bobalobs Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 It has always been my understanding that the purchaser sues the supplying dealer. Then if there is an inherent defect in the design or manafacture of the base vehicle or conversion then it is open to the supplying dealer to join the base vehicle manafacturer and/or converter as a party to the court procedings and ask to be compensated financially by them if the court makes an order against the dealer. When "Juddergate" was at its peak and Fiat/ Peugeot were doing little or nothing to resolve the situation I feel any dealer doubting the commercial sense of continuing to sell such vehicles must have had assurances from the manafacturers that they would be indemnified if any claims were made against them. Though over the last few years people have spoken of pending Court action I have not seen an outcome posted. I suspect settlement has been reached with a condition of a "gagging order" overpublishing the result and the sued dealer has been compensated by the manafacturer/converter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 For a long period ,in the 'early days' of this problem EVERYONE was in denial, Fiat, the Dealers,the Coverters and even more than a few owners who kept their mouths shut and quickly 'got rid' . A bit like 'Pass the parcel' with the 'loser' being the poor sod who ended up with a 'Judderer' a Burnt out Clutch a 'knackered' gearbox or any combination of those, some got all three. For me, I was lucky, because of MMM and Andy i was able to avoid the X250. And will Always do so. As I have lost confidence in the product, and now wouldn't touch one with an 'Extended' Bargepole. Ever ! 8-) Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Very interesting, bobalobs. I wonder what happened to the Irish case pursued by 'Moyne' (Gerard Moyne) and recorded here until May last year -- maybe he has settled and been 'gagged'? If you are out there Moyne, we would all love to know the outcome. cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 DJP - 2011-01-20 10:05 AM HI Brian Thanks for very valid and accurate advice. I fully understand my only course of action is to sue the supplying dealer. I feel that I am am a very fair person and believe blame should be apportioned to the wrong doer. I cannot and will not hold the dealer responsible for my situation. Just think about the repercussions if my case was successful and I recovered the cost of the motorhome, (less fair wear and tear). It would open the floodgates for many other owners who may have a genuine case or may just want to get rid of their van, to sue the dealers. What effect would that have on the whole market and used van prices. Sheer devastation! Masses of unsaleable vans and dealers out of business would be the extreme, but certainly a knock on effect. Assuming I won and others follow that is. ALL because Fiat produced a bad gearbox. No doubt on the new X250 replacement these problems will have been sorted. Then Fiat are back in the market place with little or no loss to their business. Why should UK dealers suffer? Fiat should be made to pay or put right the problem (new gearbox) at its cost. I am being extreme, but my dealer should not be forced to loose money for NO fault of there own doing. Apart form that, if I did take action, my chances of winning are virtually non existant so all this is hyperthetical. But it helps to get it off my chest. Thanks!!!! Yes, it is a true dilemma. Sadly, you are probably right about your chances of success, which I think a far better reason not to have proceeded than the moral one you set out, though that stands beyond criticism. Visions of arguments about how a transient defect, that affects only one aspect of driving, could be claimed to render the whole product "unfit for purpose", come into the imagination! However, your presentation of the possible effects of success in court are, I think, a bit overdone. If someone had sued (at enormous personal financial risk, because it is way outside the small claims limits), and won, and forced a dealer to take back a van and refund the buyer's money on the strength of the judder alone, I think a shock-wave would have gone right through the industry, from dealers, through converters, to Fiat's board room. A second win on the same basis would have really rattled the bars of their cages, and Fiat (in truth the SEVEL consortium) would have confronted such a storm, and the prospect of virtually zero sales to a market they have long cultivated, that they would have been forced to act swiftly and decisively. That, of course, is just my highly speculative opinion, but I think it would have been the better outcome overall for all concerned, even Fiat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJP Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-01-20 1:15 PMDJP - 2011-01-20 10:05 AM HI Brian Thanks for very valid and accurate advice. I fully understand my only course of action is to sue the supplying dealer. I feel that I am am a very fair person and believe blame should be apportioned to the wrong doer. I cannot and will not hold the dealer responsible for my situation. Just think about the repercussions if my case was successful and I recovered the cost of the motorhome, (less fair wear and tear). It would open the floodgates for many other owners who may have a genuine case or may just want to get rid of their van, to sue the dealers. What effect would that have on the whole market and used van prices. Sheer devastation! Masses of unsaleable vans and dealers out of business would be the extreme, but certainly a knock on effect. Assuming I won and others follow that is. ALL because Fiat produced a bad gearbox. No doubt on the new X250 replacement these problems will have been sorted. Then Fiat are back in the market place with little or no loss to their business. Why should UK dealers suffer? Fiat should be made to pay or put right the problem (new gearbox) at its cost. I am being extreme, but my dealer should not be forced to loose money for NO fault of there own doing. Apart form that, if I did take action, my chances of winning are virtually non existant so all this is hyperthetical. But it helps to get it off my chest. Thanks!!!! Yes, it is a true dilemma. Sadly, you are probably right about your chances of success, which I think a far better reason not to have proceeded than the moral one you set out, though that stands beyond criticism. Visions of arguments about how a transient defect, that affects only one aspect of driving, could be claimed to render the whole product "unfit for purpose", come into the imagination! However, your presentation of the possible effects of success in court are, I think, a bit overdone. If someone had sued (at enormous personal financial risk, because it is way outside the small claims limits), and won, and forced a dealer to take back a van and refund the buyer's money on the strength of the judder alone, I think a shock-wave would have gone right through the industry, from dealers, through converters, to Fiat's board room. A second win on the same basis would have really rattled the bars of their cages, and Fiat (in truth the SEVEL consortium) would have confronted such a storm, and the prospect of virtually zero sales to a market they have long cultivated, that they would have been forced to act swiftly and decisively. That, of course, is just my highly speculative opinion, but I think it would have been the better outcome overall for all concerned, even Fiat.Thanks for your comments. Maybe the effect of a court case was "overdone" but a precedent could be set if a case was won against Fiat.It does make you wonder why so many people are now on the "quiet" side though!it's a bit like A Frames (OH NO!) it needs a court case to satisfy all the interested parties >:-) Anyway, that is the end of my postings on this matter until I hear from Italy next week, Here's hoping! *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobalobs Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 And if we do not hear from you next week we will all hope that a sensible settlement has been reached and you have been "gagged"!! No sign of Gerrard. Significant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophie Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 On the subject of "gagging".....as a matter of interest, if a company did require you to sign a "gagging order", and you then had the work done, then went on a Forum, newspaper or whatever and "spilled the beans" (ie ignored the "order"-if that's what it is) what, in practice, could be done about it?? Job done then eh? ;-) (and I've not been gagged btw (lol) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobalobs Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 At the very least get back from you thecost of the remedial work and any other payments they have made or incurred. They will have made any such payments "without admission of liability" so you will be back at square one. Of course you could of gone to the press at square one if they were interested! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophie Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Hmm-that's the theory. Too much to lose in bad press imo- If it were me I'd take the risk....get the work done and stuff 'em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.