posts. There are a lot of bad arguments out there, but this is not one of them. I'm not apt to sue, I've never sued before. Actually, I grew up on a farm in the midwest where most folks know most folks and communities are too small for people to get away with screwing folks over, but since moving to the big city things are a bit different and sometimes ones only recourse is the law. I get your points, they just are not valid in this context.
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kingston
It's actually possible that you do not understand because you did not read carefully enough. The claim is sound. So either it could be explained better, or you could read more carefully, or you feign to not understanding for some other reason. Basically, any argument that begins with... you can't trust the people you buy stuff from because they all are lyeing crooks, yada, yada, yada, and you are all on your own in this world yada, yada, yada is flawed as it ignores numerous mechanisms that serve to even the playing field in our society. You see some of us understand that we all have a certain obligation to treat one another fairly and in many cases, especially in those cases where one party generally has the upper hand, the law dictates what those obligations are and what to do when they are not met. If the law were successful, it would keep those with the upper hand on their toes, deterring them from taking advantage of others. Luckily there is a backup system in place, litigation... If you are antisocial, a libertarian, a recluse, anarchist, or of some other persusasion that idiologically/or psychologically prevents you from participating in contemporary society, it may be hard for you to understand the position outlined in the above posts. There are a lot of bad arguments out there, but this is not one of them. I'm not apt to sue, I've never sued before. Actually, I grew up on a farm in the midwest where most folks know most folks and communities are too small for people to get away with screwing folks over, but since moving to the big city things are a bit different and sometimes ones only recourse is the law. I get your points, they just are not valid in this context.
It's actually possible that you do not understand because you did not read carefully enough. The claim is sound. So either it could be explained better, or you could read more carefully, or you feign to not understanding for some other reason. Basically, any argument that begins with... you can't trust the people you buy stuff from because they all are lyeing crooks, yada, yada, yada, and you are all on your own in this world yada, yada, yada is flawed as it ignores numerous mechanisms that serve to even the playing field in our society. You see some of us understand that we all have a certain obligation to treat one another fairly and in many cases, especially in those cases where one party generally has the upper hand, the law dictates what those obligations are and what to do when they are not met. If the law were successful, it would keep those with the upper hand on their toes, deterring them from taking advantage of others. Luckily there is a backup system in place, litigation... If you are antisocial, a libertarian, a recluse, anarchist, or of some other persusasion that idiologically/or psychologically prevents you from participating in contemporary society, it may be hard for you to understand the position outlined in the above posts. There are a lot of bad arguments out there, but this is not one of them. I'm not apt to sue, I've never sued before. Actually, I grew up on a farm in the midwest where most folks know most folks and communities are too small for people to get away with screwing folks over, but since moving to the big city things are a bit different and sometimes ones only recourse is the law. I get your points, they just are not valid in this context.
If you bring your baseless lawsuit against DC, what you are doing is asking me to pay for your stupidity, because you are increasing the cost of DC doing business, increasing the cost of our court system which will result in higher taxes, and on and on. If the dealer broke the law, sue the dealer. What did DC do to you? It sounds like DC labeled their product clearly enough for you to have realized the dealer was lying. Face it, you messed up. You need to stop blaming everyone else, learn from it, and move on.
#38
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Shore, MA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well get out your check book and grab your 10 assault rifles because my two lawyers and I are planning an attack on your right to be lied to, cheated and misled.
#41
the deal does blow a bit for ya. but check this out. One most of the pople with injector probs are the 600s. Tha would be me. Im runnin good but it just seems that way maybe hte 03s have worked out haha..
Mileage on the other engines from the norm is up couple mpg
Want the power? Buy an ez or something. Have more power than the 600 has Better mileage.
Mileage on the other engines from the norm is up couple mpg
Want the power? Buy an ez or something. Have more power than the 600 has Better mileage.
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kingston
"Easy to say when you've seen one. But what if you haven't seen those stickers, and the dealer states it is a 600?"
Great Point!
"Easy to say when you've seen one. But what if you haven't seen those stickers, and the dealer states it is a 600?"
Great Point!
BTW, I don't need assault rifles. I have a ranch hand front bumper instead
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jona Gold
3rd Gen Engine and Drivetrain -> 2003-2007
27
01-03-2024 07:54 AM
kingston
3rd Generation Ram - Non Drivetrain - All Years
33
12-07-2004 05:31 PM